2024-03-27 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Wednesday, 27 March 2024

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

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 BILLS 1 BILLS Competition and Consumer Amendment (Divestiture Powers) Bill 2024 1

Competition and Consumer Amendment (Divestiture Powers) Bill 2024

Second Reading 1 09:02 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania The Greens' Competition and Consumer Amendment (Divestiture Powers) Bill would, if passed, give the courts and competition regulators the power, where misuse of market power has occurred, to break up firms across the Australian economy. This would include firms in the banking sector, the energy sector and a range of other sectors including the supermarket sector. If passed, this bill would establish a framework whereby a company that is found to have misused its market power to inflate prices, to exploit supply chains or to keep out competition could be required to reduce their market power or share of the market by divesting assets. Australia's economic frameworks have delivered a range of undesirable consequences. They are failing the Australian people. They are part of a global economic framework that is cooking the planet and rendering this planet incapable of supporting human life by breaking down our climate and destroying the ecological processes that sustain human life. They are also impacting significantly on humanity in other ways. In Australia, our economy is increasingly dominated by massive corporations that ruthlessly use their high and growing share of market power to price gouge everyday Australians while raking in billions of dollars in profits. Folks will be familiar with the Greens making these arguments, but let's have a look at some of the other people who have made arguments that support this proposition. At Senate estimates earlier this year, the Governor of the Reserve Bank Ms Bullock, agreed with the proposition that some corporations are using a lack of competition and the cover of high inflation to increase prices above what would be required in order to meet increases in their input costs. That is an accepted definition of price gouging. Corporations raising their prices above and beyond what they have to to meet increases in their input costs is the very definition of price gouging. We have introduced this bill because we have listened to people through our communities who are struggling to afford essential products and services. Every day that this parliament fails to rein in the power of big corporations who are price gouging, more and more people get left behind. They have to skip meals; they fall behind on their rent; they fall behind on their mortgage payments; they delay vital medical appointments; they are unable to pay their power bills or their school levies. Of course firms are price gouging across the economy, including in sectors like banking and airlines, but nowhere is this issue more stark and more impactful than in the supermarket sector. The duopoly of Coles and Woolworths holds a massive two-thirds share of the market, making Australia's supermarket sector one of the most concentrated in the world. In response to people struggling to afford essential food and groceries while Coles and Woolworths record billion-dollar profits, the Greens and, ultimately, this Senate initiated an inquiry, through the Select Committee on Supermarket Prices, into the price impact practices of the supermarket duopoly last year. We've heard from people, through that inquiry across the country, having to make impossible choices as exorbitant food and grocery prices force them to skip meals, go without healthy food and make impossible choices between paying their rent or mortgage and feeding their families. I want to acknowledge Senator Cadell, who has been an active member of that inquiry, Senator Sterle, who's also in the chamber, and all of the other senators who are working cooperatively through the inquiry. We've heard, for example, from a Tasmanian, Danny Carney, whom I know all members of the inquiry will recall because he choked up in our hearings in Hobart as he spoke about his mum, who recently retired after a long career as an aged-care worker, and explained to the committee how, to get through retirement, she has calculated, after that long career as an aged-care worker, that she can only afford to eat twice a day. We also heard from university student Owen Gregory, who said that grocery prices are so high he can only afford to buy half the amount of groceries that he could five years ago. He told the committee that he and his friends can only afford to eat healthy food because they rescue discarded produce from supermarket bins. Along with evidence about the squeezing of consumers, we've had evidence of the supermarket duopoly using their market power to mercilessly pressure farmers and to exploit their workers. Consumers, farmers, and workers are at breaking point. They need this parliament to take action. Across the board, witnesses to the inquiry called loudly and clearly for the introduction of divestiture powers to break up the supermarket duopoly. It is clear that we need these powers and it is clear that we need these powers now. That's why the Greens have introduced this legislation. We hope that, across the parliament, parties, senators and MPs will listen to everyday families. We hope they will listen to farmers, we hope they will listen to workers and we hope they will support our bill to put divestiture of powers into law. When the Prime Minister was asked a few weeks ago about divestiture powers, he dismissed the idea as Soviet Union-style policy. Well, that well-known command and control economy, the United States of America, has had divestiture powers since the 1890s. The Prime Minister should make himself aware of that fact. He also should make himself aware of the fact that Ms Cass Gottlieb, the Chair of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, has agreed in Senate estimates that, if divestiture powers were introduced, they could increase competition in the supermarket sector and that, under economic analysis, this would bring down the cost of food and groceries in Australia. The Prime Minister also should educate himself about the recent report from the Australian Council of Trade Unions, led by Professor Allan Fels, that recommended that Australia should introduce a divestiture law to allow big business to be broken up if they misuse market powers. Divestiture laws are not a radical or controversial idea. Along with the US, the UK has divestiture powers, interestingly introduced by Margaret Thatcher. The competition agencies of Ireland, Italy and the Netherlands have all recently used divestiture powers to require the divestment of supermarket assets in their countries in order to increase local competition in the supermarket sector and put downward pressure on food and grocery prices. So it's looking very much like Labor under Mr Albanese is out on a limb, backing in the billion-dollar profits of massive supermarket corporations over and above the interests of millions of Australians who are struggling to put food on the table. Why could that be? Perhaps it's because Labor has accepted over half a million dollars over the last decade from Coles and Woolworths, not to mention the massive donations they get from fossil fuel corporations, big banks and the finance industry. In fact, in total, Labor has taken over $100 million from big corporations in the last decade. It's no wonder Labor is running interference for big business and for big corporations. They've trousered over $100 million in the last decade. That investment from the big corporations, from big business in Australia, is paying off in spades, because you've now got a situation where Labor is going to dig in and refuse to allow divestiture laws in this country because they want to protect the price gouging and the profiteering of big corporations. Make no mistake, price gouging, profiteering and concentrating market power is right at the top of the business model for big corporations. It's how they work. They want concentration of market power because it allows them to keep wages low, do over their suppliers and price gouge their customers. Massive corporations are motivated by growing their profit above all else, and they definitely don't give their money away for free, but they do give away a lot of their money to the Australian Labor Party, and those donations buy them influence with key decision-makers in the government. There's also a revolving door between the Prime Minister's office and the supermarket corporations. We learned last week that the Prime Minister's former chief of staff has been hired by Woolworths to guide them through the public scrutiny that they are currently facing. Political donations, the revolving door—it's a time-honoured story in Australian politics. Here we go again. This is a fork-in-the-road moment for the Labor Party. They've got a choice: are they going to keep backing the big corporations, who are ruthlessly using their market power to do over their suppliers, their workers and their customers, or are they going to stand with millions of Australians who are struggling to put food on the table? When the BCA, the Business Council of Australia, came out this week and said that the sky would fall in if we introduced divestiture powers, no-one was surprised by that. Of course, they're going to fight for Coles and Woolworths to retain their market share, because both parts of that duopoly are members of the BCA. It's time for this parliament to pass divestiture laws. It's time for this parliament to prioritise the needs of Australians over corporate profits. It's time for the Labor Party to stop standing in the way of divestiture powers in this country. Divestiture powers exist in most so-called free-market economies around the world. They are a standard part of the toolkit of competition regulators and courts in the UK, the US and many other countries. Until we have divestiture powers, mark my words, big corporations will continue to gouge prices, big corporations will continue to ruthlessly use their market dominance to do over farmers and suppliers, and they will continue to put the squeeze on their workers. To the many people in Australia who are struggling to make ends meet right now and struggling to be able to afford healthy food: know that, if you are having to skip meals, if you're living off two-minute noodles and corn chips and buying less fruit and veg, and if you're having to decide between feeding your family and paying the rent, there is a solution, but know that the solution is not proceeding because the Labor Party has decided to side with big corporations over the interests of ordinary Australians. If the Labor Party would support this bill, it would pass through this parliament; there is no doubt about that. If Labor supported this bill or introduced its own bill to create divestiture powers, it would pass through the parliament. This legislation is a minimalist model. It would require a firm to misuse its market powers before a court could grant a divestiture order. That is a very high and established threshold. The reason Labor's not going to go for this bill is not that the threshold is wrong or the way the bill is drafted. It is simply that the Australian Labor Party is making a political choice to side with their corporate donors Coles and Woolworths—to side with the supermarket duopoly in Australia. In doing so, it abandons ordinary Australians and farmers to their fates and abandons workers to be exploited, because there is simply not enough competition in the supermarket sector. The Greens commend this legislation to the Senate. 09:17 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I look forward to making my contribution to Senator McKim's private senator's bill, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Divestiture Powers) Bill 2024. I want to thank Senator McKim for giving us the opportunity to set up the inquiry. There are a lot of things going on, as people know, and I'm enjoying working alongside Senator McKim. I might not agree with everything he's just said, but it has opened up avenues to the public that—and I'm not trying to be a smarty—I'm well aware of after almost 19 years on the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee. I just want to go a little bit further into what's going on out there. It's a well-known fact—and I'm in Hansard many times, given my trucking background, having a crack at Coles and Woolies—that they treat the road transport industry as free storage while our truckies, particularly interstaters, sit in queues for two, three, four or five hours waiting to get unloaded. So, no, there's no argument there. The inquiry has done, I think, about three hearings now—we've been in Orange and Hobart, and we did one in Melbourne—and Senator McKim touched on the fact that we've still got a fair bit of work to do. When there is an inquiry going on into supermarket pricing, the first thing I hear when I talk to West Aussies—and I know it myself—is that, when you walk out of Coles and Woolies with two bags and there's 150 bucks gone, it doesn't take long to think, 'Where the hell did that go?' I'll be the first one to say there have been supply chain squeezes and challenges. We know that. But we know some of the products in these supermarkets—and I will say this: with the greatest of respect, $35 for a cut of meat, and it's not a good cut of meat. Crikey! There's some pretty expensive stuff. We've seen fruit and veggies go up and down, and we've heard all sorts of supply-chain reasons why, such as floods. I get all that; it happens every year. Coming from WA and running trucks going through the north, I know we have these challenges. And we know we have invasive pests. We've got to worry about all this sort of stuff; I've got all that. What the committee has seen is not an eye-opener to me. I'm pretty sure it'd be an eye-opener to a few other people. But I've been clearly saying this: where I live in Western Australia, down Fremantle way, there are many choices within my area. I have a Coles, a Woolies, three IGAs and an Aldi, so we have choice. I know the argument comes out that there's no choice and no competition. I can't speak for the eastern states, although I know that at my little patch here in Kingston, where I live when I'm in Canberra, I can go to Coles or Supabarn. I've got to tell you that the private marketeer Supabarn has a very nice shop. I say this, and I will stand to be corrected: on a lot of the items on the shelves—we know these supermarkets stock up to 6,000 items—there is competition for us that live in the cities and in the suburbs but not so much for those in the regions or rurally; I get that. We have that choice. I'll go back to my patch, where I can go to Aldi, Woolworths, Coles or the three IGAs. The competition is there. We've got to think about this. I'll go back to what we've uncovered, which has been no surprise to us on the rural and regional affairs committee. As Coles and Woolies get battered and bombarded, what has come out of this is the issue for farmers in the horticultural and agricultural industries, and for those working in the fishing industry. It's a well-known fact in this nation that 70 per cent of our seafood is exported—we all know that—and 70 per cent is imported. We know that. We know it's the same for fresh fruit, but I can't remember the exact figures. What's happening here is that every single sector of the agriculture industry feels that they're getting absolutely squeezed. They've come up, but a lot of them won't say it; they rely on the likes of their farming organisations. We hear all the stories, and Senator McKim mentioned one of them. Whether they're growing cherries, cucumbers or lettuce—it doesn't matter what it is—they say they are getting belted around by Coles. They are price takers—we know that—like the trucking industry. The growers are at the bottom of the supply chain when it comes to dollars. They have products that have use-by dates, so it's not as though they can put them in cold storage for six months and then wheel them out. They get the living daylights screwed out of them by the supermarkets. I'm not running a protection racket for Aldi or Costco, IGA or anything else; I reckon they're all the same. That's the evidence we've been taking. We all say, 'Oh, those poor farmers,' and we absolutely mean that. We've heard farmers say that, if a carrot has two prongs, it goes into the bin. It's good quality food. There's nothing wrong with it, but it won't make it to the supermarket shelves. If a cucumber has a little kink or an elbow, it goes to the bin. We've got a cost-of-living problem here, and we are seeing all of this food being thrown out; you hear about this. I was leading the charge on the questioning—I know it wasn't just me—and my favourite line was, 'Do you get cost recovery?' There weren't many that stood up and said they got cost recovery. I think there were only one or two that were still supplying Coles or Woolies, and they were vocal. The rest—I won't use my normal language here—were frightened of opening their mouths. They'd been absolutely terrorised. It's not obvious, but what we've heard is that they'll get pushed to the back of the queue or the big supermarkets won't buy from them. I want everyone out there to think about this, because there is a belief that supermarket prices will tumble if we have an inquiry. We know that is not going to happen. We absolutely believe in competition on this side, and we believe that competition is the best thing that could happen. We don't agree with the divestiture of powers—and Senator McKim has heard me say this—because I've done extensive work in America with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. They have divestiture. They have six or seven big brands, and they've got that gorilla Walmart. I have to tell you, and I'm going to look to you for your support here, Senator Farrell: these monsters and gorillas—the supermarket chains in America—are not great employers. They are not fantastic supporters of their employees. Am I right, Senator Farrell? He's quietly trying to nod. I'll tell you: they're not. So we look at Coles and we look at Woolies. There are 150,000 people employed there. But we're going down this track. This is what I believe we should be saying: 'Crikey! Our farmers, food producers and processors need to be able to get cost recovery.' I don't think anyone in Australia would ever expect anyone to work under—well, there may be some people; I have some arguments in here with the opposite side. Everyone should be able to get cost recovery. Think about this: what we should be saying is that we've got to get the prices up for the farmers and the food producers. Whether they come out of the profits of Woolies, Coles, IGA or anyone else, is neither here nor there, although that's where they should come from if the profits are that large. Now, help me out, everyone. While we're out there battering Coles and Woolies—we're not talking about IGA, Costco or Aldi, but we know they're dearer than Coles and Woolies—I don't know where this one's going to end up. I would challenge anyone in this place to tell me that the National Farmers Federation—and this'll raise a few eyebrows—have done the right thing by protecting their members. The National Farmers Federation came to our inquiry. They are the be all and end all of the farming and agricultural industry, and how they love their members! They are the same people who joined hands with the Business Council of Australia, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, COSBOA, the Australian Industry Group—and those poor, struggling miners. I forgot about the Minerals Council of Australia. The National Farmers Federation hooked arms with them and put members' money into a $24 million campaign to thwart transport reform in this nation. I've know because I've been on this journey for a long time. I've always said to the farmers: 'You should stand up like we're doing with the transport industry. Stand up and get paid properly. Get cost recovery. Be viable, be safe, be sustainable and, God help us, you might get a little bit of profit.' So the National Farmers Federation, for me, hold absolutely not once skerrick of decency about them. They come to our meetings and talk about the poor farmers. When I ask them, 'Why did you think it was a good idea to throw money at stopping transport reform?' they have nothing to say. I know there'll be a flurry of letters coming to say they want to meet with me. I don't want to meet with the National Farmers Federation. What we are saying very clearly is that every horticulture and agriculture industry in this nation is struggling financially. I look across, and there are some really good people on that side of the building who come in here with dirt under their fingernails. Senator Farrell I0N Name one. Senator STERLE e68 I'm looking at Senator Cadell. There he is. There you go. They come here with dirt under their fingernails and actually know that this is not the real world in here. The real world is outside. We've got this conundrum where there is an expectation that somehow a Senate inquiry will bring down prices, but the Senate inquiry is bombarded with the opposite effect: that people have got to start getting paid. We hear day in and day out about family farmers walking off the land. Correct me if I'm wrong, Senator Cadell. It's no different from our trucking industry. There are three- and four-generation trucking families just shutting shop. Think about that. We've heard of three and four generations, with the great-grandfather, grandfather, father and son, and the next generation is saying, 'Don't want it.' And then we start talking about food security. So, with the greatest of respect to my colleague Senator McKim, for whom and for whose work I have huge respect, I cannot agree that divestiture will sort this out. If you marry up the argument I'm putting together with what we see in America and the UK, we know that these are not fantastic employers. It's bad enough that our farmers are getting the living daylights financially screwed out of them, but, when we go to those other corporate gorillas like Aldi and Costco—don't leave them out—that's how they operate. Not only will they screw their workers down; but profits are the biggest thing. I really struggle to see where we're going to go with this. I also know we've got former minister Craig Emerson heading up his inquiry. We've had the ACCC. We know something has to be done. What is that magic bullet? I'm looking for it. I hope it comes out. What we really want to know is: do the corporates like Coles and Woolies make that much of a profit that they can actually do the right thing and pass that profit back down the chain to the suppliers? I'd like to think that is the case. I don't know. We'll be asking Coles and Woolies that. But what if Coles and Woolworths come out and their profit isn't that huge? What conundrum does that lead us to while we're screaming about looking after our suppliers, our horticulture and agriculture industry. That ain't going to bring prices down. Without being the bearer of bad news: it's not new to those of us on the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee. I sincerely stand here saying with my hand on my heart that I've been out there supporting the agriculture industry for nearly 19 years in this building and I'll continue to do it, but, by crikey, they need help, and the National Farmers Federation ain't the answer. Hopefully, the state organisations might be able to do something, but they should take a leaf out of the road transport industry's book. The agriculture industry will say, 'Oh, we're diverse.' Yes, they are. There are many, many cogs to their wheel. So is the road transport industry. The road transport industry has 47 sectors. Think about that. I can name about 12 or 13 before I start getting wobbly and have to really start thinking hard. So we're not much different than the agriculture industry, but the road transport industry got its act together. The road transport industry united around this nation to say that enough was enough. Think about everything that gets onto the shelves: our meat, eggs, dairy, fresh fruit and vegies. They don't get there on the back of a horse; they get there on the back of a truck. The road transport industry and the agriculture industry are intertwined with each other. The road transport industry starts off everything for the agriculture industry. We bring in the seed, the fuel, the machines and the fertiliser. The farmers do what they do fantastically and then we get there, the low loader or the tipper is gone and now it's on the back of a tautliner or a fridge. We are intertwined. If the road transport industry could get its act together to stand up and say, 'Enough is enough,' this is what the farming industry needs to do. And they need to find a new guru, because it ain't the NFF. To those who blindly think the NFF speaks for the farming industry, I'll throw the challenge out: the NFF have got no cred. They can't come into any inquiry and start crying and moaning about their members getting screwed down while they're supposed to be the gurus. I certainly hope that puts another angle on the argument. I, for one, believe the prices that we're being charged in the supermarkets are horrific. There is no argument about that. How do we fix that? I thought I would throw in another layer of confusion and another layer of challenges. At the end of the day, Senator McKim, you are definitely right on one thing. The gorillas are making money: let's make no mistake about that. How much money they're making is what I would love to know, but I just don't want to leave any queries out there. We've got some big problems in this nation, and it's very, very easy for people, when they're getting screwed down, to want to screw down other industries. This is what I've heard all the way along: 'We're not making money, so you can't make money.' No, no, no. Flip that around and start thinking about it. With productivity in this nation, we can bring prices down, I can tell you, and it starts with the road transport industry. 09:32 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales I don't think Senator Sterle in that last speech made things more complicated at all; I think he made it easy. In terms of his reference to the issues the road transport industry had and bringing legislation into this place to fix it, this is exactly what Senator McKim seeks to do now. I think it has become crystal clear. We can all stand up and talk about the problems we hear on this committee. We can hear about the farmers and about the consumer costs, but it takes someone to come up with an answer, and that is what this bill is. The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Divestiture Powers) Bill 2024 comes in with a big answer that can be a big stick to these people when they do it wrong. It's not the whim of a person. It's not because we feel like doing something today. The provisions only apply with a court appeal relating to abuse of market power or unconscionable conduct. What sort of business would be fearful of being held to account under those provisions? They are activating everyone they can to come out and say: 'No, this is horrible. This is the worst thing in the world.' The supermarkets are out there. They've got BCA, and they've got all these people out there. That's because they are fearful that they are partaking in this unconscionable conduct and abuse of market power; otherwise they wouldn't fear it so much. I notice Bran Black from the BCA said, 'The short point is the powers are an impediment to businesses growing. When the businesses don't grow, they don't hire staff.' Let me tell you, with these businesses having 67 per cent of the market share, we don't want them to grow. That is the point! Bran has got it: you have too much power. And this bill—I know the Greens don't like nuclear—is the nuclear button for when they go too far. There'll be other things. There are other things we can do. This committee is great at looking at them. We're hearing from them; we're getting into it. But this needs to be there in supermarkets, and I would say this broad power is good enough anyway. We have an air industry where 90 per cent is controlled by two big operators. Believe it or not, live plants come under the grocery code, and Bunnings has 70 per cent of the market. If you want abuse of market power, forget the testimony that comes out in our committees. How about the testimony that doesn't come there from the producers and the processors who are too scared to talk? That's because they have two customers who are on the chopping block and they fear that, if they say something, their own businesses will be there. You don't need any evidence other than that. If people are too scared to talk about unconscionable conduct, it is happening and retribution will happen. We hear about how this is the worst thing in the world. I think Senator McKim raised Soviet style communist power—things like that. There are OECD countries with some form of divestment power and in the United States there are violations under section 2 of the Sherman Act. Under the German Competition Act, Germany can do it irrespective of the legal conduct. They can do it on the whim; they have the power, as do France, United Kingdom, Austria, Canada, Estonia, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Portugal, Slovenia and Spain. We are one of the few that doesn't have this power. We hear numbers on margins from over there when we're talking about Costco but people who are too scared to come in and be sworn in as witnesses, so we can't rely on these things in our report. We heard from someone who is a controller of a pantry section, an area manager of a supermarket, say they require a 40 per cent margin in the pantry section. In the fresh food section they have told me—privately—they want a 100 per cent mark-up average across their firm. They are big margins. Interestingly, we threw Costco into the bin. I have a processor who supplies a number of supermarkets and who supplies Costco. They went to Costco with a pricing proposal to make a 25 per cent margin on one of their products and Costco actually said, 'No, we will take 18. We give our customers between 16 and 18 per cent mark-up on this,' because they have a different business model. But that is the mark-up others are having. I note in the ACCC review that he has power to go back and ask for two-to-three years of data—market share, margins, all these sorts of things—but has asked for five and the supermarkets will probably give that. Why? Because they have been increasing their margin for 15 or 20 years, and five years of data will not show the picture. They will show five years and say, 'Our margin has only slightly increased.' Go back 15 or 20 and they will say they have been hitting the farmers, hitting the Australian consumers bit by bit by bit. The supermarkets are addicted to increasing their margins, to taking the money and to screwing over everyone they deal with. This has just become visible in the last few years when the suppliers and the processes can give no more. They're at their wits' end; they have no margins. We have farmers up there shaking. I was in an incident in Bathurst. I'm not proud of what I did up there. I have two guys in pig suits downstairs because I have a farmer upstairs shaking, scared about giving evidence, another one talking about 100 years of his farm and him being the last generation and another guy who walked off their farm. We have people who want to make stunts, people who want to say things that are identifying the problem but not coming up with a solution. This bill is our solution. It is not perfect. No-one here is saying it is perfect. But, to be clear, politicians stand on the fence sometimes. Where a vote might come to today might be problematic to get this through, but I would stand on that side if this came to a vote today and support it irrespective of what the parties would do, and that is why we are here. So when Senator Sterle talks about the way they fix the trucking industry, this is just the same; it is a legislative fix to a real problem. When we hear all these stories from a supplier, we can shoot the NFF down as much as we want but we cannot shoot the New South Wales farmers down. Their engagement is real. When they came to Orange they told horrible stories about real things like trucks being turned around after they delivered their goods because the produce didn't meet a standard—too big, too small, the wrong colour, not straight enough. We hear of consumers in Tasmania dumpster diving to get a meal because they can't afford things anymore. Once again, when we see this margin in the middle growing and growing over time, the costs getting bigger on one end and the returns getting smaller on the other end, the supermarkets never lose. They're like the casino of Australian commerce. The supermarkets never lose. I think we start with a bill like this with great powers to reflect great wrongs, and then we get down to the other things that come through in the minutia. We talk about having arbiters for disputes with supermarkets when we go through it. But guess who appoints them? The supermarkets. If I'm fearful to give evidence about what's happening, am I going to go to someone who's appointed by the supermarket and complain about it? Probably not, because I want to be able to sell next week's crop or next month's produce. We need independent arbiters. We need proactive arbiters who go out and do audits so that growers have cover for talking to them and are not punished for talking to them. We need transparency on prices, we need transparency on margins and we need to know historically how they have increased over time while they've been screwing the farmer, screwing the processor and then getting the consumer at the far end. Another amazing example of someone who was too scared to talk related to their olive oil. In 2012 it was $25 on the shelf and in 2022 it was $25 on the shelf. Today it is, I think, $45 on the shelf, because they've been held down so long they can't get margin. The word that supermarkets keep coming up with is 'mitigate'. 'Your costs have gone up? Mitigate.' 'Don't look at what the Australian standard is on what Australian fruit and vegetables cost. The Brazilian index on juice has only gone up 17 per cent but you're asking for a 25 per cent price rise. Mitigate.' What they're saying is, 'Buy overseas. Don't support Australian industry and don't support Australian farmers.' It is a fix. They are addicted to squeezing every cent. There's a great boxing phrase that I learnt once about Don King, the great boxing promoter. 'A true humanitarian,' goes the phrase, 'he only wants the first 26 cents out of every quarter you earn.' That is what the supermarkets are like. They want to get everything out of you. If it's not supplying goods that perish in five days but having to supply pallets for 28 days so the supermarkets don't have to pay pallet hire. With regard to paper bags, back in the day when I used to go up to the Broadmeadow Nineways and do some shopping with Mum and Nan, we brought everything home in paper bags. The supermarkets had to start charging for plastic bags because that was an environmental responsibility. Now we've changed back to paper bags but they'll keep charging. In fact they'll charge a little bit more because there's somewhere else they can get you. That is abuse of market power. On this side in my party we have not always recognised the threat that says when we have gone away from some single desks or trading blocs. I'm not here to defend the legacy when we are wrong, but clearly we threw growers and producers under the wheels of the truck back in the day and we see the error of that now. If these people are truly scared of having to sell off a Big W or a Liquorland or something like that, because they do the wrong thing they will act better. If they are scared that their boards will be answerable when they lose these things, they will act better because power only likes power and only responds to power. Coles and Woolworths have 66 per cent of the market. We can talk about all the others stores, but they aren't in the same league. And the other guys, to try and compete, have to participate in some of the very same things we hate, just to try and compete with the big guys. All of the talking points of the BCA and of the big businesses on this are wrong. They are trying to protect the status quo and they are trying to protect the size of businesses that we see as the problem. The only way to get cheaper prices and a better supply chain is to minimise that gap in the middle, minimise those margins and make better practices. It is the only way, because you can't have everything. I can't get my farmers and people of New South Wales getting better money for their produce, and consumers being able to get a better deal unless we squeeze these margins. I commend this bill. It is a difficult thing for this side of the chamber, because it is not perfect, but it's as close as we get. I look forward to working on the committee going forward until 7 May, which I think is the reporting date, to potentially work on what we can do to adjust this, adjust other things and put in other mechanisms so that we have something that gets these supermarkets very accountable to the Australian people and very accountable to their growers. I am very pleased to be a part of this. It is probably the most enjoyable and valuing thing I've done since I've come to the chamber. We don't just want to stand up and point out problems; we want to come here with solutions. This is one. Thank you, Senator McKim. I would support this bill. 09:45 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania I also want to thank Senator McKim and his gorgeous staff that worked hard and long on the Competition and Consumer (Divestiture Powers) Bill 2024. We've all heard the catchphrase, 'Down, down—prices are down,' but the only thing going down is trust in the major supermarkets. Duopolies are bad for the market, believe it or not. Australia's supermarket scene is a case in point of that. The Senate Select Committee on Supermarket Prices kicked off at the start of this month, and the evidence has been damning. We've seen people shake because of nerves and cry because of fear, all while being thankful that their voices are finally being heard. Successive governments have stood by while the big supermarkets, Woolworths and Coles, indulge in ever-increasing market power. There has been inquiry after inquiry, report after report, yet no-one has come up with anything other than maintaining the status quo. Not this time. Something's going to change. It's obvious that it's not just the major supermarkets giving Australians the raw end of the deal; it's also big businesses, like Bunnings, that are leaving hardworking Australians high and dry. Right now, we pretty much have a situation where full-grown adults are bullying kindergarten children. The power imbalance is too skewed, and the supermarkets aren't picking on someone their own size. Under the guise of inflation, the supermarkets have jacked up prices, worsening the cost-of-living crisis for so many Australian families. In Hobart, we heard from Louise, a single mother of eight children, who works in child safety and completed a bachelor's degree and honours. Louise said she's often faced with the impossible decision: food or doctor; food or the power bill; food or uniforms for her kids. The cost-of-living crisis isn't just a catchcry; it's a reality. But, precisely at this time, when so many Australian families are doing it tough, the supermarkets should do what they can to help not hinder families. While the supermarkets' profits go sky-high, it's also Australian farmers who struggle to make ends meet in a world of increased costs. Some fruit and vegetable growers haven't been given price increases in 15 years. How is that so? The big supermarkets flex their muscles, using tactics to keep their purchase price low while making the customer pay. Farmers pride themselves on feeding their country, but even they are saying farming just isn't the industry to be in anymore. Family farms are going under because kids have seen their parents struggle and they're steering clear of a future in the industry. Parents are actually encouraging their children not to take up farming. They're telling them to go find something better. Between what the farmers get paid and what the consumers pay, there is a big gaping hole and a bucket of cash lining the pockets of the major supermarkets. Because the major supermarkets have a duopoly, it's difficult to find other buyers to take on produce, so farmers feel obliged to enter into contracts with Coles and Woolies. If they don't, who will they sell it to? Farmers are still using the weight of the supermarkets' word as supply agreements. In many instances, there's no written agreement. What contract have you had by text that you can stand by in a court of law? This makes it hard to plan for future investments in the business, stagnating growth and innovation. While people are starving, farmers and community groups tell us that perfectly fine produce is being thrown out. These strict rules are taking quality produce off the shelf and putting it in the garbage bin. This divestiture bill is to pull into line those corporations who use dodgy tactics to exploit others to their own gain. How we got to this point can be blamed on government inaction. They've given Woolworths and Coles a free pass. We are told that they are big employers or that millions of Australians are shareholders. Yes, they are big employers, collectively employing more than 310,000 people. That's more than half of Tasmania's entire population. Yes, there are many Australians who are shareholders, directly or indirectly through superannuation. And, yes, the size of the business is mammoth, with Coles and Woolworths each bringing in more revenue than the entire GDP of Tasmania. But no business should be able to hide behind the facade of being a big employer to duckshove the standards that the community expects of it. In Tassie we have seen Woolworths and Coles grow too big for their boots. The expansion strategies of the big two supermarkets have been aggressive. There's a Coles or Woolies for every 8,000 people. Tasmanians aren't spoiled for choice though on where to shop. The big supermarkets have a hold on the market in Tasmania, and it makes it hard for other players to enter the market. That's why we need these divestiture powers. The supermarkets are dabbling in so many things to cement their market power. Their pricing tactics, purchasing tactics and tactics for acquiring property all reek of attempts to limit competition. The Prime Minister said, 'We're not the old Soviet Union,' when ruling out divestiture powers. I wonder if the Prime Minister intended to call the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union offshoots of the Soviet Union? I suspect not. All these countries have divestiture powers and the sky has not fallen in. The reality is this is an entirely sensible approach. All it means is that the ACCC can obtain a court ordered divestiture where an abuse of market power has occurred. It extends the current divestiture power that can only be obtained where a breach of merger laws has occurred. This will not affect corporations that do the right thing. Placing checks and balances on our free market isn't something to be afraid of. That's why I'll be supporting this bill. It's obvious that Woolworths and Coles have gone unchecked for too long. It's time for them to have a reality check. 09:52 Senator RICE 155410 Victoria The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Divestiture Powers) Bill 2024 that my colleague Senator McKim introduced today is a solution. It is something that would help address the outrageous price gouging by the big duopoly, Coles and Woolworths. Coles and Woolies control supermarket prices in Australia. We have heard my colleagues Senator McKim, Senator Cadell and Senator Tyrrell outline in some detail the power the big supermarkets have. I'm not going to continue to outline that solution, which is a real solution. The fact that we have support from across the parliament for this is a solution. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 Senator Rice, could you resume your seat for a moment? I've noticed that your shirt has a slogan on it. I can't read it, I don't know what it is, and that's fine, but I would ask you to cover it up again before resuming. Senator RICE 155410 The shirt says, 'Stop the poverty machine'. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 Okay. Senator RICE 155410 Alright; I will button up my shirt. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 Thank you, Senator Rice. You have the call. Senator RICE 155410 The sentiment of 'stop the poverty machine' is what I want to focus on. Poverty exists in our society today. People are suffering from inadequate income support and from the price gouging of the major supermarkets. We have a huge problem here in Australia; people are literally starving. Where people cannot afford to eat, they are choosing, on a daily basis, whether they are eating, paying their rent or paying for their medications. This bill that we are talking about today is part of the solution to address this problem, to improve life for ordinary Australians. What I want to do with my time here today is just share one more story with you about somebody who is just struggling so much. They're an ordinary Australian, one of the many who have written to my office saying, 'This is my reality.' This is from a constituent of mine called Peter. Peter says: 'How are people on income support payments like JobSeeker, people who are expected to live on the meagre rate of $55 a day, supposed to keep up with the current price gouging of these supermarkets?' Peter forwarded me an email that he had sent to the government about the recent indexation of JobSeeker that Labor had tried to claim as a cost-of-living measure. Peter said: 'Today we know that, due to indexation, JobSeeker and other payments will be increased by about 96c per day. This is hardly adequate. It's better than nothing, but it comes from a very low base. This increase of 96c a day is little more than a loaf of bread per week. Choice found the average cost of a loaf of bread to be $4.45. I will deliberately use food terms, as many on income support are on or below the "breadline". Choice say that a packet of white sliced bread used to cost $3.40 on average but now costs $4.45, the cost of white sliced bread has gone up 41 per cent since 2019, bread from Coles went up 37 per cent on average, bread from Woolworths went up 56 per cent on average and bread from IGA went up 37 per cent on average. The reality is that many are actually skipping meals. Charity after charity report the difficulties of meeting the cost of living. Those on average incomes are struggling. The reports across the community sector are uniform. I was on JobSeeker in the past while waiting to be assessed for the Disability Support Pension. I ate once per day. That meal did not include quality cuts of meat and fresh fruit and vegetables but consisted of eggs, tinned soups or pasta. The maximum rate of JobSeeker for a single person is $762.70 per fortnight. An older Australian aged over 55 years and on support for nine months is entitled to $816.90. These figures include allowances excluding rental allowance. From previous discussions with your office'—this is presumably Minister Rishworth's office—'the Prime Minister's office and relevant ministers' offices, replies typically pointed out that rental assistance is available. I have been told ad nauseam that the Labor government increased it, even though this rental assistance bears absolutely no realistic relationship to rent. One response from a Labor minister mentioned the availability of financial counselling. That reply was condescending and patronising. The problem is that rates of JobSeeker and Youth Allowance are too low. The Department of Families, Fairness and Housing, in its December quarterly report, indicated that rents in Melbourne had increased on average by $15 a week. Ninety-six cents does not even come close to meeting this. The Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee last year recommended real increases, and this was largely ignored. Unemployment and poverty come with other impacts: loss of hobbies, pursuits, social interaction and self-esteem, diminished self-worth and increased physical and mental health problems. Most of our social lives are built around food and drinks. We go out for coffee; we have a beer. These simple pleasures are difficult for our most vulnerable. Again referencing Choice, even instant coffee is hard. The price of instant coffee at Coles and Woolworths has gone up 18 per cent since 2019. Prices have gone up by approximately 79c per hundred grams. That's almost all of one day's indexation rise. People on JobSeeker are not working. They are not doing well now. The amount of JobSeeker is not enough to provide basics. The amount is so low it's likely to negatively prejudice job seeking. If they are ill or hungry, or skipping food or medical care, they'll not do well in an interview or a test. Employers increasingly use a range of tests. There needs to be a substantial increase to all income support payments, and people need real assistance now.' There are a number of solutions that have been put forward by the Greens and have a lot of support around this parliament. These divestiture rules are one solution that would stop the price gouging of supermarkets and enable people like Peter to afford to eat just that little bit more. When we couple that with increasing income support to above the poverty line, to above $88 a day, then we'd be in a situation where people like Peter—millions of Australians like him—would actually be able to feel that they've got a future in this country. They would feel that they are supported by this parliament. They would feel that they have the opportunity to get their lives back on track. There are a combination of things we need to be doing, and it is abundantly clear to anybody looking on that what we're doing at the moment is not working. With the price gouging of supermarkets and the absolutely poverty payment rates of income support, people are just suffering. They are more than doing it tough. They are more than struggling. There are people literally starving in Australia today. We are a wealthy country. It is absolutely unacceptable that we should have such poverty in our country today. There are solutions that we can put on the table and that we could legislate for. One of those is to have divestiture powers so that Coles and Woolworths don't have the power over people that they have at the moment. The other is for this government to play its part and increase income support to above the poverty line to break the poverty machine and make sure that all Australians have the opportunity to live their best lives. 10:00 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales It's really important and I want to make sure that we get on the record our position on this bill and on divestiture laws. It is no secret that the Nationals have been calling for divestiture powers for quite some time. My leader, David Littleproud, was calling for it as recently as February. But it is also very important that we get it right, that we don't rush divestiture powers through and that we take the time to ensure they are fit for purpose. Let me make it clear that most like economies around the world have divestment powers in their legislation. They are a mechanism to ensure that big corporations, particularly big corporations that have monopoly-like scenarios, do the right thing and don't misuse their market powers and that if they do and if they are found to be misusing them there is a mechanism in law whereby action can be taken. Divestment powers are supported within our economy. In particular, the former ACCC commissioner Alan Fels says granting the watchdog powers to call for the breakup of corporate giants would act as a big stick against anticompetitive behaviour. He makes it clear that the existence of the power is a huge stick that is needed to make sure some parts of the Competition and Consumer Act work more effectively on big business. Section 46 of the act currently prohibits companies with substantial market power from taking advantage of their power by inhibiting rivals. But what we know and what we are increasingly hearing through the Senate committee inquiry into supermarkets is that section 46 is not working. It is not strong enough to ensure that companies with substantial market powers don't inhibit their rivals. We are hearing stories of the large corporate supermarkets effectively land banking. They are buying blocks of commercial land to prevent rivals from opening up competing stores. We are hearing stories of supermarkets requiring suppliers, particularly suppliers in fresh food areas like horticulture, to sign exclusivity contracts to provide a set amount of product, but they do not have similar requirements in reverse. So we're hearing stories like those of a supermarket going to a supplier and saying, 'You must supply only us. You can't supply us and your local farmers market. You must supply only us with a product of a set aesthetic, size and quality, and we want, say, 10 tonnes a month.' So the grower goes and plants enough to produce the 10 tonnes a month with enough wiggle room so they all meet the strict quality requirements, but then, at the end of the month, the supermarket says, 'I only need five tonnes, and I'm only going to pay you for five tonnes.' But that supplier can't then go and sell the other five tonnes elsewhere, because of the exclusivity contract, and that's not fair. How is that not taking advantage? How is that not undertaking actions that inhibit rivals? So I agree with Mr Fels when he says that section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act is relatively ineffective and has very minor penalties or fines. Most big businesses don't take too much notice of it. They sort of factor it into their business models. 'If we get a little fine through section 46, so be it. That's just the cost of doing business.' That's not good enough. That is why the Nationals have been calling for big stick legislation. It's why we have grave concerns about the fact that three of the big supermarkets control over 74 per cent of the grocery market. They are the market. They dictate prices, and they put pressure on suppliers. But we're also seeing that, when they dictate the price to the suppliers and the farmers, that doesn't translate to the check-out. When meat prices go down at the marketplace, they don't go down at the check-out. Has anyone gone to buy a lamb cutlet lately? I love lamb. It's my favourite meat. The ACCC needs powers to properly investigate as part of a dedicated inquiry. They need the powers to be able to call witnesses and compel witnesses, and they need the powers to recommend harsher penalties. That's what the Nationals have been calling for. We'd like to see increased penalties, scaling up, and we want to see divestiture powers. We want to be able to force supermarkets who do the wrong thing to be forced to sell off a component of their business—for example, forcing Woolworths to get rid of BWS or Coles to get rid of Liquorland. What I don't agree with is the current scare campaign by the Business Council of Australia, who are running around saying that, if we introduce divestiture powers, all the regional towns will lose their supermarkets and it will negatively impact on the regions. That's not how we're talking. If we design a proper model for divestiture, which is what the Nationals are working on and what we are currently talking to our opposition counterparts about, it's about designing a model where the ACCC can properly investigate and recommend actions and, where it is found that a market power is not operating in the best interests of suppliers and consumers, an application can be made to a court to enforce divestment. That does not automatically mean that the divestment will occur in a regional area. The other day, I heard the case study of the town of Cooma. A number of years ago, there was only one supermarket brand in that town. There were a couple of supermarkets, but they were both the same brand, and they had bought up a lot of the commercial land to prevent rivals entering that market. In those circumstances, the court could recommend that that brand would have to divest themselves of either one of their supermarkets or the commercial land that they'd bought up to enable a rival and to enable more competition. It might be that the recommendation or the action taken by the court is to have divestment of a small business unit within the large business. What it won't be is, 'Get rid of 20 per cent of your stores and we're going to leave it to the market monopoly provider to decide what 20 per cent of those stores are,' which is what the BCA's claims are. 'If you tell Coles or Woolies to get rid of 20 per cent of their stores they're only going to close down stores in regional areas.' I don't believe that for a second. That is a scare campaign being conducted by people who don't want to see Australia have a big stick to hold market monopolies to account, like in other similar economies around the world. Just yesterday in this chamber we heard Senator Penny Wong talking time and time again about the fuel efficiency standards. 'Why is Australia lagging? Why is Australia the only Western economy not to have fuel efficiency standard? We need to keep up with the rest of the world.' Why doesn't she apply the same thinking to divestment powers? Why is Australia one of the only Western economies not to have divestiture powers for big corporate market operators? We in the Nationals understand that horticulture farmers and other suppliers to the big supermarket are struggling. We heard examples such as watermelon farmers selling their produce for $1.50, and it being sold for upwards of $5 in the supermarkets. We heard last night from melon growers that their costs of doing business are going up and up— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB Senator Davey, I'm sorry to interrupt, but time for this debate has ceased. You will be in continuation. Pursuant to order, I call on Minister Watt. DOCUMENTS 11 DOCUMENTS Afghanistan Inquiry Implementation Oversight Panel 11 Order for the Production of Documents 11 10:12 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As the opposition is well aware, the Attorney-General has claimed public interest immunity in relation to the documents that were the subject of the orders for production Nos. 472 and 501. While the parliament has the power to require the production of documents, it has also been acknowledged by the parliament that the government holds some information which, in the public interest, should not be disclosed. In this case, the Attorney-General has made clear that the disclosure of the information requested would, or might reasonably be expected to, disclose information that would be damaging to Australia's national security. This is an accepted ground on which a public interest immunity claim can be made. In fact, I would note that claims of public interest immunity on this ground were repeatedly made by ministers in the former coalition government. The Attorney-General claimed public interest immunity after receiving advice from relevant agencies on the expected impact if the information was to be disclosed. The order requests documents relating to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The position of the government on the IRGC is clear. The IRGC is a malignant actor that has long been a threat to international security. The Gillard government understood this and placed broad based sanctions on the IRGC as a whole in 2010. The Albanese government has also recognised the threat it presents. That is why we have taken meaningful action, including sanctioning 60 IRGC linked officials and 55 IRGC linked entities since September 2022. What I've heard from some of those opposite is a bit rich considering they said nothing and did nothing on Iran during nine long years in government—not one new sanction on Iran. More sanctions have been imposed on Iran by this government than under any previous Australian government. I would also note that listings under the criminal code apply to non-state actors this and not to state actors. These are the same listing provisions that applied when those opposite were in government and have not changed. The IRGC is a fully formed part of the Iranian state. State actors cannot be listed as terrorist organisations. The position of the Attorney-General on these documents is clear: the disclosure of the documents would, or might reasonably be expected to, disclose information that would be damaging to Australia's national security. This is the basis upon which the Attorney-General has claimed public interest immunity. That claim stands. 10:14 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. In the response just provided by the Minister representing the Attorney-General on the government's refusal to comply with orders of the Senate in relation to documents relating to the terrorist organisation, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, once again we have seen this government completely disrespecting the Senate. The minister's statement has provided absolutely no justification for its assertion that the public interest would be harmed by the release of these documents confidentially to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. That assertion makes absolutely no logical sense. Everybody in this Senate knows that the IRGC is involved in terrorist activity. Everyone in this Senate knows that the government knows it. That is why the documents that we have sought to compel the government to provide were created. How can the confidential disclosure to the parliamentary committee with specific oversight of security and intelligence matters of two documents based on publicly available open source information possibly create a risk to our national interest? That is the grounds upon which the government has again refused this request today. The reason the government refuses to release these documents—despite the fact that, as I've said, they have no proper justification for doing so—is that it doesn't want the public to know that its agencies were preparing for the IRGC to be listed before someone in government put a stop to it. The government never admitted of its own volition that the Department of Home Affairs had been highly advanced in preparing a listing of the IRGC in January last year. In fact, when the Attorney-General's Department made a last-minute submission—almost a last-second submission—to the Senate inquiry I chaired, on the night before our report was tabled, that department was in possession of a statement of reasons and a nomination form for the IRGC, but they made absolutely no reference to it in their submission to my committee. Instead they claimed that they had suddenly—in the space of two weeks—formed the view that it wasn't legally possible to list the IRGC. But we have enough information now, despite the best efforts at secrecy from this government, to have an idea where the direction to shut down the listing of the IRGC came from. During Senate estimates last year, I asked the Attorney-General's Department where the idea to put in a last-minute submission to the Senate inquiry claiming it was impossible to list the IRGC had come from. The answer was, 'We had conversations with the Attorney-General's office.' I asked whether those conversations were initiated by the Attorney-General's office rather than by the department, and department officials confirmed that this was the case. So we know that the government department had prepared documents for the terror listing of the IRGC, and we know that members of the Albanese government's cabinet made sure that that listing was shut down. Every time we have asked a minister since then what they are doing to progress a listing, including drafting any legislative amendments that they believe would be required—something we have offered bipartisan support for—the answer has been that they're not doing anything. This is a political decision for secrecy and inaction by the Albanese government. Again today we have a minister coming into the Senate and blatantly refusing to follow an order of this Senate. When it comes to serious national security matters, there is a clear pattern of obstructionist behaviour by the Albanese government. Just look at the story in the Age newspaper today in which multiple government insiders admit that the offices of the minsters for immigration and home affairs held tactical meetings about how to avoid answering questions from my colleague Senator Paterson about the criminal records of detainees released into the community by the government. It reveals that, instead of spending their time focusing on the safety of the community, they were holding meetings about how to keep the community in the dark. We learn today that government ministers were infuriated that their own department secretary answered questions and provided the requested information because it was, according to a government source, 'tactically the wrong thing to do'. That is a disgraceful attitude to public safety by this government, but it is exactly the type of attitude we have become used to over the past couple of years and, indeed, over the 12 months since we've been examining these Iran questions. We are not going to put up with the government refusing to answer questions about why it has done everything it can to stop the IRGC being listed as a terrorist organisation. It is completely unacceptable that this government is refusing to comply with orders of this Senate relating to the IRGC, and we will continue to pursue answers and transparency from this secretive, arrogant government. 10:19 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I have spoken on this issue a number of times. I congratulate Senator Chandler for her advocacy in this matter. I want to take issue with two points that were raised by the minister. First, he described the IRGC as a 'malignant actor'. That was the phrase he used in his statement—'malignant actor'. It is a terrorist organisation. The IRGC should be declared a terrorist organisation because it is a terrorist organisation. If there is some legislative impediment then talk to the opposition. We have made our view s abundantly clear in this regard and we will cooperate to amend the law if that is what is required to have the IRGC declared a terrorist organisation. Members of the crossbench will also co-operate, I'm sure, because this is an organisation that engages in terrorist operations all over the world. It appears we came so close in January 2023 to nominating it as a terrorist organisation. There was even a statement of reasons prepared to nominate it and then nothing—crickets! Nothing. The US has declared it a terrorist organisation. The European Union parliament has almost unanimously called on its member states to declare it a terrorist organisation. But this government describes it as a 'malignant actor'. I wonder who crafted that phrase? It is not a 'malignant actor'; it is a terrorist organisation. I want to give people listening to this debate some sort of insight into what this organisation does. I am reading from an article here that was written by Matthew Levitt, Wednesday 8 February 2023. It's entitled: 'The EU can and should designate the IRGC is terrorist group'. These are some of the examples he gives: Beyond Europe, the latest evidence of Iranian terrorist plotting abroad came out last Friday, when senior U.S. officials gathered for a press conference to reveal the indictment and arrest of three criminals charged with the attempted murder-for-hire of an American-Iranian journalist in New York. That is what they do. This is a terrorist organisations that targets Iranians dissidents who are shining a bright light on the almost unbelievable human rights abuses that are occurring in Iran. The three were part of an organized criminal organization based in Eastern Europe with ties to Iran. The leader of the group, who was based in Iran, was enlisted by Iranian agents in 2022 to assassinate the victim in the United States. Another example: In August, the U.S. Department of Justice indicted IRGC personnel behind assassination plots targeting former senior U.S. government officials in the United States, among others. In 2019, two Iranian operatives pleaded guilty to charges stemming from their surveillance activities targeting Iranian dissidents and Jewish targets in the United States. How is this? More recently, this is what the IRGC, the organisation described as a 'malignant actor', did: they agreed to pay an assassin $300,000 to kill John Bolton, who used to be US representative on United Nations. More recently, the IRGC agreed to pay an assassin $1 million for the assassination of the former secretary of state Mike Pompeo. This is the organisation we are dealing with. The United States has declared it a terrorist organisation. The EU parliament has overwhelmingly called for its member states to declare it a terrorist organisation, not a 'malignant actor'. The Australian-Iranian diaspora is looking to this parliament to take action to declare this terrorist organisation a terrorist organisation, and all we get from the government are mealy-mouthed excuses as to why they can't. Their lack of good faith in this matter is indicated in the fact that they refuse to engage in constructive discussions with the coalition and the crossbench to address any legal impediments that would prevent the IRGC being declared a terrorist organisation. The IRGC should be declared a terrorist organisation because it is a terrorist organisation. 10:24 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland At the heart of the minister's attendance before the chamber this morning is the issue of accountability and transparency of this government. Before the election, the Prime Minister promised to lead the most transparent and accountable government ever, but, through the actions of this government, we are finding that, in fact, the Prime Minister leads the least transparent and the least accountable government since Federation. Day after day, the Senate asks for documents, the attendance of ministers and for information relating to the expenditure of taxpayers' money and to decisions concerning the safety of Australia and its citizens, and day after day the executive of this country snubs its nose at the Senate and, by snubbing its nose at the Senate, snubs its nose at the Australian people. That is what we are talking about here today. This Senate, this house of review, elected by the Australian people, has passed a motion concerning an order for the production of documents, and the government has failed continually to release those documents. For those listening at home, we're not asking for the documents to be put on the web or on the Prime Minister's Facebook page. We're not asking for the documents to be put in the public domain. We're asking for these documents concerning a terrorist organisation, which is actively involved in the murder of innocent citizens and in the production of terror activities across the world, to be released to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security—a committee that meets in private. What has the government got to hide here? This is what this debate is about. The senators asked for these documents to be released. We know that these documents exist; it's not a fishing exercise. We know that the documents that have been requested are in existence, but this government have said no, they won't release them. They've claimed public interest immunity, but they've failed to substantiate the claims of public interest immunity. The minister 's statement here before was a very nice collection of words that may have had the correct amounts of nouns and adverbs and adjectives to construct a sentence, but they did not construct a narrative as to why these documents should not be released. The government are hiding something, really hiding something. This Senate has the right and the power for these documents to be so ordered and released to the relevant parliamentary committee. So it comes down to transparency. Prime Minister, what are you hiding? Minister, what are you hiding? Executive cabinet, what are you hiding from the Australian people? This order for the production of documents does not relate to the angle at which paperclips should be bent. It is not an order for the production of documents for what size horseshoes should be. It is an order for the production of documents relating to a terrorist organisation, a terrible—there's tautology here—terrible terrorist organisation, which on a daily basis is actively involved in the murder of innocent people around the world. Yet this government are refusing to release the documents. As similarly bad as that, they are refusing to say on what basis they are refusing to release these documents to a committee that meets in private, is represented by the parties in government and can make decisions in relation to the security and the defence of this country to make sure that Australians can sleep safely in their beds at night. I say to the Prime Minister and the Labor Party: what do you have to hide? You promised to be transparent, but you're not being transparent. Day after day you mislead the Australian people, and you need to be better. (Time expired) 10:29 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I rise, essentially to make the same substantial point that Senator McGrath has just made and extend on that. What we're here is a pattern of behaviour. It's more than just a pattern though; they have laid tracks that are immovable now, because they have demonstrated that this government is not adhering to the practices of transparency— Senator McGrath 217241 Point of order. The minister made an unparliamentary interjection there. I ask him to withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Senator Ayres, I did hear a word that is perhaps not particularly parliamentary shouted across the chamber and I do ask that you withdraw. Senator Ayres 16913 I withdraw. Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 What this government has demonstrated through their behaviour is that they are on a track that is immovable. By their actions, they are demonstrating that they are not prepared be accountable and transparent. Yet we all heard time and time again in the lead-up to the last election that there was going to be this new standard. Well, that's exactly right. We do have a new standard. We have set a very retrograde standard here in this place with the way that the government is operating with their complete disregard for the Senate and, as Senator McGrath was saying, by extension their complete disregard for the Australian people. It is appalling that they are not committing themselves to the transparency that they said that they would provide. As I said, it is more than just a pattern, because we're seeing it time and time again. How they behave is railed in. For example, they require any stakeholders that they're engaging with in relation to bills that are prospective and coming before the parliament to sign non-disclosure agreements. We've seen this with the car industry in relation to their fuel efficiency standards. They are making stakeholders sign up to agreements. They're requiring them not to speak publicly. If they do, guess what. You're not going to be invited the very next meeting. They only bring into the room those that are maybe going to speak up and speak the way that they want them to speak. This is the behaviour of this government. We've seen it with the ALRC report. We've seen it with the consultation on the potential future religious discrimination bill. They'll only engage with those that are prepared to keep silent and not engage their wider constituency. This is atrocious. It is not the transparency and accountability that was promised by this government. The Prime and Minister, as leader of the Labor Party, as the leader of our nation in the political atmosphere that we have, is letting the Australian people down. Here we have a simple request by the Senate for a document. It is not that it be released publicly; we understand that there are often national security implications, particularly in relation to the listing of an organisation. The IRGC is a terrorist organisation, so of course there might be some national security implications. But we are the Senate. This was not just a couple of backbenchers or a couple of members of parliament. This Senate ordered that the government provide those documents to the PJCIS, a committee of this parliament that is bound by confidentiality and that meets in private—in fact, in a secure room in this building. Great measures are taken to ensure that documents that maybe sensitive, as have been requested here, are presented in a safe manner and are able to be dealt with appropriately. That committee is a committee of multiple members of parliament from multiple parties and it provides the transparency that is necessary. Again this government is proving that they are not submitting themselves to the accountability that is necessary. They made a commitment before the last election that there would be the accountability and that there would be a new standard. Well, we have seen a new standard. We have seen a lowered standard in this place when it comes to transparency and accountability, and this Prime Minister is shown wanting, time and time again. (Time expired) 10:35 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I too rise to speak to this issue, not so much with details about the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. I think anyone listening to this debate would understand that the IRGC has been one of the key backers and supporters of terrorism both in their region and around the world and, as we have seen in recent times, also inflicting terror and totalitarian rule on the citizens of Iran, many of whom have lost their lives or their freedom standing up against a regime that brutally puts its own people down. I want to talk today though about the process of the parliament being the representatives of the people and holding the executive and its departments to account. Particularly, I come to this as someone who has served on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for nearly a decade. Through that process, we dealt with some thorny issues when it came to listing—for example, the terrorist organisation Hezbollah. For many years, Australia had listed the external security organisation of Hezbollah as a terrorist organisation, but not the entirety, because of concerns that parts of Hezbollah were parts of government in other nations and therefore perhaps it wouldn't be appropriate. This was a long and involved discussion, with multiple stakeholders who came and presented their perspectives—in confidence, in classified hearings—to the committee. That committee, having considered all of those facts, still made the recommendation that the entirety of Hezbollah should be listed. I'm pleased to report that in 2021 the entirety of the organisation was listed. In 2022, Hamas was listed. And we have seen in the past, groups like the Islamic State, who were also putting themselves forward as a government for a period of time, have been listed multiple times—the most recent in 2023. But a key point here is that the whole purpose of the PJCIS, established under the Intelligence Services Act, is to enable the parliament, on behalf of the people of Australia, to have oversight over both departments and the security agencies when it comes to decisions such as this. The practice to date has been disclosure within that classified environment to enable an informed debate to occur. So this decision of the Albanese government runs against the practice of governments of both sides of politics over many years which saw the PJCIS as a trusted entity to fulfil that function of insuring transparency and oversight on behalf of the Australian people. The committee has demonstrated over many years that it is capable of dealing with sensitive issues around national security and foreign relations that often underpin decisions around things such as listing, so this decision is bewildering, to say the least. I would also note that the committee has been largely proven right in its insistence that things like Hezbollah be listed in its entirety. When those listings have been made, the statement of reasons is actually a document which is designed to be released publicly so that the Australian public can get an insight, though perhaps not of every detail and not every consideration—that's why we have the committee, to consider those things in a classified environment—but it provides the Australian people with a rationale and some insight as to why this decision has been taken. The fact that this document was developed indicates that the departments recognise that there is a case for listing the whole of the IRGC. The fact that it is designed as a document to be released publicly means that the request for that to be provided to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security is actually the committee ceding quite a bit of ground, saying 'We're happy to deal with this in a classified environment' when it's a document that should have been released publicly. This is a breach of trust with the parliamentary structures which have been set in place to oversee our intelligence and security. I call on the government to be transparent. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 The question is that the Senate take note of the ministerial statement. Question agreed to. BILLS 15 BILLS Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 15

Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Reference to Committee 15 10:40 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I seek leave to move a motion to refer the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee a circulated. Leave not granted. BUSINESS 16 BUSINESS Rearrangement 16 10:41 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of Senator Waters, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion to remove the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. I've seen some remarkable moments in politics, but last night the evidence of the government, the minister and the senior officials from Home Affairs about this bill was extraordinary. It was extraordinary in the lack of information they had about what on earth is urgent in this bill, who the bill will apply to and what the potential scope of the minister's powers will be. You would think that a competent government which is seeking to ram legislation through in less than two days would at least have a credible argument about why it is urgent. But, astoundingly, neither the minister nor the secretary nor any senior official could come up with a credible reason why this legislation was being rammed through in less than two days. Not one credible reason. It wasn't as though they weren't given opportunities. The opposition asked repeatedly, 'Please give us a reason for saying why this is urgent.' There was no credible answer from Home Affairs. When we asked which categories of visa-holder this law would apply to and what the numbers were, we got confused and bemused looks from Home Affairs. They had no answer to even the most basic questions about who the bill would apply to. They think it will apply to people in detention; maybe it will apply to some people who were the subject of last year's High Court case, but they would investigate that over the next two months; it could apply to other people on bridging visas, but they can't tell us who. And they want us to ram it through as though it is urgent. Rarely have I seen more collective incompetence than we saw from Home Affairs and the government last night. And this is the big political moment. This is apparently the big political play from Labor this week: they have got this tough-on-refugees, tough-on-asylum-seeker laws. They're beating their chests. This is their big political play, and it was pathetic. It was worse than pathetic. It was actually grossly negligent in the incompetence that they showed. Then we asked who they had consulted on the bill. Had they consulted any NGO? Had they consulted the UN High Commission? Had they consulted anybody outside government on a bill that they want to ram through with no public consultation at all. The incredible answer was 'nobody'. They have spoken to nobody about this cunning plan of theirs. It turns out, when you put the microscope on their cunning plan, it's not very cunning at all. This is the lowest, most base level of public policy being driven by the Albanese Labor government for only one reason. That became so clear last night. This isn't about keeping Australia safe. This isn't about some credible responsible to a crisis in migration. This is a pure political play that's unravelling as we watch. This is about Labor trying to outflank the coalition and move to the right of the coalition in a bill that they seem to have just made up in some long late-night drinking session and then brought to the parliament. You couldn't make this stuff up. This is meant to be a government that's now run by adults, but this was like some sort of kiddie's crayon drawing being brought into parliament and then defended by embarrassed officials and half-briefed ministers. That's what we got last night. It would be negligent of this Senate to pass this bill on the half-baked assurances, incomplete information and close to riddles we got last night from Home Affairs. It would be negligent for us. So we are moving that 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'd love to just move that we just whack it straight in the bin, because that's where it should go—actually, pop it in recycling. We're Greens. Pop it in recycling. But that's where this should go. Go back home. I say to the government: don't pass Go; go directly to jail with this bill. 10:46 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales What we've seen is the usual overblown rhetoric from Senator Shoebridge. We've seen the usual Woollahra sophistry that we see from Senator Shoebridge. What we're about to see is what happens when Senator Shoebridge and Senator Cash, symbolising what's really happening here—what's really happening here is when Mr Dutton's Liberals and Nationals and Mr Bandt's Greens decide that they are going to put partisan interest over the national interest. What we're seeing is the most right-wing extremist Liberal Party in Australia's history and this trot-out bit down here. When they get together in their usual student politics exercise of putting their own partisan interest over the national interest, you're about to see the result. If Senator Shoebridge is right and the government's effort to put the national interest here first unravels today, what the people of Australia will see is that the old days, when the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party understood that their job was to put the national interest before the partisan interest, are over. Those days are over. This is a show that doesn't understand the national interest. It doesn't understand it. You see politics, particularly parliamentary politics, is about character, fundamentally. It's about character. What we're about to see here is this show failing the character test absolutely. Mr Dutton, the most extreme leader of the Liberal Party in its history, teaming up with Mr Bandt and Senator Shoebridge, the most Trotskyite edition of the Greens we have ever seen, to absolutely put before the national interest the partisan interest. If only national security were about words and bluster. If only it were about partisan positioning. After the last nine last years of torpid, lazy, complacent partisan government, we would be safer than we've ever been, but the truth is that reforming this migration system matters. Protecting the integrity of the immigration system matters. The Dutton opposition, after Mr Dutton's administration of these questions— Senator Cash I0M Your failures. Senator AYRES 16913 Yes, Senator Cash, Minister Dutton at the time failed absolutely on NZYQ. In 2018, Mr Dutton ignored the legal advice that was provided to him. And why do you think he did that? Because there would have been the usual narrow, self-interested, partisan-interest consideration. Mr Dutton had a bit of a think about it and thought, 'Whose problem is this really? Somebody else's problem down the track. What's my job here? To position for myself.' That's what Mr Dutton did in 2018. That's what the Morrison government did in those sad sordid years of maladministration, of weak staffing, of underresourcing, of weak political leadership on these questions. That's what they did from 2019 to 2022. And we're about to see on full display in this chamber what happens when you get a group of right-wing political extremists with no regard for the national interest and a bunch of Trots cooking up a solution to this that they recognise as in their partisan interest. What is proposed in the parliament here by the Albanese government is a measure which adds a set of additional tools in a sensible way that improve the character, the quality and the integrity of the migration system. What happens here is that we now have an extension where, according to Senator Birmingham and Senator Cash, it's not important. An additional 43 days before a Senate inquiry reports—that is time that is going to tick away while precisely nothing happens, because Senator Birmingham has lost the capacity— (Time expired) 10:51 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Quite frankly, Seinfeld could not have scripted the last 24 hours of the Albanese government! To say that the last 24 hours has been chaotic is an absolute understatement, and that is why the coalition is supporting the motion that is being moved by the Australian Greens. We will, of course, be amending it, and I foreshadow an amendment. Senator Ayres talked a big game. I give him that. He talked a big game. That's fair enough. He talked a big game. He does that well. But let's look at what Senator Ayres actually said when you break it down. He talked about those of us failing a character test. Senator Ayres, I put to you that the Prime Minister fails the character test on these bases: he fails the test when it comes to scrutiny; he fails the test when it comes to transparency; he fails the test when it comes to accountability. Why do I say that? Look at what the Prime Minister said to the Australian people. The Australian people should reflect on what the Prime Minister told them before the election. Before the election, when Mr Albanese was in promise-making mode—post the election, we're in a very different mode—he told the Australian people this: if he and the Australian Labor Party were elected to office, he and his ministers would deliver transparency, integrity and accountability in everything they do. Well, I have to say, the last 24 hours of this government have shown that that is blatantly false. Actions in this case, Prime Minister, speak louder than words. Anyone who has not seen the footage of Minister O'Neill this morning running from the press in the press gallery, running away—all they wanted to ask her were questions in relation to this legislation, the first one being, as Senator Patterson opened last night with: why is this legislation urgent? I would have thought the Australian people would think that is a reasonable question, given we are being asked to rush it through the parliament today under a guillotine—and, for those who don't know what a guillotine means, it means we have, as the opposition and the Australian Greens, no opportunity on behalf of the Australian people to scrutinise this legislation. So one would think, to a simple question by Senator Patterson last night in committee and the journalists today to Senator O'Neill asking why this legislation is urgent, Senator O'Neill and the officials last night could clearly articulate a reason. This is where the problem lies, because they couldn't. They said to us, 'Trust us.' The last time the Australian people trusted the Albanese government, they were let down miserably. When it comes to secrecy, when it comes to a lack of transparency, when it comes to a lack of accountability, which is what this motion moved by the Australian Greens goes to—that is, giving the Australian Senate on behalf of the Australian people the opportunity to properly scrutinise this legislation, because the government has failed to articulate any sort of urgency associated with it—Dennis Shanahan, in his article of 25 March—quite frankly, he sums it up: 'Labor's transparency vow lies bleeding from a thousand cuts.' This is the reality for the Australian people: the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General trumpeted before the election that if you voted for them you were heralding in a new era of transparency, but you all need to wake up. The Australian Labor Party run the Senate and House of Representatives like a shop floor. That is it. They're the union in control, and guess what? The rest of us don't have a say. They will use any form of tactic to silence us. And in silencing us—Mr Albanese, shame on you, because you silence the Australian people! That is the history of the Australian Labor Party: 'Nothing to see here.' If you bully people enough, if you intimidate them enough, they will eventually capitulate and fall over. Well, guess what? We are not going to do that. We are going to stand firm on behalf of the Australian people. We will support this motion and we will ensure that this bill gets the proper scrutiny it requires because, as I said, you've said it's not urgent. 10:56 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales The ugly truth is that this bill that the Labor Party is ramming through today is a manifestation of the toxic politics of fear and division from both of the big parties that have poisoned the national discourse for far too long. Such is the moral bankruptcy that has seeped into the heart of both major parties and their politics that we are now pushing through—we're not even debating it—a bill that Donald Trump would probably be proud of. And it's not just being put forward; it's being rushed through. It was introduced just yesterday in the House, with a sham two-hour inquiry last night, and now here we have it being rammed through the Senate. The bipartisan agreement on cruelty to refugees has really hit a new low today. Both parties are trading in human suffering to score cheap political points in a race to the bottom, targeting the most vulnerable—refugees and people who seek asylum. It is such a pitiful race to the bottom. Labor is trying to out Dutton Mr Dutton, the very man who has dog whistled his way to the top of the Liberal Party. Labor has no answers on why this bill should be rushed or any details of the bill, as you just heard Senator Shoebridge telling us, and they have consulted no-one. Yet here we are in this situation, rushing it through. The Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 is an extraordinary expansion of ministerial powers, to the point that the Human Rights Law Centre has called the powers 'godlike'. The bill so significantly expands the powers of the minister that the minister can unilaterally, subject only to consultation with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs, designate a country to be a removal concern country. The effect of this will be that almost all nationals from that country are prohibited from applying for any visa to come to Australia, and only the minister can decide if they want to lift that prohibition. The bill doesn't require them to even consider that request. This is not just extremely dangerous policy; it is also extraordinarily racist. The Labor Party are drawing inspiration not just from the Leader of the Opposition but also Donald Trump as they write these powers into laws for themselves, egged on by the coalition. This is no surprise to anyone, though, who has been following the Labor Party's trajectory of demonising refugees and migrants, so much so that the Minister for Home Affairs, Clare O'Neill, shamefully said last year, 'The Leader of the Opposition loves to present himself as a tough guy on borders. He never wrote laws as tough as this.' You should not be proud of this; you should be ashamed of this. Furthermore, this bill will allow the government to force people to return to countries where they face persecution and even death. This is the absolute worst of politics in this country, and both Labor and the coalition should be ashamed for supporting this bill. Make no mistake, at its core this bill is racist in nature. It seeks to criminalise migrants, refugees and people who seek asylum. This is one of the many insidious ways in which power and privilege are wielded to perpetuate systems of oppression and marginalisation, and this bill is a prime example of institutionalised racism masquerading as immigration policy. Shame on you! 11:01 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory What we are seeing today is Labor doing a deal with the coalition on a migration bill to rush it through and then seeing an almighty backfire. To my knowledge, the crossbenches were not consulted about it. The Greens, the Independents—my parties—were not consulted about the guillotine that has been sprung on us today. These are really important bills that deserve time in committee—to ask questions, to move amendments and explain what they would mean, why they are being moved. They understand. Last night, during the debate to refer the bill to committee, we heard things like the government didn't even consult with Human Rights Commission, didn't think to check in and say, 'Hey, do you think this is in-line with any of our obligations?' After two hours of questioning from Senator Paterson, Senator Cash, Senator Shoebridge, Senator Ghosh, there was really no more clarity on the urgency of this bill or on who it will actually apply to, why there is the need to hand the minister the power to basically bring anyone in to make regulation at will. I find it pretty offensive when Labor then turns around and points at the crossbenches and accuses us of not caring about community safety, of not caring about a whole range of things. The community wants scrutiny of these sorts of bills. They want the right balance. They not only want to ensure that, yes, we have orderly borders and that, yes, communities are protected but also to uphold our international human rights obligations, which both the major parties seem to agree to and then disregard when comes to how we treat various people in Australia. This is an opportunity to have a bit more scrutiny, to look at it and to then come back, because it was very unclear last night why this is so urgent. There was no good reason that I heard. So I fully support having an inquiry into this bill. 11:03 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Look, I have listened to everybody and I understand some of the points that have been put forward, but this bill is urgent. The advice through the committee process was— Senator Cash I0M Scrutiny! Senator GALLAGHER ING I note Senator Cash talks big on border protection, talks big on immigration but refuses to accept responsibility for the mess that we inherited, which a number of reviews have identified. Opposition senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Minister, just resume your seat. After the decency of people being listened to in silence, I can't hear the minister and I am 10 feet away from her, Senator Cash. Senator GALLAGHER ING Today ends the lecturing from those opposite about acting in the national interest and keeping Australia safe, because we see today the opposition, who talk big on all of these issues, siding with the Greens political party to defer a matter that our advice and our advisers have told us is important to get done. So let there be no more lectures from those opposite, no more trying to wind up the scare campaigns and no more accusations of us not working in the national interest, because we see a clear example today of the opposition not acting in the national interest. That is on Senator Cash, Senator Birmingham and, of course, Mr Dutton. If you look at some of the reforms that we've had to bring in, it's because of a broken system that we inherited. We've had the Nixon review, the Richardson review and others: all of those reviews are a damning indictment of the Leader of the Opposition and his carriage of these matters as minister responsible for Australia's migration and immigration system. I can't count the number of times I've heard those opposite lecture us about needing to move quickly to address loopholes, making sure that we're keeping the community safe and putting us in the strongest legal position, and that ends today. You have no credibility on that anymore. The Department of Home Affairs last night at the hearing on the bill said: 'This legislation is one which we believe is a significant issue to resolve within our migration system for its broader integrity.' That was the evidence provided to the opposition. What we've seen today is the opposition siding with the Greens to kick this off—to not deal with it. It is straightforward. They know that, in the end—I imagine, unless they're going to surprise us even further—they will support this bill, but they want to kick it off for another three to four weeks. I'm not sure for what purpose—perhaps we'll see in that three to four weeks. Senator Paterson 144138 To have an inquiry. Senator Cash I0M Scrutiny! Senator GALLAGHER ING Yeah, right. Okay. Yeah, yeah—tell another one. Tell another one. They'll kick it off for four weeks and not deal with it today. Our advisers say that it does need to be dealt with and that it should be dealt with in this sitting week. We provided briefings to you. We provided the committee inquiry to you so that you could have that opportunity. I don't think there was anything that came through the committee process that indicated any reason to delay this. We've been working to improve the integrity of the migration system for the last 18 months. As we know, the Parkinson review, the Richardson review and the Nixon review all indicated that we had inherited a system that was broken. Where there are issues identified, loopholes that need to close and powers that need to be strengthened, as a government we will work carefully and methodically to deal with those. We will present that to the chamber and, in this case to the opposition. We presumed—wrongly, it seems—that they would want to work with us in the national interest to strengthen our security and our immigration system. We believed a mature opposition—and, perhaps again, that was our mistake—would actually work with us on this to deal with it quickly. Instead, we see an attempt to just kick it down the road. This is on your heads. The fact that we are leaving this bill unresolved until, at the earliest opportunity, budget week if you move your amendments. We know that budget week hardly deals with any legislation, so the chances are it will move beyond that as well. We want to deal with it now. You are voting against that. You are voting to not deal with this and to weaken the system. Our officials have told us that this is a significant issue to resolve for the migration system's broader integrity. That is what you are voting against today. You are voting to delay it. We'll see the reasons why, no doubt, over the next four weeks, but there will be no more lectures from you on national security or strengthening our borders after today's vote. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 I give the call to Senator Birmingham, noting that we have a hard marker. 11:08 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia There are times of chaos, there are moments of crisis and then there is the Albanese Labor government's handling of border protection and migration policies. If anything can manage to overwhelm times of chaos or moments of crisis, it's the hapless way in which the Albanese Labor government handles border protection and migration policy. We've seen time and time and time again recently a government that is lacking in a clear sense of direction when it comes to border protection and that doesn't know how to be strong and clear and firm in its border protection policies being endlessly caught off guard and endlessly scrambling in some sort of chaotic fashion to patch something together in the hope that it will mask over their own incompetence. You know just how bad Labor's approach to this policy in this bill is when the coalition and the Greens and the crossbench can all reach the same conclusion. You know just how bad it is when, despite the very different positions we take from the Greens in relation to border protection, we come to the same conclusion that this is the most hopeless, hapless, chaotic process you could possibly imagine. That's why the government needs proper scrutiny over its legislation and this approach. We know the government could have managed this process so much better, because yesterday morning, when they ambushed us with the bill, they gave us a bill date stamped last Friday. So if it was important, why didn't they give it to us last Friday? If it was important, why didn't they share it then? If it could withstand scrutiny, why didn't they introduce it last week, not on the death knell of this sitting? We know they can't withstand scrutiny, which is why they don't want to have any scrutiny. The ministers run away from the cameras in the press gallery, and hear in the parliament they want to run away from the normal scrutiny of legislation. We're not going to stand for that. We went through the responsible process of hearing from the department last night. It left more questions than answers. That's why it's important there is proper scrutiny of this bill. That's why we are supporting that. We will deal with it, if you want, the first day back of the next sitting. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion moved by Senator Shoebridge to suspend standing orders be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [11:16]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 45 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 21 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Lines, S. 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 agreed to.

 11:18 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move: That a motion to refer the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee may be moved immediately and have precedence over all other business. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that that the motion as moved by Senator Shoebridge be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [11:19]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 44 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 21 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Lines, S. 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 agreed to.

 COMMITTEES 21 COMMITTEES Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee 21 Reference 21 11:21 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move the motion and commend the motion to the House: That 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. Very briefly, I understand that there's a foreshadowed motion by Senator Birmingham that will shorten the reporting period. Obviously, the Greens would prefer the reporting period set out in the motion, but we indicate that we won't be opposing the amendment. 11:22 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I move the amendment circulated in the chamber: Omit "24 June 2024" and replace with "7 May 2024" This would ensure several weeks of scrutiny of this legislation but, equally, enable it to be dealt with on the first sitting day back if that is the will of the Senate. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [11:23]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 44 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 21 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Lines, S. 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 agreed to.

 11:27 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amended motion moved by Senator Shoebridge be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [11:27]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 43 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 20 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Lines, S. 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. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 11:29 The PRESIDENT 112096 Before I go to Senator Gallagher, I remind senators that, firstly, it is your responsibility to make sure that your staff understand the protocol in this place, particularly those at the back of the room. Once tellers are appointed, people are not to be moving. Secondly, if you bring laptops or phones into this place and stickers are visible and readable, they are not to be shown. I've given this message a number of times. I do not intend to give it again. BUSINESS 23 BUSINESS Rearrangement 23 11:29 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Noting that, if senators wish, they're able to ask that the question be put separately on bills, I move: That on Wednesday, 27 March 2024- (a) after formal motions, the questions on all remaining stages of the following bills then be put immediately: (i) Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024, (ii) Defence Amendment (Safeguarding Australia's Military Secrets) Bill 2024 Defence Trade Controls Amendment Bill 2024, (iii) Autonomous Sanctions Amendment Bill 2024, (iv) Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share-Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023, (v) Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment Bill 2024 Treasury Laws Amendment (Foreign Investment) Bill 2024, (vi) Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill (No. 2) 2023, (vii) Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment Bill 2024, (viii) Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023, (ix) Digital ID Bill 2023 Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023, and (x) Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2023-2024 Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2023-2024 Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2023-2024; (b) paragraph (a) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; (c) divisions may take place after 6.30 pm until consideration of the bills has concluded; and (d) the Senate adjourn without debate on the motion of a minister (after consideration of the bills has concluded). I also move: That the question be now put. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the closure motion as moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to. Once again, we have advisers on the move. I said last time it was the last warning. I will ask the attendant to ask you to leave. It is a privilege for you to be in here and I expect you to adhere to the same rules as everyone else. Senator Steele-John 250156 Stop bullying the staff. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham? Senator Birmingham H6X A point of order, President. Senator Steele-John should withdraw that reflection upon the chair. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Steele-John, I didn't hear the reflection, but I accept the advice from Senator Birmingham and I'm going to ask you to withdraw the comment. Senator Steele-John 250156 I withdraw. Stop using your position to direct staff. The PRESIDENT 112096 No. Senator Steele-John, I want an unequivocal withdrawal, no comment. Senator Steele-John 250156 I withdraw.    

The Senate divided. [11:35]
(The President—Senator Lines)

31 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) 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. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 30 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 BUSINESS 25 BUSINESS Consideration Of Legislation 25 11:38 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I seek leave to move, on behalf of Senator McDonald, an amendment to government business of notice motion No. 1 that would provide for the inclusion in this motion of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024. Leave not granted. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X You could just vote it down. I move, solely to give you the chance to reconsider: That so much of standing orders be suspended as would enable me to move the amendment on behalf of Senator McDonald to allow for the inclusion in this motion of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024. The PRESIDENT 112096 I understand that it can be withdrawn by leave, but Senator Birmingham has now moved his motion. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X There is, potentially, a long list of legislation to be dealt with today. I won't detain the chamber. I make the point that the opposition is proposing to include a piece of government legislation. It's legislation that is viewed by industry and others as being important, that has progressed through the House and that has been awaiting progress through the Senate. In our view, in terms of ensuring economic certainty, progress and energy certainty in this country, this is an important bill to consider. That is why we are moving for its inclusion. I would urge the government to support their own legislation by having this bill included. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [11:45]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 47 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Liddle, K. J. Lines, S. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Wong, P. 15 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 11:48 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I move: That paragraph (a) of the motion be amended to include: (xi) Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [11:53]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 29 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 37 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. 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. Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 11:55 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move: That paragraph (a) of the motion be amended to remove: (i) Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 (vii) Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment 2024 (ix) Digital ID Bill 2023 Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023 11:56 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I understand that some senators may wish to vote differently on each part of the amendment. I might be wrong but, if that's the case, it might be best to put those separately. 11:56 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Could I indicate that the Greens wish to vote separately on the digital ID legislation, and we ask that it be put separately. The PRESIDENT 112096 In the interests of the chamber I will put all three parts separately. The question is that (i) Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 be agreed to. Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now put the question on the second part of the amendment, (vii) Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment 2024. The question is this part be agreed to. Question negatived. 11:57 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia by leave—I would like to indicate the Greens support that part of the amendment moved by Senator Pocock. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Hanson-Young.    

The Senate divided. [12:02]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 33 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. 33 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. 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. Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 12:05 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move: That paragraph (a) of the motion be amended to remove: ii the Defence Amendment (Safeguarding Australia's Military Secrets) Bill 2024 iv the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share-Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023, and viii the Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023. We are asking for the questions on point ii, the Defence Amendment (Safeguarding Australia's Military Secrets) Bill 2024, on point iv, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share-Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023, and on point viii, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023 to be put separately. We are also asking that they be put separately and together, in the interests of time. I indicate that we won't be dividing on these; we simply want to register a different position. 12:05 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I ask that the vote on ix be split. The PRESIDENT 112096 We just dealt with that one. Senator ROBERTS 266524 That was to remove it from the list. I would like to have a vote separately on that one—to split it. The PRESIDENT 112096 We just voted on that one, Senator Roberts. 12:05 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory My understanding is that the Senate decided not to remove it from the guillotine. Senator Roberts is asking whether, when we get to the guillotine, it can be voted on separately. The PRESIDENT 112096 No; I don't believe so—I am advised by the Clerk. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, we have just done that. So we would really be repeating the same result. Senator Roberts 266524 Pardon me, with respect, Madam President— The PRESIDENT 112096 Certainly. Senator Roberts 266524 we had a vote on whether or not to agree to Senator Pocock's amendment to remove it from the list. Now it is still on the list. 12:06 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia There is a motion before the chair, Senator McKim's motion, which we have given leave to. So I ask that we deal with that. 12:06 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland In addition to Senator McKim's list that he wants voted on separately, I want to add mine—just as we do in formal motions. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, I was giving senators the opportunity to do that, but you raised the bill that we just dealt with, which was the Digital ID Bill. So I am going to put the question. The question is that the Defence Amendment— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 It is not helping. I will sort it out with the Clerk. Just so everyone is clear—and I will come to you, Senator Birmingham: if the amendment on the three bills that Senator McKim has identified was voted in favour of it would remove them from the list. Senator Birmingham was seeking the call, so I will go to Senator Birmingham. 12:08 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I was seeking the call to seek clarification from Senator McKim. We have a circulated amendment which seeks to remove the TLAB multinationals and the Digital ID bills. We just had a vote on the Digital ID Bill. If that is not the amendment that Senator McKim is moving, could Senator McKim clarify the three bills for the chamber, please? The PRESIDENT 112096 Why don't I do that? It was the Defence Amendment (Safeguarding Australia's Military Secrets) Bill 2024, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share-Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023. They have asked for those to be put separately. I am going to put that question, if there are no further questions on that. Senator Birmingham? 12:09 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia If the request is for those parts of Senator Gallagher's motion to be put separately, we should just proceed through Senator Gallagher's motion not. There is not a question around putting them separately; that is simply process. The PRESIDENT 112096 What I have been advised is that we are putting the question on the motion moved by Senator McKim, as to whether or not the three bills stay on the list. If there are further points of clarification needed, please stand and raise a point of order. It is my intention to put the request of Senator McKim. The question is that the Defence Amendment (Safeguarding Australia's Military Secrets) Bill, Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill and Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill be retained on this list. Question agreed to. 12:11 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania by leave—In the interests of time, could I ask that the Greens position be registered. The PRESIDENT 112096 We will record the Greens' opposition to that. 12:11 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria by leave—I record my opposition to the Defence Amendment (Safeguarding Australia’s Military Secrets) Bill, Autonomous Sanctions Amendment Bill and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is the remaining bills be agreed to. Senator David Pocock 256136 Can I seek clarification. Is this vote on the entire thing now? The PRESIDENT 112096 Yes, that is correct. The question is the remaining bills in the motion be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [12:13]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 44 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hume, J. Lines, S. McGrath, J. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rice, J. E. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 6 NOES Babet, R. (Teller) Hanson, P. L. Lambie, J. Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Tyrrell, T. M. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
The PRESIDENT: Order! It being 12.15, the Senate will now move to senators' statements.

 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 29 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS E-Cigarettes and Vaping Products, Veterans Affairs 29 12:15 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise this afternoon to speak on two extremely important issues and two very different groups of Australians. I am speaking about vaping and veterans affairs. I have made it abundantly clear in the past that vaping is a scourge on our society. It is an issue that I take seriously. In my youth, we had the same issue with cigarette smoking. Many teenagers took up the habit, unaware of the risks to their health. They got addicted due to the nicotine content and they ended up with cancer or other terrifying conditions. Nicotine itself, while being highly addictive, is not the direct cause of the vaping or smoking related illnesses. It is instead the filler materials that cigarettes, cigars and vapes are packed with: arsenic, acetone and butane are just three examples of the destructive chemicals inside these items. Despite claims that vapes only emit water vapour, vapes contain oils that can stick to the inside of our lungs, potentially causing pneumonia and other significant health issues. Vapes prescribed by a doctor for the purpose of quitting smoking are different from the vapes that are sold underground. We do not know what substances or materials are actually in the types of vapes that are sold on the black market. What we do know is that organised crime and the setting up of shops and retail outlets to sell to under-age children are very much part of the issue that we are confronting with in this country. The sale of any e-liquids or vaping products containing nicotine for personal use by Australian retailers is now illegal. There are no nicotine vaping products been sold underground which have been approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. They are now classified as a dangerous poison under the national poison standard. Back in the Gillard Labor government, we took the issue of smoking very, very seriously, and it was former minister Nicola Roxon who did so much work within the Gillard Labor government to tackle and reduce the scourge of smoking in this country. We enacted legislation to discourage cigarette smoking in Australia by introducing the Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011. Shortly afterwards, Cancer Australia reported that there was at least a 25 per cent decrease in smoking rates in Australia between 2012 and 2015. Current figures unfortunately point to an increase in smoking, with vaping being a gateway to cigarette addiction. Like the Gillard Labor government, we want to protect our young people from the perils of smoking. Thus, it is the intent of this government to do all we can to stamp out the scourge of vaping here in Australia. We are working together with the state and territory governments to increase the minimum quality standards for vapes so that the make-up of ingredients can be better controlled. In addition to this, we're making sure that, like cigarettes, vaping products are all packaged with plain, pharmaceutical packaging. I refer to the figure I mentioned before: the Cancer Council detected at least a 25 per cent decrease in cigarette smoking after the plain packaging act was introduced by the Gillard Labor government. This issue is serious. We're not stopping there. We are investing $737 million from the tobacco excise revenue to fund new measures to protect Australians against vaping related illnesses and to discourage them from vaping in the first place. A significant portion of the funding will go towards establishing support programs to help Australians quit vaping and strengthen training amongst health professionals. We are stamping out the scourge of vaping in Australia. When shops selling vaping products are opening outside schools—including primary schools—to get more traffic, it should be blatantly clear that we are dealing with a massive problem in this country. We are also dealing with a black market of illicit vaping products. These reforms by the Albanese Labor government are stamping out black markets and regulating the market so that people who need to access vapes for medical reasons still can and that recreational vaping is phased out. Unfortunately, those opposite, the Liberals, the Nationals and even the Greens, don't seem to share the same concerns. The Liberals and the Nationals are too preoccupied with big donations from the tobacco companies and are therefore not prepared to stand up, and we know that the Greens are more interested in young people's votes than they are in their health. I've lived through the scourge of nicotine addiction from cigarette smoking, and I've seen what it has caused. I've seen too many Australians die. I see too many people using our health system. With this scourge of vaping, which is a gateway into cigarette smoking—and, may I suggest, to other drugs—we as a government are going to be strong and resilient and ensure we do all that we can to protect young Australians. I'd like to take a moment to also talk about another important area of government policy and a commitment that we made before the last election. That commitment was to attack the scourge of the long waiting times for veterans to have their claims assessed. The Albanese Labor government are delivering on the commitment we made. I want to congratulate the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Hon. Matt Keogh, in the other place, for his leadership and great work. Within the Department of Veterans' Affairs, we no longer have any backlog of compensation claims being processed. We made a promise to clear any backlogs by the end of March, and by the end of February they were cleared—a month earlier than expected. That is really good news. Since July last year, the Department of Veterans' Affairs has processed over 64,000 claims. That is over 64,000 Australians who were owed compensation for service related injuries or illnesses who have been helped, as have their families, since July last year. Unlike those opposite—when they were in government that backlog continued to grow and to grow—we've tackled it. We've delivered another election promise. Again, we are delivering to Australian veterans, and we will continue to do that because we appreciate and respect the contributions that they have made to this country. We want to keep up the good work in the veterans affairs space, and so we're investing in staff, the IT systems and ensuring more timely access to veterans affairs services for veterans and their families. The Albanese Labor government supports those who have served and stood up for our country in our times of need. We respect the work that the Defence Force have done in protecting Australia—whether you go back to the First World War, the Second World War, Korea or Vietnam. What we need to ensure is this: when our veterans come home from a conflict, or during their service, if they need help and assistance with their injuries and illnesses, they should know that their waiting times will be a matter of weeks, not months or years. Too often in this place, those on that side come into this chamber and lecture us about what we're not doing, and how good they have been, in relation to issues like Veterans Affairs and the support for our defence forces. The reality is very, very different. After 10 years of neglect by those opposite, it took a Labor government to employ more staff, to invest in the technology and, more importantly, to invest in the people to ensure that those backlogs were cleared. Sixty-four thousand Australians have been helped since July last year. That's an incredible effort, and that's the sort of determination Australians will get from this Labor government. I commend the minister for his great work. Freedom of Speech 31 12:25 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Freedom of belief is not an optional extra in our society. Let me say that again: freedom of belief or freedom of religion is not an optional extra. It is a core part of who we are, what we believe and the way our society functions. We've seen the Albanese Labor government table the Australian Law Reform Commission report into religious educational institution and discrimination laws. Unsurprisingly, this report has sparked an enormous degree of concern from faith based educational institutions. They have warned that the report's recommendations would severely limit the ability of faith based educational institutions to operate and teach according to their faith. That is why these institutions exist in the first place. Parents choose to send their children to these institutions because they do operate within the beliefs and the faiths of those families that are involved. Perhaps most egregiously, the way the government has approached this issue is clouded in secrecy, where you have seen nondisclosure agreements being required of individuals to see the draft legislation. Nondisclosure agreements from a government so their approach to these laws is hidden under a cloak of secrecy. I say again, freedom of belief is not an optional extra. In fact, it's written into our Constitution—our foundational document. I'm going to read it because the Constitution probably isn't quoted enough in this place. Section 116 of the Constitution says: The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. It is very clear what that foundational document of our society says. Yes, it says we shouldn't require people to hold a certain faith to take positions within government or public service, but we should also not do anything to prohibit the free exercise of any religion. Religion and faith cannot be taken as something locked inside a person's house when they enter the front door for a private space only. People express their faith through, for example, where they decide to send their children for their education. In doing so, they make decisions based on their values, their beliefs and the understanding that those institutions would have the right to communicate that understanding, that belief, that faith. Sadly, it seems that this government is seeking to undermine that core principle, which is not just of our Constitution and inherent in a fair and free society but actually inherent, in principle, in the entire Enlightenment movement that gave us Western democracy in the first place. It's one of the few freedoms that are actually explicitly mentioned in our Constitution. That is how important it is. So I say to all those out there who choose to send their children to a faith based institution that you have our support to ensure that those institutions can continue to operate within the precepts of their faith. This government is seeking to impose through some clever marketing phrases a destructive regime upon this country, and it's hidden under the lovely phrase 'nature positive'. Could you get a more Orwellian phrase than 'nature positive'? But, having just a quick look at some of the initial statements that have come out of the government in terms of material and the way the department is seeking to implement nature positive, we see that it is just a marketing phrase. In actual fact, this approach to the law will be negative. It will be negative for employment. It will be negative for business going forward. It will be negative for development. Look at what we've found out about these laws so far, and then take them back a few years. If these laws had existed 40 years ago in Western Australia, we would have no mining industry. If they had existed 50 years ago in Western Australia, we would have no gas industry. If they had existed 80 years ago in Western Australia, we would have no commercial fishing industry and probably no recreational fishing industry. If they had existed 100 years ago in Western Australia, we would have no agricultural sector. I say to everyone in my home state of Western Australia: just think about that for a few moments. Think about that when you hear this Orwellian phrase—'nature positive'. Think about what it actually means. The cat was belled with one of the first documents that came out under the banner of this nature positive, with a bureaucrat recommending a policy of 40-kilometre-an-hour speed limits on major highways in the Pilbara. The fact that that even got anywhere close to being included in a policy document is an indictment both on the Labor government and on the bureaucracy. It shows that they have no clue about Western Australia. They have no clue about the vast distances involved in the north of WA and, in particular, the iron ore industry, as well as other extractive industries. They have no clue about a sensible balance between the responsible preservation of the natural environment, which is important, and the need to continue to have economic growth to fuel the living standard that we enjoy in Australia and also to be able to generate the next round of activity and development and progress, technological process, that will drive our society forward. 'Nature positive' is a phrase that means almost nothing. Or, even more dangerously, it means whatever the government and the bureaucracy want it to mean in terms of closing down industry. It smacks of authoritarian overreach and ideological zealotry. It's a philosophy that seeks to constrain, control and limit those very industries that have been the source of Western Australia's success for the past 100 years. I say again: if there had been nature-positive laws 100 years ago, we would have no agricultural industry in Western Australia. If there had been nature-positive laws 80 years ago, we would have no commercial fishing industry and no recreational fishing. If there had been nature-positive laws 40 years ago, we would have no mining industry and no gas industry. These are not laws Western Australia can afford. COVID-19 32 12:35 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland In January 2017, on the day before Donald Trump was inaugurated, Anthony Fauci made the following statement in a speech at Georgetown University: … if there's one message that I want to leave with you today based on my experience … it's that there is no question that there will be a challenge to the coming administration in the arena of infectious diseases, both chronic infectious diseases, in the sense of already ongoing disease … Also, there will be a surprise outbreak … That would have to be one of the most incredible statements of this century: a scientist predicting a surprise outbreak in the term of an elected president. I don't know about you, but I didn't know that viruses were political. Yet here we have a scientist, the head of the infectious disease department in the United States, predicting three years in advance of COVID that there would be a surprise infectious disease outbreak. When you google this, you'll come up with a Reuters fact check that says: 'It's all true. He said that, but he didn't say it was coronavirus; he didn't say it was COVID.' It doesn't really matter. The fact of the matter is that there need to be serious questions asked about what Anthony Fauci knew about the origins of coronavirus. I well remember at the start of the outbreak, when Australia and most of the world—certainly the Western world—were locked down incessantly for two years amongst that barrage of fearmongering, that our then foreign minister, Senator Marise Payne, called for an investigation into the origins of coronavirus. Yet here we are, four years removed to the month from the outbreak of that disease, from the time when these lockdowns occurred, and there are crickets about the origins of coronavirus. That is not fair to the Australian people or to people in other parts of the world who had to endure government overreach in the name of keeping people safe. Australian people have a right to know if that virus was an actual lab leak as a result of gain-of-function research. They have a right to know that our intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies are monitoring this type of gain-of-function research, both in our universities—it is occurring—and in other universities across the world. We do not want to see another outbreak of the government fearmongering that we saw four years ago. I just want to call this out. We often hear the narrative today that there's another pandemic around the corner. When I grew up, I never heard any sort of language like that. There are comparisons back to the Spanish flu—how that was a really bad outbreak and that another outbreak like the Spanish flu can occur again. It is highly unlikely that another outbreak like the Spanish flu will occur again, for the very simple reason of the discovery of penicillin. What killed most people in the Spanish flu wasn't the virus; it was the secondary bacterial infection that occurs when you get a virus infection in the first instance. It was probably what killed most people in those Victorian aged-care centres in August 2020, but, yet again, do we investigate this? No. We don't want to look at it. This fearmongering and this narrative that somehow we've got to be prepared for the next pandemic outbreak is overblown. We have this wonderful invention—probably the most important invention of the 20th century—called antibiotics and, in particular, penicillin. This fearmongering needs to stop. I fear that, for those people on the other side of the chamber and those people who seem to think that the world should be governed from the top down rather than from the bottom up, it suits them all too well to do with our health what they've done to the weather, saying that only big government can save you, only big corporations can save you. That rubbish needs to stop. People need to be responsible for their own actions. They do not need the paternalism of big government stepping and overstepping into the daily lives of everyday people. That is not what liberal democracy is about. But I digress. I actually want to go back and talk about the origins of the coronavirus. You see, the strange thing is that, just after the outbreak of coronavirus, there was a series of leaked emails amongst a number of key professors who somehow knew Anthony Fauci. Anthony Fauci was in contact with the professors. If you actually look at the early leaks from before Anthony Fauci started talking to the intelligence agencies, you see they were all convinced that this outbreak was a gain-of-function outbreak because there was a furin cleavage site. Furin is an enzyme that attaches the spike protein of the virus to the ACE receptor of your cells. It was designed to speed up infection. This was completely novel, and the chance of this happening in nature is like a big bang. I've had a number of microbiologists tell me the chance of this happening is extremely low. That was the viewpoint of a number of scientists. I will name them: Kristian Andersen, Edward Holmes, Ian Lipkin, Andrew Rambaut and Robert Garry. These five scientists just happened to get into an email trail with Anthony Fauci. They went from going, 'This is an actual lab leak—gain of function' to, 'It can't possibly be gain of function; it's natural evolution, and anyone that suggests it's possibly gain of function is a conspiracy theorist.' It turns out that Anthony Fauci actually funded an organisation called EcoHealth. EcoHealth was run by a man by the name of Peter Daszak. He was the lead author of a paper, published by the Lancet not long after coronavirus was used to lock everyone down, that completely ridiculed the notion that coronavirus was actually gain-of-function research. I should read some of the comments that were made, in particular by Edward Holmes. The reason I want to concentrate on Edward Holmes is that he's an Australian scientist who works at the University of Sydney. He has received over $4 million in research for viruses. One of the comments he made very early on in this e-mail trail was: … Ian Lipkin just called, very worried about the furin cleavage site and says the high ups are as well, including Intel. Also saw the restriction site. Ian Lipkin's comments about Edward Holmes were: Dr. Holmes became very unhappy with me after I refused to sign on and say that, you know, there was proof that this is where this began, in the wet market. There is clear evidence of an email trail suggesting that there was a cover-up as to the origins of the coronavirus. This cover-up was actually led by people who were working in gain-of-function research and who were actually funded by the US government, albeit working in China. The other thing worth noting is that this Professor Holmes was actually an honorary professor at the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevent When I raised this issue at estimates with ASIO and other intelligence organisations, they had absolutely no interest in investigating Professor Edward Holmes from Sydney University, despite the fact that he has received millions of dollars in funding from Australian taxpayers, despite the fact that he was one of only six scientists that Anthony Fauci decided to talk about the origins of coronavirus with, and despite the fact that he was an honorary professor at the Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention. Now, I don't know about you, but I would have thought this needs to be investigated. The question I want to leave with my constituents and my fellow Australians out there today is: why aren't Australian intelligence agencies, as well as intelligence agencies in other countries, interested in investigating the origins of coronavirus, the gain of research that was involved with the origins of coronavirus, who funded it and why there was a cover-up? We owe it to the Australian people that this sort of government overreach can never happen again. Cost Of Living 33 12:45 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I rise to talk about the Albanese government's top priority: providing cost-of-living relief to Australian families. Our cost-of-living plan is providing relief in three critical ways. Firstly, we have introduced measures to reduce cost pressures for families, Labor's cheaper medicines policy saved families in my home state of New South Wales $63 million last year. Labor's 60-day prescriptions have already saved Australians $12 million, and it has only been in place since September. The Liberals and Nationals opposed cheaper medicines because they said it would cause pharmacies to close. But the data is in. And, in the six months since 60-day prescriptions began, applications to open new pharmacies are up 50 per cent. Now, either those opposite had no idea what they were talking about or they were being very loose with the truth yet again. We made medicines cheaper, despite opposition from the Liberals are Nationals. Labor has made child care cheaper, saving the average family $1,780 per year. Labor has sent 350,000 people to TAFE for free, providing cost-of-living relief, or giving Aussie workers the skills they need to get well-paid secure jobs. Now, the deputy leader of the Liberal Party said fee-free TAFE was 'wasteful spending'. Can you really believe it? Those opposite gave $40 billion of JobKeeper payments to companies that actually increased their profits, but they are saying helping people get free education is a waste of money. Labor is also investing in increasing housing supply through the Housing Australia Future Fund and of course the Liberals are Nationals voted against that too. After doing nothing about high housing prices for a decade, they have stopped trying to fix the mess that they created. Speaking of messes that we inherited, we are taking action on energy policy. Labor's Energy Bill Relief Fund saved the average Australian household $230 on their energy bill last year. Of course, the Liberals and Nationals voted against that too. Just last week, the Australian Energy Regulator announced small businesses in New South Wales will see their power bills go down by up to 9.7 per cent and households by up to 7.1 per cent. These figures show our plan for cheap, clean and reliable energy is bringing down the high power prices we inherited from those opposite. What is the alternative plan put forward by the Liberals and Nationals? A nuclear fantasy that will take 20 years and cost taxpayers not tens of millions but hundreds of millions of dollars to even deliver the first reactor. The Hinkley Point C nuclear reactor in the United Kingdom has just come in at $86 billion—just for one power station—and those opposite want to build six. How will six $86 billion power stations bring down power costs? They cannot tell you across the way. They have not released any details or costings. So, on health, education, child care, housing and energy, we are reducing cost pressures, and those opposite are voting against us at every opportunity. The second way we're providing cost-of-living relief is by ensuring Australians keep more of the money they earn through our tax cuts. Under Labor's tax cuts, all 13.6 million taxpayers will receive a tax cut. That's 2.9 million more than would have benefitted from Scott Morrison's plan from five years ago. Most importantly, 84 per cent of taxpayers will receive a bigger tax cut. So we're bringing costs down, we're helping Aussies keep more of what they earn and—thirdly—we're laser focused on ensuring Aussie workers earn more. Over their decade in government, the Liberals and Nationals had a deliberate plan to keep wages low. It wasn't a secret. Their finance minister said it on national television. The Liberals and Nationals are for low pay because lower pay means higher profits for their paymasters in the corporate sector. That's the business model of those opposite. Those opposite have opposed or voted against every single measure we have taken to grow wages and improve job security. The Liberals and Nationals opposed the increase to the minimum wage in 2022 and in 2023, and we're seeing what their response is now. It's the same sort of argument to keep wages lower. Under the increases Labor called for, minimum wage earners now have $110 more per week than they had under the previous government. That's $110 more per week than before we came to government. We have proudly said again for the 2024 minimum wage decision that we believe those on the minimum wage must not go backwards. What have we heard from those opposite? The member for New England, Barnaby Joyce, said someone earning another $110 a week is more like just 'window dressing'. He is seriously saying that someone earning $110 more a week is mere 'window dressing'. Explain that to people on minimum wage. Senator Hume, the shadow minister, complained on Monday morning that 'the Labor government wants to make minimum wages go higher as a cost-of-living measure'. Yes, we do. That's exactly what we want to see happen. That's why we advocated for increases to the minimum wage. That's why we passed our secure jobs, better pay bill, and those opposite voted against it. Secure jobs and better pay do two things those opposite cannot abide. The shadow Treasurer, Angus Taylor, said at the time that he opposed the secure jobs, better pay bill because 'it pushes up wages'. The opposition leader, Mr Dutton, said in a media release that he opposed the bill because 'it's going to result in higher wages'. Well, yes, it does put up wages. That's the whole point. It was in the title. The Labor Party is here to improve pay and working conditions. It's incredible that Mr Dutton, Mr Taylor and Senator Hume, the three people responsible for economic policy in the Liberal Party, are so explicitly against wages going up. Then we get to the closing the loopholes bill. I have never seen such ridiculous and vicious opposition to a piece of legislation in this building. The bill closed a loophole for companies like Qantas and BHP, who used it to rip off their workers through labour hire. It made wage theft a criminal offence. It gave casuals the right to become permanent employees if they work like one. It gave gig workers and truck drivers the right to have minimum standards for the first time ever. Of course, they voted against all of that. The shadow minister for employment, Senator Cash, said the reforms would close down Australia. Instead we've seen unemployment all the way down, at 3.8 per cent, which is virtually full employment, we've seen inflation come down from the highs we inherited and we've seen real wages growing for the first time in years. It turns out you can pay people a living wage and give them job security, and the economy doesn't come crashing down—surprise, surprise. It turns out that all the predictions of Australia shutting down from the big business lobby, from the Minerals Council and from those opposite were total nonsense. So what happens next? Given all these gains for wages and job security, what happens if the Liberals and Nationals get into government again? Well, don't take my word for it; look at what they're saying themselves. When the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, was asked on Sky News if they would to repeal these laws he said, 'Yes, we will.' The shadow Treasurer, Angus Taylor, said he may have a package of repeals in this area if he gets into government. Luke Howarth, the shadow Assistant Treasurer, said, on the closing the loopholes bills, 'We're going to get rid of this stuff when we come in.' That's a direct quote. Rights for casuals, rights for labour hire workers, rights for gig workers and truck drivers, and protections against wage theft and industrial manslaughter are all on the chopping block when those opposite get back in. It'll be back to the bad old days. The only way to keep wages up is to keep the Liberals and Nationals out. Arts and Music Festivals Industry 35 12:55 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise today to call on the government to step in and help our artists and musicians, who are feeling the real brunt of the cost-of-living crisis. We've just heard the urgent and breaking news that Splendour in the Grass has been cancelled. This is another festival in Australia which is unable to go ahead because of all the associated pressures and costs. It is another festival in a long list of those that have had to be cancelled by organisers over only the last few months: Groovin the Moo, the Falls Festival, the Vintage Vibes Festival, ValleyWays, the Coastal Jam Festival and the Pitch Festival, and, of course, we know Dark Mofo has had its troubles. They've all been cancelled, delayed or disrupted, and while people may think that this is just some type of entertainment that can fall by the wayside, I want to remind the government and the Minister for the Arts, Mr Burke, that arts and music are such an important part of what makes life great. It is also an important part of our economy. As festival organisers have to make the hard decisions, day after day, week after week, month after month, to cancel these events, they do so knowing that they're putting thousands of people out of work, that they're keeping money from flowing into small and regional communities right across the country and that that injection into those local economies is just not going to come. We know that we are in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, and when we're dealing with the struggles of families and individuals who are weighing up whether they can afford their skyrocketing rents, their inflated supermarket prices and their increased mortgage payments, we know that people just don't have the extra cash to buy that ticket to a music festival, no matter how much they would like to. But this is about people's jobs and we need the government to step in and support the music and festival industry urgently. Because of today's decision to cancel Splendour in the Grass, thousands of people will be out of work. Thousands of people—artists who were involved in this festival or hospitality workers who would have kept the festival going—will be scratching around, thinking about how they're going to pay their bills. Tourism and accommodation industry workers will be dumbfounded by this decision today. It is another festival biting the dust because there is not enough support from the government. I've written to the minister about this and about the previous festivals being cancelled. I have urged the minister to put in this year's budget a relief package or an assistance package for our music industry and our festivals industry. It is an important part of our culture, an important part of our regional and rural economies and an important part of our overall national economy. Musicians are workers too. Artists' jobs are real jobs. The tradies that put these festivals together need certainty. The hospitality workers deserve to know when their next pay cheque will come. And, when times are tough, Australians young and old know how important the arts are to us as a community to get us through. The festivals and the musicians were there for us during the bushfires, they were there during the floods and they copped the brunt during COVID. It's time we gave them a hand now. Digital ID Bill 2023 35

Digital ID Bill 2023

13:00 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Life is about to change for every Australian. As much as Senator Gallagher seeks to downplay the significance of introducing one central digital identifier for each and every Australian, the reality is that this is the most significant legislation I've seen in my time in the Senate. It's the glue that holds together the digital control agenda by which every Australian will be controlled, corralled, exploited and then gagged when they speak or act in opposition. The Digital ID Bill will be misused because this bill is written to be misused. The government knows that digital ID will be compulsory by the device of preventing access to government services, banking services, air travel and major purchases for any Australian who does not have a digital ID. The digital ID will, in effect, create a live data file of your movements, purchases, accounts and associates, containing reference to every piece of data being held in the private and government sector as the first step in a wider agenda. Google, Facebook and other tech giants have been building huge data files on every Australian for years. Those huge data files contain every website you've visited, every post you made on their social media and everything you have ever bought online, and the keyword scan from conversations overheard by Siri and Alexa in your home are now unmasked. Until now, that data was anonymised using a unique identifier, rather than name and address, which has always been there as well. However, tech companies were not allowed to use it or to share data with others that included a person's name and address—until now. Look for the tech giants to ask for your digital ID as a requirement of using their service. The point of that exercise is to ensure they put the right name on the right data treasure trove. It's not just the tech giants heading into the data gold rush. Those reward cards you scan at the checkout have included terms and conditions to allow Coles and Woolies to make a record of every purchase you have made for years. This is why the Liberal Party has moved amendments to the Digital ID Bill to bring private corporations into this rollout earlier. All those treasure troves of data worth billions or trillions have accumulated for years illegally, and all that unrealised profit just sitting there has been too much of a temptation for the Liberals and Nationals to resist, and they have now joined with Labor in pushing digital ID. Those listening at home may be wondering how an individual could avoid being drawn into this net of data trading and surveillance. The simple answer is: you can't. This Labor government has already passed the Identity Verification Services Bill, which makes it legal for every Australian's photo or video likeness to be used to verify that person against the database containing their biometric data. Biometric data simply means a digital representation of your face that allows for instantaneous electronic matching. Just days after that bill passed, the first thing the government did was to send an email to people with a myGov ID to update their myGov record by providing a facial scan on their phone. Yes, that really happened. This is what these people are doing to you. This is not voluntary. Ten million Australians have a myGov ID. Most of those were forced into it to access Centrelink benefits. It's cruel. There are another two million Australians who were forced to get a myGov ID to register as a company director, despite the director identity enabling legislation not even mentioning myGov. The government did it anyway! The database the government is using for data surveillance is the national driver's licence database which has 17 million records—everyone who has, or has had, a driver's licence. This government doesn't need an excuse to further digital control for everyday Australians. Socialists love control. Socialism needs control. For socialism to exist, there must be control. The government knows control will be used by government to identify people who say mean things on social media to speed up enforcement of our new laws against saying home truths to crazy or dishonest people. No hiding behind anonymous accounts or false addresses; you can expect a knock on your door at home, work or school, as we're seeing happening in other countries with digital identity already in place. Only by being able to keep tabs on citizens 24/7 can the government possibly hope to introduce the wealth heist they have planned. Anyone viewing this topic for the first time can see the detail of what I'm talking about on my website. The committee report on the digital ID bill was a travesty. The committee made a recommendation to pass the bill which was simply not supported by the evidence they received during the inquiry. Witness after witness testified that this rancid evil bill failed to protect privacy, failed to establish that the ID would be voluntary, failed on human rights grounds and failed on technical grounds. One blackout, and the whole thing comes crashing down. Yet all these valid criticisms from leading organisations who, unlike the government, know what they're talking about were simply ignored. Renewable Energy 36 13:05 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Our government is committed to unlocking the jobs of the future, and we're also committed to a future made in Australia. We're doing that right now in regional Queensland. A few weeks ago, I was in Townsville to talk about our future in green energy and our future in manufacturing. Of course, many senators around this chamber would know that Townsville, and particularly regional Queensland, has a proud manufacturing history. Thanks to Labor governments, we've built trains in Townsville, we've built trains in Maryborough and we have a proud manufacturing history, which means that we have many jobs located in regional Queensland. A few weeks ago, I was at Aurizon, one of the major train organisations there, to talk about an investment that our government is making, a $9.4 million investment through ARENA into Aurizon, Australia's largest freight hauler, and their battery partner Alta Battery Technology, so that those organisations can work together to develop and trial a 1.8-megawatt battery electric tender, also known as a BET. I have to admit, when I was there at Aurizon—I'm used to seeing traditional mechanics and people talking about manufacturing in the traditional way. But this was a really exciting partnership between a green-energy battery company and Aurizon, a haulage company, coming together to develop this new world-first technology. The BET will power a diesel electric locomotive and electric train. Aurizon estimates that the BET could eventually provide up to 50 per cent of the required power for suitable haulage routes, helping to decarbonise the company's haulage. In addition, the BET will be charged with renewable energy to provide energy to the train and further displace diesel use on their trial route. Our government, alongside companies like Aurizon in Townsville, is moving the transport sector into the future. These are opportunities that organisations out there, like Aurizon, are taking every day—and, finally, they have a government that's backing them. Taking advantage of low emissions technology is all about creating more jobs, particularly in our regions. It isn't just electric trains that our government is backing. A few months ago, I stood alongside the Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy. We were in Townsville again to announce a $70 million investment in developing Townsville 's hydrogen hub—again, an incredible opportunity that we are delivering in regional Queensland, powered by moving towards these green energy opportunities. I spoke last time we were here about this development. The project is a fantastic opportunity for Townsville. It's such a huge win for the community there. Not only will it produce tonnes of green hydrogen per year but it will also create 200 direct jobs. These jobs are opportunities for local sparkies, plumbers, fitters and concreters during the construction, which is set to start next year. This is just one of the places where we're setting up these hydrogen hubs. Another one will also be included in Gladstone, another proud manufacturing town in regional Queensland. We're doing this because we know that there's a future in renewables, there's a future in green energy and Australia has the opportunity to be a renewable energy superpower. We're investing in cheaper, cleaner, greener energy and that's what we need to do to unlock the jobs of the future and bring down energy prices for all Queenslanders and all Australians. Over the medium and long term, our government's plan is to support the experts to deliver clean, cheap, reliable and resilient energy systems for all Australians. We know that our plan is critical to delivering reliable and affordable energy into the future. Australians know and Queenslanders know that under the former government we wasted a decade. We wasted a decade when it came to developing these energy opportunities. The former government had 22 failed energy policies. They were not able to land a single one. Now what are they offering Australians? Instead of talking about believing renewables now, instead of talking about delivering jobs now in the regions, those opposite under Peter Dutton are talking about—'possibly', 'maybe', 'sometime in the future', 'maybe in a decade'—building nuclear reactors all down our coastlines, including in a place that is the gateway to the southern Great Barrier Reef. Australians don't have another decade to waste. We need cheaper, cleaner energy now. That's why our government is delivering. That's why we're in Townsville announcing green energy jobs today. Alice Springs 37 13:11 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory I stand today very, very distressed at the circumstances that have taken place in my home-town community of Alice Springs. We are in such a dire situation. We have hit absolute crisis point. Leaders from my community, our mayor, has called for the Northern Territory Labor government to be dissolved and for the federal government to step in. This is how tough it has become. We have hundreds of people rioting in our streets and acting out violently. This is following a spate of violence, crime, death and bashings of 16-year-olds. It was only a couple of days ago that I stood here to condemn traditional cultural payback in my home community and the treatment of young Indigenous women. The violence has escalated to the worst we have ever seen, certainly the worst in my lifetime growing up in Alice Springs. Everybody is saying this in my community; everybody from all backgrounds, all walks of life have had enough. The problem is that this Labor government does not have what it takes to fix the situation in Alice Springs. If they were serious about it, they would have fixed it a long time ago. They would have done it at the outset. They would have done it when we were calling for investment into the primary school that takes care of our most vulnerable kids in our community, kids who are now dying in stolen vehicles on our streets. What more needs to happen? There's a double standard in this country. There's a double standard where the lives of Indigenous Australians mean nothing to this government. Stand up and pretend you care about Indigenous Australians—with all your platitudes—acknowledgements to country and respecting elders past, present and emerging; whatever the hell that means. It means nothing. The most marginalised in our community continue to suffer and now it is bleeding out into the rest of the community. Our businesses are packing up and leaving. Long-term residents are leaving. We have had a gutful. The Territory government must admit they have failed the people of Alice Springs and the Northern Territory. They have to send in the riot squad, the ADF—whoever it takes—to bring calm to our streets, to ensure that this crime does not continue. I am telling you now as a Warlpiri woman, who has lived life connected to my culture, that cultural payback exists—all the deniers out there, whether it is those in the ABC, whether it's those across the chamber who want to romanticise my culture, the culture that I live and that I've lived with all my life. This situation will get worse if it is not dealt with and dealt with immediately. How many more deaths have to occur? Does it matter? They're just Indigenous kids, right? If we had actually decided—instead of not removing Indigenous kids from dysfunctional circumstances—they might not be committing crimes, fast-tracking to incarceration and dying on our streets. The racism is the fact that they are left in dysfunction because there are weak leaders who are more worried about votes than they are about saving lives. And I have had a gutful, as has my home-town community. I've had a gutful, as has my home-town community. Prime Minister Albanese needs to go back to Alice Springs, he needs to deploy the ADF and he needs to have a presence in our community to make the people of Alice Springs feel some sense of safety once and for all. We have all experienced the violence. I have had to physically exert myself and put myself into a violent situation to stop a woman from being bashed. I've done this myself. I've been on the ground, I've been in the dirt, my home has been broken into. The member for Lingiari's home has been broken into. What does it take for some commonsense with regard to the rights of Australians? We might be Aboriginal people but we are Australian citizens and we deserve to have the same expectations and the same level of rights as any other Australian. If this was happening in the streets of Marrickville, I have no doubt that the Minister for Indigenous Australians and our Prime Minister would act very swiftly because, ultimately, their votes would be what's important to them. But we're in the bush. We're out of sight and we're out of mind. Enough is enough. We need help. Do your job, Labor. Higher Education: Practical Placements, Building and Construction Industry 38 13:16 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory This morning I had the pleasure of hosting a breakfast with academics, workers, students, the think tank Per Capita and the Australian Services Union to launch a new report and talk about the urgent need to start paying students for compulsory university placements. I recognise the work of fellow senators and members in the other place on this important issue over many years. We need to end placement poverty and we need to end it now. Expecting students to do hundreds of hours, and in some cases over a thousand hours, of unpaid placements—the equivalent of six months unpaid work—is completely unsustainable. We heard this morning from Eli, a student at Newcastle University, about her and her friends having to skip meals. Students in this country shouldn't go hungry training to be the teachers, nurses, social workers and doctors we so desperately need. Adding to the financial pressures on students, often these placements are required to be undertaken full-time and away from the student's home base. This means additional housing and transport costs and lost income from paid work. Thankfully, this was recognised in the recent Universities Accord. As you would know, the final report recommended that the Australian government work with higher education providers and employers to introduce payment for unpaid placements including government financial support for placements in the areas of nursing care and teaching. There's an opportunity to start this now. Minister Clare has sent some encouraging signals but on budget night six weeks from now I will be looking to see if this is backed up with immediate funding from the government to start rolling this out in the second half of the year. We talk about the importance of these workers and the importance of more of these workers in the future. Let's back it up with action and look after them. Tradies in Australia deserve to be paid for work they've done. Too often and for far too long in this country we see big construction businesses bankroll their operations off the back of subcontractors. Subbies miss out on getting paid when these companies go bust. The rate of insolvencies in Australia continues to climb. In the second half of last year, we saw a 37 per cent increase in insolvencies, and more than a quarter of those were construction businesses. This trend has continued this year. It is particularly acute here in the ACT. Over the last few years, there's been a sharp increase in insolvencies. Two building companies have collapsed in the last week alone. On Tuesday, 10 subcontractors came to parliament to speak up. They're not the first to come here, but I'm hoping that we will begin to listen. The government is making bold announcements about delivering 1.2 million homes over the next five years. Who's going to build those homes? Who is going to build them if we aren't actually looking after the tradies that build them? Fighting back tears, subbie Antony Lloyd said: 'I'm working very hard and it's taking a very big mental toll on my family and my mental health. It's disgusting. It's just something needs to be done. I call on all the politicians to take me seriously, because you will not have a construction industry, you will not have workers in the industry in years to come.' It's time someone in this government stood up and took responsibility for this issue and did something about properly protecting subcontractors. They are not asking for special treatment; they are just asking to ensure that they are paid for work they have already done. We've seen the government criminalise wage theft. Where is the movement for tradies? Where is the same urgency, the same bill, that protects tradies' right to simply get paid for work they've already done? It's time that both major parties took this seriously and stood up for tradies across the country. Australian Law Reform Commission 38 13:20 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria I rise today to speak about the recommendations by the Australian Law Reform Commission on religious discrimination. These recommendations are an egregious attack on people of faith. That's what they are. It must be rejected. All of their recommendations must be rejected by everyone here in this chamber. How dare the ALRC suggest that the state dictate to religious people which views on human sexuality are acceptable and which views are not acceptable? Who died and made the ALRC the Pope? How dare the ALRC encourage politicians to interfere in the staffing of religious organisations, dictating who they can and can't employ? These recommendations represent a massive overreach by the states. But they are worse than that. They are a full frontal attack on a human rights. If people are not free to follow their own conscience when it comes to sexuality and gender, then they are not free at all. And if people are not free to associate with those with whom they share common values and ethics, then in what sense does freedom of association exist at all? It doesn't exist. If senators value freedom of religion and freedom of association, they will agree with me that the ALRC report 142 must be condemned and rejected. The Liberal Party's own statement of belief declares their support for 'freedom of thought, worship, speech and association'. Their statement of belief declares these things to be the most basic freedoms of parliamentary democracy. The ALRC recommendations don't just undermine those basic freedoms; they crucify them. If a Christian school cannot insist that its own staff are practising Christians, then in what sense does that school remain Christian? Would the Greens preselect an SUV-driving oil company executive as a candidate? Of course not, don't be silly. Would the unions appoint a free market libertarian with a background in entrepreneurship as a shop steward? No, they would not. Would the Australian Pride Network choose a heterosexual pentecostal who insists there are only two genders to work as their LGBTQIA+ minus sign, divided by sign, exclamation mark liaison manager? We all know the answer to that: they would not. So riddle me this: why are religious organisations singled out for special treatment by the ALRC? It's not a trick question and it does not require us in this place to spend hours talking about it. One-third of Australian families send their kids to religious schools because they value the ethos, ethics and values being taught. The ALRC report would make it illegal for religious schools to uphold their ethics and values. The recommendations, if enacted, would neuter religious schools and deny huge portions of the Australian community their preferred choice of education. It's wrong. It must be rejected. We in this chamber all have a set of beliefs—a way in which we see the world. When the government starts insisting that it can frame people's world view, especially on deeply held beliefs like sexuality, gender and marriage, then everyone is in danger. Today it is the Christian world view that is under attack—okay, fair enough—but it is an incredibly naive person who cheers for the interference of government in Christian schooling just because they do not like Christians. Instead, you should be asking: if the government can involve itself in the belief system of Christian organisations, who will be next? Where, if anywhere, will the line between state imposed belief and personal values be drawn? If the ALRC recommendations are not condemned then we are greenlighting government to involve itself in anyone's world view and in anyone's associations. I do not want to live in a world like that—I just don't. Join me in condemning and rejecting the Australian Law Reform Commission report and, in doing so, safeguard the rights of all Australians to their beliefs and to freely associate as they choose. Government Accountability 39 13:26 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales Here we are at the end of another session of the parliament, the summer session in the Senate. There are so many things to talk about here. We can talk about transmission lines, the plight of our farmers, the vaping bill that is coming forward—which is meant to fix all the vaping problems—freedom of religion and many things. But let's talk about competency, because that is what is missing from this parliament and from this government. We stand up and talk about identified problems, but it seems that we never have the real answers to fix them. We stand up in here and talk about housing problems—'Oh, we passed a bill and we didn't even vote for it, but—as we heard yesterday in the chamber—'how great is it to have a target.' There is no actual expectation that we are going to meet that target, but we've got a target—and 'let's just be happy we've got that'. I have a great target of taking my family on a lovely holiday to Europe and flying first class and taking them to the best places. It is not going to happen. It's just like the housing policy here. The competency to meet the aspirations does not exist with this government on anything. We talked about vaping, and we've got this 'great' bill, where we are banning vaping for the two per cent of vapes that are non-nicotine based. Tell that to the 1.2 million daily users of vapes. Nicotine vapes are already illegal. They are already regulated by the TGA. But another bill will do it! We're not fixing anything. The government is feeling good about themselves that they are talking about fixing a problem. Competency is when stuff happens—when the rubber hits the roads, when things get done—not when we pat ourselves on the back and say, 'What a great job we've done.' There is not enough competency, not enough diligence and not enough action by this government to make Australia a better place. Let's get back to basics. On energy, people want to know that when they turn the power on that it is going to be there and it is not going to cost them their house or their grocery bill for the month to use it. But that is not what we're talking about here; we are talk about how great it is to take up 77 per cent of rural Victoria—to meet their green needs—with windfarms and solar panels and taking the rest of the land to build transmissions lines. Why? They say one megawatt of renewable power is cleaner. But you need three lots of renewable energy to replace one of dispatchable energy by coal, which we currently have. Ninety per cent of our power will disappear over the next nine years, and there is no plan for that. Tomago Aluminium, the biggest electricity user in New South Wales, is close to me in the Hunter Valley. They use 950 megawatts of energy—nearly a gigawatt. They are in the market for green energy. Are they in the market for 950 gigawatts? No, they are not. They are in the market for three gigawatts of renewables because they need that to replace what they have got. We sit over here and talk about the accountability and the transparency of this government—when you have to sign an NDA to talk to them. We talk about building houses and targets for housing we will never meet. We talk about replacing energy for cheap energy that is not cheaper. Sooner or later, the Australian people will stop worrying about what is being said and will start worrying about what is being done. When that happens, this government will come up so short it won't be funny. At home, we know that things are not easier than they were two years ago. Things are not better than they were two years ago. They've only got harder. They're only going to get worse until there is some transparency, until there is ownership of the problems and we, in this chamber, start taking responsibility for making things better rather than talking about making things better. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Thank you, Senator Cadell. It being 1.30 pm, will now move to two-minute statements. Domestic and Family Violence 40 13:30 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia Senator Cadell, of course it's got worse in two years. You've probably seen the vision on your screens, whether that was a phone or a television screen, but try living it out in everyday life and seeing it right before your eyes. Everywhere in Australia there's been an increase in domestic and family violence. There are little children in Alice Springs throwing big rocks and wielding big, metal bars and young girls and boys in violent fights in the middle of the day in plain sight in schoolyards and on streets, footy fields and public transport. The only people who don't seem to see them are the Albanese government and the ministers responsible. It's people in the Northern Territory, South Australia, Western Australia and Queensland. It's impossible to ignore, and the statistics—that's right—the data, the evidence back it up. That violence sparks retaliation. Youth crime is out of control, and so is violence. Shame on you, every single one of you, for thinking this is a race issue. This is about children's futures—little children's futures. When you're too busy wandering the streets at night, working out how to create mayhem, you're getting arrested by the police, and you're getting released by the police to do it all again. How's that for a CV when you go for a job? There are no jobs for those kids, because nobody decided to take the tough steps and intervene. You forked out hundreds of millions of dollars post the removal of those alcohol restrictions, but you haven't even asked about accountability. Why aren't the stats improved from what they were before those alcohol restrictions were released? I saw the Prime Minister jet over Alice Springs, avoiding it as much as possible, to get to Darwin— (Time expired) Parkinson's Disease 40 13:32 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania As co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Parkinson's it was my pleasure to host, along with Senator Askew, the National Summit to End Parkinson's disease last night at Parliament House. Parkinson's disease is now the fastest growing neurological disorder globally. Over 200,000 Australians are currently living with Parkinson's, with this number expected to double by 2040. Currently, there is no cure nor any way to slow it down. There is also no nationally coordinated strategy to tackle this disease—that is to say, until now, with the formation of the National Parkinson's Alliance, launched at last night's summit. For the first time, thanks to the efforts of the National Parkinson's Alliance, we now have a memorandum of understanding between all the states for a comprehensive and collaborative national plan on tackling Parkinson's disease. The significance of this to sufferers of Parkinson's and their loved ones cannot be underestimated. Until now, patients have been subjected to a postcode lottery when it comes to accessing services and support. As we heard last night, even accessing basic information on where to go after being diagnosed with Parkinson's disease has sadly, in many cases, been totally lacking. In congratulating the new alliance on their achievements so far, I must acknowledge my fellow Tasmanian Dr Harley Stanton, whose own inspirational journey after being diagnosed with Parkinson's ultimately led to the creation of this new national alliance. Over 80 people attended the summit, including clinicians, researchers, politicians and people living with Parkinson's disease as well the patron of the alliance, the Governor-General, His Excellency General the Hon. David Hurley AC DSC (Retd) and Her Excellency Mrs Linda Hurley. Last night's summit was a demonstration of unity, commitment and determination to take serious national action on not only improving the lives of patients and their families but one day ending Parkinson's— (Time expired) Higher Education: Practical Placements 41 13:34 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Amidst the cost-of-living and rental crisis, placement poverty is pushing students to the absolute brink. Saddled with soaring student debt and paying ridiculously high course fees, students also have to struggle with the burden of working hundreds of hours without pay in mandatory placements. Students who are already struggling often have to work all the time to save up for placements. Some have taken a year off university just so they can save up to do a placement. Working around the clock, they are too exhausted to learn and many are forced to drop out. Placements should be designed to benefit student learning, not exploit their labour with onerous hours and conditions without any payment. As James from Students Against Placement Poverty has said: Industries are relying on the unpaid labour of students, who are then paying universities for the privilege of being exploited. It's the most basic expectation that students, like everyone else, are paid for the work that they do. Education is a basic right, and students should be guaranteed a liveable income. Another budget is just weeks away, and now is the time for the government to get rid of this really cooked system and implement the Universities Accord recommendations to ensure all student placements are paid. I've long worked alongside students and staff to end placement poverty, and I thank the tireless campaigning of Students Against Placement Poverty, the National Union of Students, the Australian Council of Heads of Social Work Education, the Australian Services Union and many others. The Greens will not stop fighting for students until they are paid for mandatory placements, until all student debt is wiped and until TAFE and university are made free. South Australia: First Nations Voice to Parliament 41 13:36 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia When the votes had stopped being counted, over 64 per cent of South Australians voted no to the national Voice referendum last October. But, despite this, the South Australian state government has pushed ahead with a state based voice comprised of members of smaller bodies, which they legislated prior to the referendum. Elected members of the SA First Nations Voice to Parliament will receive annual stipends from $3,000 to $18,000, sitting fees of $206 per meeting and in some cases a director salary of up to $250,000—that's not bad in a cost-of-living crisis. This will cost South Australian taxpayers $10.3 million over the next four years while the issues that are faced by Aboriginal South Australians will remain unaddressed. Just more highly paid bureaucrats going to team meetings with PowerPoint presentations and a raft of clever buzzwords. And what will the SA voice members do? I suspect there will be a lot more acknowledgements of country and requests for government funding, but not much else. As Thomas Sowell once said: You'll never understand bureaucracies until you understand that for bureaucrats procedure is everything and outcomes are nothing. South Australians know it too. According to Labor, 26 March of last year was supposed to be a historic moment for SA, marking a special parliamentary sitting day in which members of the public were invited to gather on the steps of parliament to show their support. Barely anyone showed up. Furthermore, it's evident that most Aboriginal South Australians are not engaged in the process and doubt the SA voice will accomplish anything meaningful. In fact the results of the Far North region show that just recently seven positions were up—three males, three females, one any gender. There were 13 candidates, 305 votes and a quota of 38 to get elected to this ridiculous SA voice. Just like with the national Voice, many Aboriginal people view the SA voice as an irrelevant bureaucratic farce that needs to be repealed. Easter 41 13:38 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Easter is the holiest time on the Christian calendar. It's not just a time for us to reflect on the death and resurrection of Jesus, but it's also time for many of us to reflect on the meaning of this event in our own lives. We know that despite the struggles and suffering which are part of everyone's experience at various stages of life, there is always hope—a hope that's based on the teachings of Jesus rising from the dead. We all love tucking into hot cross buns and chocolates, and some of us big kids at heart might even pinch the occasional chocolate during an Easter egg hunt, as I will this coming weekend, but we wouldn't have the joy of Easter without that cross. The cross does teach us that we have an opportunity to give ourselves to others, just as did Jesus did to others as well. This is evident to my home state of Victoria where the Good Friday Appeal has been raising funds for the Royal Children's Hospital since 1931. The appeal is a sign of the great hope of Easter, with thousands of people volunteering their time—an incredible contribution demonstrating what the power of communities coming together really does mean. And it's all about supporting a wonderful cause. This week, as Catholics and many Christians across the world take part in Holy Week, let us hope for a fair and just world for all backgrounds and communities. Let the celebration of Easter bring peace, especially to those who are suffering physically and emotionally. I wish you and your families a happy Easter. Please drive safely on the roads. As we say in our family: 'Buona pasqua a tutti'—Happy Easter to you all. Digital ID Bill 2023 42 13:39 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland One Nation opposes digital ID. Labor and its allies, the coalition and the Greens, are rushing nine laws through the Senate today with no debate or scrutiny, and One Nation opposed all of them on this basis. One of them has horrifying consequences for our future and our freedom: the Digital ID Bill 2023. This law is designed to control the Australian people. It's a step towards the 15-minute cities already being imposed in the United Kingdom, heavily penalising anyone trying to travel outside their community. This is a secretive international effort to establish a one-world government with no freedom and no capacity for dissent. Let's never forget how easily Australian governments imposed restrictions on us during the pandemic. We couldn't go anywhere without a digital vaccination certificate. Our freedom of speech was suppressed by government and by tech, and it continues in social media content. I will call it out the way I see it, as I always have done. Digital ID is the first step towards these restrictions being imposed on us permanently. Last year, because I was a senator, I was not allowed to exchange Australian currency for euros or British pounds, like every other Australian. UK political leader Nigel Farage had his bank account closed because activists disagreed with his views. He was debanked. All of your digital data will be owned by governments. You will have no physical proof you own anything, including your home. It is happening now and has been happening for years. We've seen how insecure this data always is. There were nine breaches of Australians' personal data in March 2024 alone. Your new oppressors will tell you digital ID is in your best interest, that it will make things easier and that it will protect you from bad people, and all it will cost is your freedom and right to privacy. As Klaus Schwab said, 'You will own nothing and— (Time expired) Brough, Councillor Thomas 42 13:42 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia In a recent City of Albany council meeting on 27 February this year, Councillor Thomas Brough, a highly regarded councillor and emergency medicine doctor, briefly commented on the funding of the recent pride festival held in Albany, sharing his concerns regarding issues raised with him by constituents. In doing so, Councillor Brough essentially asked the council to satisfy itself that there are no persons connected with the Albany event that would support the views of some pride event organisers in other jurisdictions around the world who advocate for minor-attracted persons to be included as a supported group as part of the LGBTQIA+ community. Following this, the ABC in its reporting ran the headline 'Albany councillor Thomas Brough slammed for homophobic comments during week of pride'. The ABC selectively presented Councillor Brough's comments to provide a very lopsided and misleading characterisation of an otherwise upstanding councillor that Albany constituents can be proud of. The Albany Advertiser continued the vilification by publishing an opinion piece from a gay activist on 14 March which falsely asserts that Councillor Brough was blaming gays for child sexual abuse, even though the ABC and the Albany Advertiserhave been provided with evidence that there are numerous LGBTQIA+ activists such as Professor Gary Dowsett, who was the deputy director of the Australian Research Centre on Sex, Health and Society for 22 years, who have openly campaigned for adults having sexual relations with consenting children to be normalised and viewed as just another sexual orientation. Councillor Brough has every right to raise concerns from his constituents who are concerned with the ever-advancing march of the radical left. However, in no way was Councillor Brough attempting to disparage members of the LGB community. He was simply raising the concerns that his constituents have shared. Women in Science 42 13:44 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I'm proud to be a member of a government that believes in science and especially one that supports women in science. In today's tech driven world, STEM skills are vital, and that's why our government initiated the diversity in STEM review, which is aimed at eliminating barriers in STEM education and workplaces and at addressing the gender pay gap. Recently I met women leading the charge in STEM. Doctors Marina Jelinic and Sarah Lensen are driving progress in cardiovascular biology and IVF research. While doctors Emma Watson and Victoria Wansink are making strides in medicinal chemistry and microbiology respectively. We spoke about the challenges of doing your PhD and juggling a competitive career field with care-giving duties. The dedication of these fantastic women is driving progress, shaping our future and highlighting the talent we have right here in Australia. We are committed to boosting diversity in STEM, creating more opportunities for Australians to thrive in well-paid roles. But, despite progress, only 15 per cent of STEM jobs are held by women. So it's great to see the National Health and Medical Research Council meet its 50-50 funding targets through the Investigator Grants program, giving more women the opportunity to excel in research. There is still so much more to do. We need to keep challenging stereotypes surrounding STEM careers, and Labor is committing to do just that. We are pushing for diversity and inclusion, crucial steps in building a strong, homegrown, STEM workforce. Our vision is clear: we are crafting a future, made in Australia, powered by innovation and enriched by the diverse talents of our workforce. World Water Day 43 13:45 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia World Water Day was on March 22, a global event to celebrate water and to raise awareness of the two billion people living without access to safe water. The theme for 2024 was 'water for peace', focusing on the critical role that water plays in the stability and prosperity of the world. We understand water to be intrinsically linked to Indigenous women's safety, wellness and leadership. Water is necessary for human survival, but for First Nations communities it holds spiritual and cultural significance as well. It is a living spirit, sacred to First Nations people because it gives life and it is used in many ceremonies. First Nations women have traditional and inherent roles as water carriers and protectors of traditional lands and waterways. As a proud First Nations woman, I understand that making real systemic change and ensuring First Nations women's safety always begins with water, land and ceremony. As stewards of the land and the waterways, we are at the forefront of that action. The right to safety for water protectors must be insured at all levels of government, whether it is local, state, national or international. Throughout history, Indigenous women have cared for the environment, our Mother Earth, because we know that when she is safe and well and at peace so too are we. Our teachings show that we are part of the environment and the world around us, not separate from it. We must restore harmony and live in balance with Mother Earth because we are all related and we are all responsible for caring for her. Just as our ancestors ensured that our lands and waters were cared for, we must ensure that we are cared for and restore balance with Mother Earth for each of us and for our grandchildren's children. First Nations women lead differently. We lead from the heart. We lead from the community perspective, embedding cultural understandings and Indigenous world views from the ground up. As First Nations women, we strive to protect First Nations women's safety and the safety of our Mother Earth, grounded in the strength of our culture, and we strive to continue the healing and wellness that ceremony, land and water-based practices bring. Albanese Government 43 13:48 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria The Albanese government has never seen a tax it did not want to flirt with. And it has never met a tax it did not want to take home. Of course, the Australian public do not take kindly to being cheated on. Retaining the affection of the people means that you have to be subtle about your multiple affairs with levies, excises, duties, tolls and, of course, taxes. The Prime Minister and his Treasurer have become experts at denying the taxation lipstick on their collar. They will look the Australian people straight in the eye, promising to do good, while reaching around behind them and stealing their wallets out of their back pockets. They will protest that, 'Our plan hasn't changed', by which they mean they are not yet ready to announce their changed plans. They will insist, 'That is not on the table', which we know means that it is being hidden under the table for a more opportune time. As the two-year anniversary of our relationship with the federal Labor Party approaches, the Australian public is a jilted lover, sick of being strung along by a government that promises the world while only looking out for itself. Senator Scarr 282997 And they never pick up the bill. Senator BABET 300706 Exactly. They never pick up the bill. The public does not believe the PM's promises of fidelity. No-one takes seriously his commitment or faithfulness. Soon the Australian people will kick this unfaithful government to the kerb to seek another that they can trust. But can they really trust the Labor Party? Can they trust my friends to the Right here? I don't know about that one, because, you know what? They are also economic vandals. Hopefully they can do better next time around. Tasmania Football Club 44 13:49 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I stand here today as a proud foundation member of the Tasmania Football Club and very proud to wear the badge of that football club on my lapel. I would like to lend my congratulations to Grant O'Brien and his team on the board for such a successful launch last week. All things in my office stopped last week at 6 pm to watch the launch of the club and the launch of the foundation membership, which at the price of $10 is pretty good deal, although I did option up and go for the $15 version and got all four stickers. I'm a big spender! Mind you, there are 10 other members of my household who also have memberships, unlike so many others, but there are now close to 170,000 people who have joined the club. I think that's an extraordinary signal of how important people around this country—and 46 other nations, I might add—see Tasmania's entry into the AFL. Now it's important for us to do all the things to ensure that our team has the best possible chance and facilities to be successful. I want to liken where the AFL club is today to the JackJumpers, Tasmania's new third-year team in the National Basketball League. They play tomorrow night in the third game of the series for the championship. We clearly wish them all the best. There was controversy when there was money spent on their new stadium in Hobart, and today you can't get a ticket. So I would urge Tasmanians to back Tassie, to back the team and to back support for the new facilities. Public Services 44 13:52 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania Exeter market is now one of the biggest markets in Tassie. When I was there earlier this month, there were 190 stores and thousands of people. It's not a tourist market; it's a community market. People travel from all over the region to visit, shop and meet up with friends. I set up a stall, because I'm one of their friends, so people can have their say. They can pop a ball into a tube to show what issues they would fix if they had a magic wand. The tubes for housing, cost of living and health were overflowing by the end of the day. I met Michael, a young bloke who has to wait nine months to see a psychiatrist for help with a severe mental health condition. I spoke with Shirley, a retired lady with several chronic health conditions. She has difficulties getting medical appointments when she needs them. And there was Kate, a mum who is desperate because her autistic son is falling behind at school. The teacher is managing a large classroom with no support and has no time for her son's specific needs. Our friend Annabelle travelled down from Latrobe to give us all cupcakes. Thanks, Annabelle, you are the best! It's the basics people that want to talk about. They want us to understand that politicians and bureaucrats are letting them down. They want to talk about the daily struggle to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads; about getting a good education and good start in life for their kids; about getting to see a GP—the basics on which we all rely. We have one of the richest countries in the world, but we can't provide citizens with these basics. It's not good enough. The people I spoke to want to see politicians working together to fix issues. They want to feel like they are being heard and listened to. At least, that's what the people at the Exeter market tell me. Guess what? I listened. Tasmania State Election 44 13:54 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania In the latest Tasmanian election Jacqui Lambie Network candidates ran on transparency and integrity. What we learned is that Tasmanians do not trust the Liberal and Labor parties any more. If you look at the results of the last federal election, I don't think Australians trust the major parties either. Independent candidates who on integrity and transparency were elected in record numbers. This government ran on accountability and transparency and integrity. You promised the Australian people that if they voted for you you would deliver. All we have seen here since you were elected is bills being rammed through with little or no consultation, as usual dropping it on us at the last minute. When the Tasmanian Liberals were attacking the Labor opposition leader for not revealing whom she spoke to about the AFL stadium, the Attorney-General of Tasmania, Guy Barnett, said: Hiding behind the pretence of confidentiality simply doesn't cut it. This is about honesty. This is about integrity. This is about telling the truth. He actually managed to say this with a straight face. What Mr Barnett didn't say was that it was his government that signed a deal with the AFL under the cover of darkness. They didn't consult with Treasury, TasWater or key stakeholders. It was also the Tasmanian Liberal government who fought tooth and nail to prevent the Tasmanian people from knowing which 22 people and eight institutions face potential adverse findings by the Commission of Inquiry into the Tasmanian Government's Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in Institutional Settings. Meanwhile, back in the federal parliament, the Albanese Labor government has resisted multiple freedom of information requests to disclose the Prime Minister's diary. The Labor government that was promising integrity and transparency is getting stakeholders to sign an unprecedented number of non-disclosure agreements, and this means that the government will show these stakeholders legislation but they're not allowed to discuss it with anyone else. I would recommend to every Liberal and Labor MP that you go to bed every night with a copy of the 2022 election results. Remember that was your lowest primary vote yet, and there'll be more to come if you continue on this road. Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 45

Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024

13:55 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I don't think that since PJ Keating was Prime Minister and referred to this chamber as 'unrepresentative swill' has a minister shown such disdain for the processes of this Senate. I saw Minister O'Neil, the Minister for Home Affairs, interviewed before I came to make this two-minute statement. She was throwing a tantrum because this Senate—we, the senators—have decided that we want time to scrutinise her most recent migration amendment bill. She wants parliament to get on and do its job. Well, I've got news for Minister O'Neil. Our job as the Senate—as a house of review and scrutiny—is not just to come in here like a herd of sheep and vote for her legislation simply because she presented it. Our job is to scrutinise and review that legislation. Maybe we should have a work experience program in the Senate. Minister O'Neil can come and do work experience in my office and see how the Senate works. She could see how the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee works in terms of giving stakeholders an opportunity to give their views on legislation—because they're the ones who are going to be impacted by them. Minister O'Neil, during her work experience in my office, can actually come along to the Scrutiny of Bills Committee and see how that committee scrutinises legislation and how it impacts the rights and liberties of everyday Australians. I'm sorry, Minister O'Neil, that we are such an inconvenience for you, but the checks and balances provided by this place, this house of review, are an absolutely integral part of our parliamentary democracy. Tertiary Education 45 13:58 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland We're bringing Australia's universities closer to students living in regional, rural and remote areas with the expansion of our Regional University Study Hubs network. From King Island to Arnhem Land and down to Victor Harbor, these 10 new study hubs are part of our $66.9 million commitment to increase access to university by establishing more hubs across Australia. A lack of access is something that is often raised with me when I'm travelling throughout regional Queensland, so I'm thrilled that Longreach, Innisfail, Warwick and Chinchilla are all set to have hubs established within their town over the next 12 months. The education reforms that Labor pursued in the 1980s and 1990s boosted the number of students finishing high school from 40 per cent to almost 80 per cent. Now, the Albanese government seeks to do the same with our tertiary sector. The Universities Accord report recommends that 80 per cent of the workforce will need a university or VET qualification by 2050. We're currently sitting at 60 per cent. The report made it clear that, if we're going to have the workforce of the future, we need to hit that 80 per cent target. These graduates won't just come from the cities or suburbs. If they do, we won't hit that target. We need students in our regions to study, graduate and continue to live there, and that starts with improving access through our Regional University Study Hubs network. If you're a student from the regions, you're not only less likely to finish high school but also you're less likely to go to TAFE or university. In our cities almost one in two young people in their 20s and 30s have a university degree. These hubs are the first step in our plan to bridge this gap in opportunity. They reaffirm our government's belief that everyone deserves a world-class education, no matter who they are or where they live. An Albanese government will be rolling out 10 more of these regional university study hubs in country areas and 14 in suburban areas. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Chisholm. We'll now move to question time. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 45 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Labor Government 45 14:00 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. In a press conference on 25 November 2022, the Prime Minister said: 'We're operating as a mature, orderly government.' Minister, this week the government has tried to rush through new immigration laws with virtually no scrutiny, is engaging in secret and opaque consultation processes on religious discrimination legislation and has tried to paper over its disastrous family car tax aimed at the country's top-selling vehicles. Minister, how is this chaos and dysfunction consistent with operating as a mature, orderly government? 14:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'm pleased to take a question from Senator Cash. Senator Cash I0M Oh, demean me straight up. Excellent! Great start. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash! Senator WONG 00AOU That's a slight overreaction. I was going to say— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber! Senator WONG 00AOU I'm pleased to take a question from Senator Cash, who has, this week, teamed up with Senator Shoebridge as the new, interesting political alliance. The Cash-Shoebridge, Dutton-Bandt alliance—this is new in Australian politics. There was a time when the party of government— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Seriously, within a few seconds I had to call the Senate to order, and then the Senate immediately went crazy. So let's have some order and some respect while Senator Wong answers the question. Senator WONG 00AOU Thank you, President. As I said, it does say something, doesn't it, when you have the Dutton opposition lining up with Mr Bandt and Senator Cash lining up with Senator Shoebridge in order to fail to ensure that Australians are kept safe. So let us be clear, because I know there are those who are more sensible on that side—I know there are—that what Senator Cash and Mr Dutton, in their desire to team up with the Greens, have done is make sure you are standing in the way of us making Australians safer. That is what you are doing. So I want to be crystal clear about this. Senator WONG 00AOU You can yell all you like, Senator Cash, but this opposition, led by Mr Dutton and pressed by Senator Cash—I know there are others on your side, because of conversations that were had, who were more sensible. I know that you are standing in the way because you think you will win a political fight of Australians being safer. So let us be clear: that is what you are doing. And after you get out of this place and after all of fire and the victory with the Greens has faded, the hard reality is that the Liberal Party and the National Party are standing in the way of Australians being more safe. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, first— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Ayres. Order across the chamber. Senator Cash, first supplementary? 14:03 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia On 12 February 2022, in relation to religious discrimination, the Prime Minister said: 'What we will have is a proper consultation process.' Minister, many religious groups are either still in the dark about what the religious discrimination legislation actually contains or, alternatively, have been gagged by the Attorney-General of this country from talking about it. How is this a proper consultation process, and why won't the government just release the legislation for all to see? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Cash, you've just asked your question. There's so much disorder I can't even call the minister to respond, so be orderly across the chamber. Minister Wong. 14:04 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'm just waiting for Senator Cash to finish, President. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, you have the opportunity— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, order! Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Watt and Senator Wong! Senator Cash, it is my role to assign the order. I did not call you. Minister Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU It's an interesting approach for the deputy leader of the opposition here in this place. But I would again say this. Whether it's on the cost of living, on tax cuts, on energy, on Medicare, on cheaper medicines, on ensuring the energy transition is undertaken, on delivering the first budget surplus in many, many years—on all of these things we are a government that does take very careful decisions, methodical decisions, in the interests of the Australian people, which can't be said— Senator Cash I0M It's a point of order on relevance. This question was specifically in relation to religious discrimination legislation and gagging faith leaders from talking about it. The PRESIDENT 112096 I will draw the minister to the question. Senator WONG 00AOU There was a lot of hyperbole, as there often is, when Senator Cash gets very worked up. There was a lot of hyperbole, which I was responding to. On religious discrimination, I can recall this debate being a very difficult debate, including inside the coalition— Senator Cash I0M We released the legislation. Senator WONG 00AOU Well— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, second supplementary? 14:06 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Will the minister admit that the chaos, dysfunction and total lack of transparency on display this week is emblematic of a prime minister who has made many promises to the Australian people but, time and time again, has failed to keep them? 14:06 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The answer is no. But if I might finish the response on religious discrimination—because it's a serious topic, and it's an issue which was difficult inside the coalition, and I acknowledge Senator Sharma and others, including in the other place, and former members who took a position of conscience on those issues. These are challenging issues that need to be addressed respectfully and carefully, and we are seeking to do that. And I would remind you, Senator Cash, that you were part of a government that failed to deliver on religious discrimination precisely because you were not prepared to deal with it in a dignified and principled and respectful way, and you sought to play politics, just as you are now and as we know you always will, Senator Cash. You and Mr Dutton—we know that you will always go the lowest bit of the road whenever you can. (Time expired) Economy 47 14:08 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Today's monthly consumer price index indicator shows inflation remains steady at 3.4 per cent in the year to February 2024. So, Minister, this number demonstrates that the government are making progress in our fight against inflation. Can the minister please outline to the Senate why these numbers are an important marker of how our economy is tracking? How will the numbers factor into considerations that you and the government are undertaking as you finalise the May budget? 14:08 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Pratt for the question and for her interest in the budget and in our nation's economy. We can see from today's monthly CPI data that it does show that inflation was steady at 3.4 per cent in the year to February 2024. This was below market expectation, and inflation remains at its lowest level in over two years. So we are seeing inflation moderate and continue to moderate. We've got real wages growing. We've got low unemployment. Monthly inflation is much lower than the 6.1 per cent it was at the election, and quarterly inflation is now at 0.6 per cent, a third of the 2.1 per cent we saw just before the election. This data shows that inflation was higher under the former government and it continues to moderate under us. We are seeing— Senator McKenzie 207825 It is not! Senator GALLAGHER ING It does, Senator McKenzie; if you look at the data, it does. We are seeing a return to real wages growth and we are seeing near-record levels of low unemployment. When we look at the budget, we see that our gross debt is lower, our real spending growth is lower and inflation is moderating across the economy. We are not complacent, though, and we recognise that people are still doing it tough. We've got challenges facing our economy, with global uncertainty slowing growth, and we know and recognise those persisting cost-of-living pressures that exist across households right across Australia. Our budget will be one that balances the fight against inflation with the need to grow our economy; it will look at continuing relief from cost-of-living measures without adding to inflation; it will of course have those tax cuts rolling out from 1 July; and it will be looking at the opportunities, whether it be in energy transmission, human capital or the care economy, with a focus on investment for a new generation of growth and prosperity. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pratt, first supplementary. 14:10 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Thank you, Minister. Cost-of-living pressures are front of mind for Australians. You and the Treasurer have said that the tax cuts will form the centrepiece of the May budget, putting more of the money that people earn back into their own pockets. How will the federal budget continue to support Australians facing pressures on their household budgets? 14:11 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thanks, Senator Pratt, for the supplementary. The senator is right: Labor's tax cuts will be the centrepiece of the May budget. All Australian taxpayers will get a tax cut, because we want Australians to keep more of what they earn. However, we also recognise that cost-of-living pressures are still being felt right around the country, and we will do what we can responsibly in the May budget to support and ease some of those cost-of-living pressures. We will of course look at how we target any extra help and whether it is responsible and affordable across the budget. We've already invested in making electricity bills cheaper, with the Energy Bill Relief Fund; making medicines cheaper; making it cheaper and easier to see a doctor; making child care cheaper; expanding parental leave; building more social and affordable homes; fee-free TAFE; and wages rising at the fastest rate in a decade, including, importantly, for minimum-wage workers. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pratt, second supplementary. 14:12 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Thank you for that insight into the important work being done by the Albanese government in preparation for the budget. Can the minister please explain why it is so important to have responsible economic management for the people of my home state of Western Australia? 14:12 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Pratt for her supplementary. In the senator's state of Western Australia, 1.5 million Western Australians will get a tax cut from 1 July under Labor's tax plan, with 1.2 million of them getting a bigger tax cut. Ninety per cent of Western Australian women who are taxpayers will get a bigger tax cut. The average WA taxpayer will receive a tax cut of $1,504, which provides an additional $800 extra going into their pocket than they would have received under the former government's plan. Of course, we are in a position to reshape these tax cuts because of our careful economic management that we have undertaken since coming to government. I'm proud of the work that's been done. We have gross debt lower than when the Liberals were in charge; we have real spending growth lower; inflation is lower; and, of course, we have delivered the first budget surplus in 15 years. Economy 48 14:13 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. As we conclude this parliamentary session, the last before the budget week, Australians continue to do it tough under the Albanese government. Under Labor, productivity is down 5.4 per cent over the past 18 months; real net disposable income per capita has fallen 7.5 per cent; personal income tax collection under Labor is 23 per cent higher than it was before the election; income from self-employment has fallen by 8.4 per cent over the year; almost one million Australians are now working two or three jobs; petrol prices are up 4.1 per cent for the year; education costs are up 5.1 per cent; and insurance costs are up 16.5 per cent—all this while Labor keeps spending more. Minister, as these figures demonstrate, life isn't easy under Mr Albanese and it's getting harder for many. Why are Australians worse off today than they were before the last election? 14:15 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'm very happy to answer a question about economic performance. I'm happy to answer a question about an unemployment rate of 3.7 per cent and record numbers of new jobs since coming to office. I'm very happy to answer this question, to remind those opposite that we have the lowest gender pay gap on record and record women's participation. Senator Birmingham H6X They're doing it tough! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham! Senator WONG 00AOU I'm happy to answer a question about the fact that we are ensuring that wages are moving again. A party that opposed increases to the minimum wage— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath and Senator McKenzie! Senator WONG 00AOU A party that opposed increases to the minimum wage for the lowest-paid workers wants to talk to us about Australians doing it tough! I mean, give us a break! This is the party that opposed our plan to ensure that we delivered energy price cost relief, which they voted against. But they want to talk to us about Australians doing it tough! Australians must look at you and think: 'What a joke! What a joke!' You talk about the cost of living and yet you opposed every measure that we have put in place to deliver cost-of-living relief to working families. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Colbeck! Senator WONG 00AOU And then you have the gall to come in here and say: 'Oh, woe is us! I know we don't want increases to the minimum wage. Oh, woe is us! I know we don't want cost relief for energy prices. Oh, woe is us! I know we don't want cheaper medicines. But it's really bad, this cost-of-living crisis.' Really? You have no credibility when it comes to the economy and you have no credibility when it comes to the cost of living. You voted in here, over and over again, against every measure this government has in place to address the cost of living and you come and cry crocodile tears, when everyone in Australia knows those opposite always— (Time expired) Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Just a moment, Senator Birmingham, please resume your seat, I will come back to you. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt! To all of those senators who I called by name, who were yelling across the chamber—including you, Senator McKenzie—you're being incredibly disrespectful. Senator Birmingham, your first supplementary. 14:17 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia As members and senators leave this place today, a household with an average mortgage of $750,000 is paying $24,000 a year more in interest than they were when Labor was elected, with no sign of relief on the horizon. An opposition senator interjecting— Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Mr Albanese has broken promise after promise, including his promise to cut electricity prices by $275 and his insistence that he wouldn't touch stage 3 tax cuts. Has the prime minister forgotten his promise of cheaper mortgages and cheaper electricity? Has he? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Birmingham has the right to ask his question in silence. An honourable senator interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I beg your pardon. They needed to be quietened down anyway! And, Senator O'Sullivan, I think that was you who whistled before. If it wasn't, I apologise, but whistling in the Senate is absolutely inappropriate. Senator O'Sullivan 283585 I can't whistle! The PRESIDENT 112096 If it wasn't you, Senator O'Sullivan, I apologise. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Someone on my left whistled; It is absolutely inappropriate. I'm not going to stop and call the chamber to order every few minutes. A government senator interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my right as well! I'm waiting to call Senator Wong. Minister Wong. 14:19 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia As we leave this Senate chamber, one truism still holds true, which is that the Liberals always want you to work more for less. That is their position. And what other facts hold true? First, we had the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate actually complaining about the tax cuts again. That shows, doesn't it— Senator Birmingham H6X It's a broken promise! Senator WONG 00AOU Oh, it's a broken promise? Here we have one of the most important cost-of-living measures that the government has undertaken, that the parliament has backed—that you backed—and you're still complaining about it! What does that say? As we leave the Senate, we will remember that cheaper medicines are opposed by those opposite. As we leave the Senate, we will remember that energy price relief is opposed by those opposite. As we leave the chamber, increases to the minimum wage, we will remember, are opposed by those opposite. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, second supplementary? 14:20 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Financial comparison group Finder found in a recent survey that one in five Australians have no savings, 76 per cent say that they are stressed with their current financial situation, and many will run out of money to pay the mortgage by year's end. How is it that people have got it so good, as Senator Wong wants to stand here and say, and why does the Albanese Labor government have its head buried in the sand when it comes to delivering on its promise to get cost of living under control and mortgages down? (Time expired) 14:20 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia First, I want to say that we on this side absolutely and clearly understand that so many Australians are doing it tough, which is why we were so clear about the importance of putting in place a tax package which delivered a tax cut to every Australian taxpayer and delivered more to working families and to people on average incomes—something that you are still complaining about. We understand that Australians are doing it tough, which is why we wanted to put in place energy price relief, and we were opposed in that by you. We understand Australians are doing it tough, which is why we believe that people on minimum wages should have a wage increase—also opposed by you. We know Australians are doing it tough, which is why we wanted cheaper child care and fee-free TAFE and to strengthen Medicare and to strengthen bulk-billing and all of the measures that we have in place. Instead, what we are met with is continued opposition by those opposite. They are crocodile tears which are being cried on the other side. (Time expired) PricewaterhouseCoopers 50 14:21 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia My question is to the Minister for Finance, and it's about the ongoing PwC scandal. A secret legal agreement has allowed PwC International to take control of PwC Australia following the tax leaks scandal. We've learned that, for nine months now, five faceless global figures have exercised sweeping powers over the Australian firm that we were not even aware of. PwC International is hiding critical information from the parliament about who did what in the PwC scandal, making a mockery of our Senate committees and escaping real accountability. We must bring these shadowy partnerships to account and hold PwC accountable for its actions. What steps will your government take to address this appalling and disrespectful treatment of the parliament and the Australian people? 14:22 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Pocock for the question and for the work that she has been doing along with Senator O'Neill and Senator Colbeck in this space. I think initially I would say to you that the government is very interested in the work that the Senate committees are doing and is looking forward to your report and any recommendations that you have. I would say that there are, as the Senate is aware, powers within the committees to seek information, and of course I'd leave it to the committee to look at whether there is any further work that they can do there. In relation to what the government is doing, we have been doing quite a lot of work to strengthen some of our arrangements around engagement of consulting firms. We've talked about this at estimates. I think we have learnt a lot, through the PwC issue that's being examined by various Senate committees, of further work that we need to do. I would say that some of the origins of the investigations are related to a breach of a confidentiality arrangement, not a breach of procurement processes, but what it has done is lead us to look at what further work we can do to strengthen integrity within our procurement processes around the use of consultants and contractors. We've been doing that through our strategic commissioning framework and through our efforts to reduce the reliance on consultants and contractors. Some of the further arrangements that we're looking at are in relation, I think, to some of the issues that have arisen out of confidentiality and out of conflict-of-interest arrangements that may exist that we are doing further work on. We are very much looking forward to the report and to the recommendations that are going to come forward from your various inquiries. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, a first supplementary? 14:24 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia PwC International is defying requests to cooperate with Senate inquiries. They refuse to hand over the Linklaters report, which names international partners involved in the tax leak scandal and explores what they got up to. It's time to up the ante, Minister. It's time to use a bigger stick. Will your government ban PwC from all commercial interactions and work with others to ban them from all levels of Australian government? 14:25 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I think the answer to that is that we're not looking at that. We're not looking at banning them. PwC is an individual company or contractor. We are interested, in a general sense, in looking at how we can enhance the integrity of the engagement the Commonwealth has with suppliers, and we are developing a Commonwealth supply code of conduct. That will outline the behavioural standards that are expected from suppliers during procurement processes and while under contract. This is something that we're looking at prospectively. Some of the work that was done around the original PwC and Tax Practitioners Board issue, and the advice taken through that, was not about being able to end any contract with PwC. That wasn't available to the Commonwealth. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, a second supplementary? 14:26 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia Partnership structures used by the big four hide all manner of sins. They have up to 1,000 partners and are subject to very little regulatory oversight. The opaque big partnership model has failed us. Do you commit to replacing it with a more regulated corporate structure? 14:26 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Pocock for her supplementary question. This is one of the areas where I'm aware that committee inquiries are looking closely at structures, and it is one where we will await your work. We have done some thinking around it. We will certainly look for your committee's recommendations. There are a number of committee inquiries underway. We would look at any recommendations made and then provide a response. Defence Procurement: Submarines 51 14:27 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Last week the Albanese Labor government announced Australia's build partners for the conventionally armed nuclear-powered AUKUS submarines: ASC and BAE Systems. How does this demonstrate the enduring confidence the government has in Australia's and, particularly, in South Australia's shipbuilding workforce? 14:27 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank Senator Ciccone for his question, for his work as chair of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee and for his interest and engagement on national security and defence matters. He is correct. At the Osborne naval shipyards last week, the Deputy Prime Minister and I were joined by counterparts from the United Kingdom, by Ambassador Kennedy and by Premier Malinauskas. We announced that the government has appointed ASC and BAE Systems as our sovereign submarine partners to build Australia's AUKUS submarines. This will see a joint venture established which will bring together the skills, knowledge, resources and capabilities of these two partners. ASC has also been appointed the sovereign submarine partner for sustainment and maintenance of our AUKUS submarines. It will sustain the conventionally armed nuclear-powered submarines in Australia, including in the lead-up to, and throughout, Submarine Rotational Force-West in Western Australia. This is in addition to the central role ASC currently plays in sustainment and maintenance of Australian's current Collins class submarines, including the life-of-type extension to be carried out in Adelaide. I had the privilege when I was finance minister of being a shareholder minister of ASC, and I am deeply proud of the work that management and the workforce did to get that firm and that workforce to the level of expertise to deliver the outstanding outcomes that they have delivered over the years. There will be some 4,000 Australian jobs in the design phase and construction of the yard for the new submarine and 5½ thousand during the build of the submarines. Over the next years we estimate that over $30 billion will be invested in Australia's industry to deliver AUKUS. Our build and sustainment strategy is a further step in the Albanese government's commitment not only to strategic strength but also to a future made in Australia. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ciccone, a first supplementary? 14:29 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Thank you for that comprehensive answer, Minister. I do note that you have spoken, as have many others, about the increased strategic competition in our region. Why is AUKUS so critical to the peace and stability of the Indo-Pacific? 14:30 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia (—) (): Senator Ciccone is right. We do live in a much more challenging strategic environment, and responsible governments do have to look at what is the best way to ensure Australia's interest in a rapidly changing world. Our belief is that Australia is best served where we have strategic balance or strategic equilibrium in our region. We are also always motivated to seek peace and stability in our region. In that vein, we are open and transparent about our acquisition of nuclear powered conventionally armed submarines and, as the IAEA director-general has welcomed, we believe these submarines will transform our ability to deter or respond to any future threats and, most importantly, to change the calculus for any potential aggressor. Strategic balance means we must ensure that no country will ever assume that the benefits of conflict outweigh the risks. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ciccone, a second supplementary? 14:31 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria This is the last one of the week for me. With reference to the minister's comments about her visit with the Minister for Defence to the Osborne Naval Shipyard last week with the UK's foreign and defence secretaries and US ambassador, Caroline Kennedy, how is Australia working with our US and UK counterparts on AUKUS? 14:31 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia (—) (): Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom are self-evidently united by many things including shared values and our shared interest—although, I can say, after attending a football game, that maybe AFL is not one of them. We all want to promote a free and open Indo-Pacific in a region which is peaceful, stable and prosperous, and the AUKUS submarines, by design, will incorporate technology from all three nations. Australia's military and civilian personnel will embed with the US Navy and Royal Navy and, through pillar 2, AUKUS partners are deepening cooperation on a range of security and defence capabilities. We are working together to ensure each nation is equipped to defend against rapidly evolving threats. We are pleased, very appreciative, of them being able to take place in Australia, particularly the visit to Adelaide. (Time expired) Ministerial Conduct 52 14:33 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. I refer to the code of conduct for ministers, section 1.3 part (iii), published in June 2022, personally signed by the Prime Minister, which states: 'Ministers must accept that they are accountable for the exercise of the powers and functions of their office—that is, ensure that their conduct, representations and decisions … are open to public scrutiny.' Why is the Prime Minister failing to enforce this principle, deliberately withholding draft legislation from public scrutiny and requiring nondisclosure agreements be signed before stakeholders can scrutinise these proposed laws? 14:33 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia In relation to the first part of the question, yes, I acknowledge the ministerial code. I don't think the question actually went to any aspect of that other than the second part of the question, which related to draft legislation. Senator, you didn't say which draft legislation you were referring to, so I am not sure what— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator WONG 00AOU I'm not sure which legislation you refer to, Senator. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Members of the Opposition, this is not your question but, in any event, you should be listening in respectful silence. Minister Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU If it is the religious discrimination act—and I assume, given previous discussions, it is—the advice I have is this. Obviously there's been a long discussion on religious discrimination. Since 2016, there have been 10 inquiries, over 260 hearings and consultations, and 70,000 submissions. I understand that there have been targeted and confidential consultations, which is not an unusual process. The advice I have in the brief that I've been provided with is that no stakeholder has been asked to sign an NDA in relation to the religious discrimination bill. No stakeholder has been asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement. If I'm incorrect on that and on the advice I've received, I'll certainly come back to the chamber. This is a difficult bill. As you know, it has had a long period of discussion. These matters were raised by Prime Minister Turnbull, I think, originally and then by Prime Minister Morrison as well. We are conscious of the importance, on something such as religious discrimination, of trying to engage in this discussion in a way which is respectful and in which we seek to bring Australians together. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, first supplementary? 14:36 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I refer to commentary about the so-called Nature Positive Plan by economic expert Robert Gottliebsen, published in the Australian newspaper two weeks ago, which said: The Albanese government is embracing some of the worst practices of dictator-driven governments to conceal controversial environmental measures. He also referred to stakeholders being required to sign NDAs, or non-disclosure agreements, to see just part of this plan. Does the Prime Minister believe this conduct is compatible with the principles of the Code of Conduct for Ministers? 14:36 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator, you asked first about religious discrimination and now about the EPBC reform— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Hanson Senator Hanson BK6 My point of order is on relevance—I never mentioned the religious discrimination bill at all in any part of my question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Hanson. Minister Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU You're quite correct, Senator. I inferred infer that from the interjections. You nodded when they interjected, so I assumed that that was the legislation you were referring to. If you were referring to the nature positive bill—which, I think, is the EPBC reform—I understand that consultation on drafts of the new laws is continuing and that there is a broad view. We need to deal with laws which are seen by many as ineffective and inefficient—obviously, people's perspective depends on which side they are in that discussion. The advice I have is that experts from almost 100 groups are examining draft parts of the legislation to make sure that the laws will be as effective as possible, and we will keep engaging with— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, second supplementary? 14:38 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland The minister never answered that question. Actually I referred to NDAs being signed and made no reference to that whatsoever. With nine bills guillotined in the Senate today—forced through with no debate or scrutiny, and bringing the total of guillotined bills to 96 in this parliament—the Prime Minister is acting like a Third World dictator. When will the Prime Minister— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, withdraw that comment. Senator HANSON BK6 I withdraw that comment. When will the Prime Minister resign in disgrace for his failure to uphold the principles of Australian democracy and the Code of Conduct for Ministers which bears his signature? 14:38 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator, I and this government are a party that believes in democracy and participates in the democracy. We are a democratically elected government. We work with the parliament, including in this chamber— Senator WONG 00AOU Senator Ruston, if you— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, you are being incredibly disorderly. The minister is still speaking. She's got 32 seconds to go. If you have so much to say, I invite you to participate in taking note of answers. Minister Wong, did you wish to continue? Senator WONG 00AOU Thank you. We do believe in making sure this institution works effectively. We don't have a majority in this chamber. The Senate has made decisions. I know that you, on some of those occasions, were on the other side, just as we were on the other side when you voted with the previous government. I would simply make the point— Senator Watt 245759 Is something wrong, Anne? Senator Cash I0M She's being gagged. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber! Senator Cash I0M She's not allowed to talk. The PRESIDENT 112096 That's right. All of you should be listening in respectful silence during question time. That's exactly right, Senator Cash. Minister, did you finish your answer? Senator WONG 00AOU Senator, obviously I disagree with the way in which you formulated the question. We don't have the numbers in this chamber, and we work with— (Time expired) Central Australia: Community Safety 53 14:40 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. In February last year the Prime Minister announced $250 million to improve community safety in Central Australia. In February this year we learned that $10 million of that funding had been allocated for better digital connectivity in Central Australia. Minister, how did better wi-fi help protect the Alice Springs community last night? Senator McKenzie 207825 Great question! The PRESIDENT 112096 Before I call Senator Wong: I'm not going to have any interjections. Minister Wong. 14:41 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator. Obviously, Senator Gallagher might be in a position to answer in a little more detail in relation to this matter. Can I say first that violence has no place in any community in any part of Australia. The Prime Minister and the government work in partnership with the Northern Territory government, and our expectation is that that perspective—that violence is unacceptable in any community—is something that all of us can work towards. I understand that the Prime Minister has engaged with the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory and emphasised the importance of prioritising community safety. When it comes to broader issues facing Central Australia, I think—as you would know, Senator Nampijinpa Price—there are no quick fixes and no simple solutions. We have a four-year plan to improve community safety and wellbeing in Central Australia which was developed with the Aboriginal leadership group who are providing advice to the government on what will improve outcomes in Central Australia. We want to see action in partnership with the community and long-term solutions to health, education, jobs, housing and justice. In relation to the specific question about, I think, a program that had been announced and why a decision was made to allocate some of that to connectivity, I will seek advice and, if I have something further to add, I will return to the chamber or provide that advice to you. But I would say this to you: obviously connectivity is a very important part of enabling economic development and enabling the provision of services. I think we see in many parts of regional Australia that lesser connectivity leads to poorer outcomes, both social and economic. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Nampijinpa Price, first supplementary? 14:43 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Connectivity doesn't work if people are dying. I note $40 million has also been allocated for on-country learning in Alice Springs. Will that education account for parts of traditional culture, such as payback, that have contributed to the violence and disorder in Central Australia? Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I once again remind those on my left: there will be no commentary. 14:43 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia First, can I correct the record? I think I misread a brief and said that the Prime Minister had spoken to the Chief Minister. I am advised that it was in fact the minister for Indigenous affairs, so I would like to correct the record in my previous answer. In relation to the broader issue, as I said, violence is unacceptable and unacceptable in any part of Australia. Violence is unacceptable wherever it occurs, in any community. I'm also advised that the Northern Territory Chief Minister has announced extra police for Alice Springs. Senator WONG 00AOU That's the advice I've received. If there's something different, Senator, I'm very happy to listen to you. That's the advice I have received. The Northern Territory government obviously has a responsibility to ensure that community safety is prioritised, but we also need community leadership. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Nampijinpa Price, a second supplementary? 14:44 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory We agree that we need community leadership. We need leadership across the board. Will the government respond to the mayor of Alice Springs as a community leader who has requested the federal government step in and assist in restoring law and order in Central Australia? 14:45 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia We are working with the Northern Territory government hand in hand. Our expectations are clear, as are the expectations of the community. We are providing additional funding and support in the ways in which the senator is aware of, and our position is to continue working in partnership with the NT government. Telecommunications 54 14:45 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. Last week it was revealed by Channel 7's The Nightly that telecommunications companies in Victoria are charging for information desperately needed by police to search for murdered Victorian mother Samantha Murphy. Not only were they charging the police for this information; they were delaying passage of it to the police. A former homicide detective told The Nightly that police face financial, legal and technical barriers in their attempts to access phone data. The Victorian shadow police minister said: 'Delays in investigations are devastating to the families of victims and to think anyone is profiting while families suffer is appalling.' A mother is missing, and the telcos are charging the police to help find her. How shameful is that? Is the minister aware that the telecommunications companies are slow to deliver vital data that could help with police investigations? 14:46 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Lambie. I am aware of the reports that you are referring to. If those reports are true, that would of course be of great concern, I think, to all Australians. The Australian government is committed to keeping Australians safe, including working with law enforcement and working with industry to achieve that. The information provided by telecommunication carriers to emergency services is essential to keeping people safe from harm and supporting investigations. Senator Lambie, as you may be aware, there is an ability for telecommunications companies to recover the costs of providing this kind of information. That ability is provided for under the Telecommunications Act. But it's limited in the sense that telecommunications carriers or carriage service providers cannot profit from the data they provide. So they are legally allowed to recover the cost of providing that information but they can't profit from that. I think that is something that all Australians would agree with. This cost recovery model has a long-established framework in telecommunications law in our country. The Albanese government certainly expects telecommunication providers to support our emergency services and our police services in these kinds of investigations. We encourage them to provide information as soon as possible to support their needs. I think all of us have been very disturbed by this particular incident. It must be horrible for Ms Murphy's family to have to go on, day by day, without her body being found. It is an extremely distressing incident not only for her family but for many others as well, and we would certainly be encouraging telecommunications providers to assist the police investigation in any way they possibly can. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, a first supplementary? 14:48 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania It's not just the slow delivery of this data that is worrying; it's also the cost, which you have mentioned. In 2022 the Western Australian Commissioner of Police, Col Blanch, revealed telco fees for this crucial data had risen from $600,000 in the 2018-19 financial year to $1 million over a period of 12 months. Tasmania Police said they had spent $90,000 on requests for data from telcos last financial year. The bottom line is that you have a problem here, and I want to know how you're going to fix it. How are you going to fix it? They are obstructionists in an investigation. Your method is not working. How are you going to fix it? (Time expired) 14:48 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Lambie. Again, I understand that this has been reported in the media. I just want to be cautious about accepting that that is absolutely correct. But, if it is correct, as I say, that is of real concern to us. I've already made clear that our government expects telecommunications providers to cooperate with police investigations, to supply whatever data they have available to them to assist with that and to follow the law in terms of what they charge for that. Under the Telecommunications Act, telecommunications providers are required to provide assistance to the Commonwealth, states and territories, and they are required to provide such help as is reasonably necessary for certain purposes, which includes enforcing the criminal law. As I've explained, under the act providers must comply with that requirement on the basis that they neither profit from nor bear the costs of assisting those investigations. We expect the law to be upheld. We expect telecommunications providers to comply with the law. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, second supplementary. 14:50 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania The Telecommunications Act states that providers must 'neither profit from nor bear the cost of' providing such assistance to policing authorities. Can the minister please tell the Senate why the minister is not holding telcos to account when the provision of information is time critical to investigations? You are part of the problem. Answer the question. What are you going to do about it? It is not working. 14:50 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Lambie. As I said, the Albanese government expects telecommunications providers to comply with the law. Whatever action can be taken under the Telecommunications Act will be taken to ensure that that is the case. I must admit, I haven't seen anything in terms of what has been reported regarding telecommunications providers overcharging for that data. If there is any evidence that that is the case, then I would invite you to present that to us so that action can be taken. As you have noted, Senator Lambie, under the act, providers are entitled to recover their costs of providing that data, but they are not entitled to profit from that data. If it is the case that they are profiting from it, we would be very interested in knowing about that, whether it is information that you have—media outlets or others as well—so that the appropriate action can be taken. Vocational Education and Training 55 14:51 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales My question is to Senator Watt, the Minister representing the Minister for Skills and Training. I note that the Albanese government inherited one of the worst skills shortages in more than 50 years. How is the Albanese Labor government working to address those skills shortages, particularly the areas of demand? 14:51 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland You are right, Senator Sheldon. How many messes have we had to clean up since coming to office? Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WATT 245759 I know those opposite are embarrassed. I would be embarrassed too if I had been in government for 10 years and left so many messes behind. It's like that advertisement with Pro Hart: 'Oh, Mr Hart, what a mess. What a mess.' There is a mess everywhere you look. Every rug you lift up, there's another mess left behind by the former coalition government. Skills and training is one of those messes. It won't surprise us that our old friend Senator Cash was the Minister for Skills and Training for a period of time. Senator McKenzie 207825 She's not old. Senator WATT 245759 Our young friend, our youthful friend, Senator Cash, leaving messes behind, including in the skills and training portfolio. It is correct that the previous government left us with the worst skills shortages in five decades. Those skills shortages were as wide as they were deep. They span sectors right across our economy. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator WATT 245759 They are a bit noisy, President. Those opposite rotted our skills base, leaving Australia without the care industry workers, the chefs, the tradies, the hairdressers, the cybersecurity experts and, Senator Sterle, the truckies as well. They left us without all those skills that we needed. Since coming to office, a key mission of our government has been to put TAFE back at the centre of the vocational education and training sector. We are also supporting more people to start their careers in construction to support our ambitious housing targets. Australia does need more houses. And for that we need more tradies. That's why this month we have confirmed our commitment to making housing a national priority under our landmark National Skills Agreement to support building 1.2 million new homes over the next five years. Senator WATT 245759 Senator Cash asks how that's going. I will tell you how well that is going, Senator Cash. You could not negotiate a skills agreement with the states and territories while you were in government. We've now got one and it's delivering. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order. Before I call you, Senator Sheldon, I will remind you, Minister, to please address the President in your response. Senator Sheldon, first supplementary. 14:54 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales In the context of a very tight labour market, with low unemployment and with cost-of-living pressures, how is the Albanese Labor government helping Australians skill up into better paid more secure work without being saddled with study related debt? 14:54 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Sheldon. As Senator Wong outlined today already, the Albanese government has taken a range of actions to assist Australians to deal with cost-of-living pressures—whether that is cheaper child care, cheaper medicine or the energy price relief that the opposition voted against. We've got the tax cuts coming in on 1 July. But another cost-of-living measure that we're taking is providing fee-free TAFE. I think that is one of the unsung heroes in terms of the cost-of-living relief that we've provided since coming to office. Fee-free TAFE means that students no longer will have big study related debts once they finish and, because courses are in areas of demand, they will go into long-term and secure work. We've seen a high uptake in nursing, early childhood education and care, community and individual care, electrotechnology, electrical cybersecurity and IT, to name just a few of the careers that people are taking up through those fee-free TAFE options. That's giving Australians access to education and providing the skills that we need. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister. Senator Sheldon, your second supplementary? 14:55 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I note that many areas of the economy most in need of workers are lower-paid jobs like early childhood education and aged care. How is the Albanese Labor government helping those workers keep more of what they earn once they enter the workforce? 14:55 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Sheldon. I will come to the tax cuts, but it has just occurred to me that maybe we need to offer another fee-free TAFE course, and that is in how to do some work in opposition! We know that this is a group that clearly doesn't have the skills or the work ethic to get a job, and that's why, in all the time that they've been in opposition, they've only come up with one policy and that's to put in place nuclear reactors all over the country. Aren't we seeing them all walk away slowly from that one? Maybe a new fee-free TAFE course will assist you to get the skills that you need! Under the Albanese Labor government, there are more people in jobs, they're earning more and, with our tax plan, they'll keep more of what they earn. Remember what I was saying yesterday? Under the Albanese Labor government, workers get to earn more and keep more of what they earn. Under the Liberals, what happens? They work more and earn less. You will learn the words before long, because it's true. You know it's true, and that's why you ended up voting for our tax cuts—although, from what Senator Birmingham had to say today, we're not so sure anymore. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Watt. Energy 57 14:56 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Resources, Senator Farrell. Last week's Gas statement of opportunities highlighted an imminent risk of gas shortfalls. Labor today voted against bringing its own legislation to the Senate despite having bipartisan support for it from the coalition. You've thrown the offshore gas industry into uncertainty and caused further delay by blocking your own legislation, despite claiming that this bill was urgent and desperately needed. What deal have you done with the Greens for their votes? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order, particularly on my right. Order, Senator McGrath. Senator Farrell. 14:57 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank the senator for her question. None. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McDonald, your first supplementary? 14:58 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland It was revealed on Monday and today that the government threw away bipartisan support for gas regulation changes and bowed to pressure to secure Green votes by giving the environment minister another EPBC trigger. Labor is clearly divided. Which factual powerbrokers in Labor supported the environment minister to overrule the resources minister? Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Before I call the minister, I'll remind those on my right that Senator McDonald has the right to ask her question in silence. Minister Farrell? 14:58 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank the senator for her question. I'm not sure how to answer that question, because there's nothing in your question that remotely resembles the truth or remotely resembles what has been happening in this place. It's the combination of the Greens and the coalition which is stopping progress on all of these things. Can I say this about Minister Madeleine King— Government senators: A fine minister. Senator FARRELL I0N A very fine minister. But, more importantly, resources and especially gas are in very safe hands. From the time that your former government— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McDonald, second supplementary. 14:59 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland The West Australian wrote, 'Thanks to the Labor Environment Action Network complaining to Minister Plibersek and the Prime Minister, Minister King was embarrassingly forced to change her own legislation.' It is clear that Minister King has been sidelined and the lean Green alliance is now actually responsible for Labor's resources policy. When will you give up the charade and promote Mr Bandt to cabinet? 15:00 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Again, there's nothing in your question that resembles reality or the truth of the situation. I can only repeat what I said in my previous answer, that we have one of the finest resources ministers that this country has ever had. Can I say this about gas, when was the first report that we had gas shortages? It was the year Tony Abbott became the prime minister. And what has happened? What happened in those nine years? You did absolutely nothing about securing gas supplies in this country. We are doing something about that. We will do something about it and there is no better person to do it than Madeleine King. Senator Wong 00AOU On that note, I'd ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 58 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 58 15:02 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of all answers to all questions asked by coalition senators. What we've experienced this afternoon is one of those out-of-body experiences where you get to look at and take a helicopter view of what this government is about. It was summed up in question time when you had this caricature of backflips and flip-flops and dillydallying, sprinkled with this unhealthy sugar dust of incompetence. It was summed up in question time because of the arrogance of this government, who tell the Australian people that they've never had it so good. It's the Marie Antoinette approach to executive government of let them eat cake, because they've never had it so good. We heard minister after minister get up and respond to questions that were put by coalition senators about cost of living, the riots in Alice Springs last night and the failure of the Prime Minister to lead a mature government. What did we get from this Labor Party? We got arrogance. We had the arrogance of a government who have been in power for almost two years and have started to believe their own press releases written by their own media and press advisers, because they've started to think that what they are doing is quite good. Guess what? It isn't. Any politician who leaves Canberra and spends some time on the road—as coalition senators do day after day, going around their states listening to and living with their constituents—knows that the number one issue impacting upon Australians today is cost of living. Cost of living are the three words that this Labor Party government did not mention at all last year. Cost of living did not come into the lexicon of the modern Labor Party until the Voice referendum happened. When that got rejected, suddenly some focus groups were conducted by the Labor Party and they discovered cost of living was the number one issue in Queensland and in Australia. I can tell you, as someone who was on pre-poll for days on days and was in Brisbane on polling day and for the by-elections, the number one issue in Queensland is cost of living. The message that was sent to the Labor Party on cost of living was a pretty strong one. In Ipswich, the seat of Ipswich West fell to the Liberal-National Party. There was a 22 per cent swing in the very, very, very safe seat of Inala, a fiefdom of the Labor Party that was almost taken by our brilliant LNP candidate running there. What's happened is that Queenslanders and Australians are turning on the Labor Party. They're turning on the left wing because they know that this Labor Party made a lot of promises before the last election. Remember that they were going to cut your power bills by $275, a promise that was made by the Prime Minister 97 times? Put your hands up, Australia, put your hands up, Queensland, if your power bill has gone down by $275. No-one has put their hand up. Not even the Labor Party benches put their hand up, because power bills have gone up. So for those who are listening at home, your power bills have not gone down by $275; they've gone up by 10, 15, 20 per cent. Queenslanders and Australians are living and experiencing a cost of living crisis at the moment, and what we have from Labor Party? We have platitudes, we have the arrogance of this executive, this executive of the Labor Party government who fail to understand or appreciate how tough it is in Queensland at the moment. Queenslanders have to deal with a state level government and a federal Labor government. Think about the people living in Townsville who have got a crime crisis, a health crisis, a cost-of-living crisis; but guess what? The people living in Townsville are not by themselves, because those crises are in Cairns, Cunnamulla, in Warwick where I live. They're in the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast and in Brisbane. Queenslanders are being let down by the Labor Party. Australians are being let down by the Labor Party. Because we have a Labor Party who are just not up to the job of government. We've seen the flip-flops. We know where the Labor Party cabinet meets: it meets in the flip-flop section of Kmart, because they're all choosing which flip-flops they're going to wear: the pink ones, the blue ones, the ones with little spikes on them. This is a government of flip-flops, backflips and dilly-dallying. They are a government who are not up to the job of governing. I say, why don't you call an election? Let's have an election now. Let's get on with it and have a vote on whether you understand the cost of living crisis that is hurting Australia at the moment. 15:07 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Day after day we see those opposite coming here with their own flip-flopping and disorder, no plan and nothing but a contribution that amounts to their own chaos. They have no plan when they come in here other than to inflict chaos in their own debate. Far from a real policy critique, we had a discussion of flip-flops in the Kmart section. This is not substantive policy critique on the real issues facing Australians. But as a mature and orderly government, under Anthony Albanese—in the question asked by Senator Cash, Senator Cash quoted the Prime Minister in November 2022 as saying just that. But personally I have heard the Prime Minister make that very same statement dozens of times, rightfully so, since that time. Every time I see and meet with the Prime Minister and the cabinet, be that in the caucus meeting, out in the community, in the parliament and electorates, in every place where we see him and the government, we see a laserlike focus on the cost of living, wages, controlling inflation, the cost of medication, bringing the cost of visiting a doctor down, our energy rebates, education. Whether it's the religious freedom debate, education, cars or energy, we are working through the significant issues that confront out nation. We're bringing them forward and bringing the Australian people with us. We are deliberating carefully through orderly processes, which, quite often, those opposite don't want to come to the party on. When it comes to a mature and orderly government dealing with the issue of religious discrimination, for example, it will be much more orderly if Mr Dutton comes to the party in having a real discussion with government about what we can agree on. Whether it is the cost-of-living summit, tax cuts, energy, Medicare, cheaper medicines, the energy transition or delivering the first budget surplus in many years, we take these decisions carefully. They are methodical decisions that are well deliberated on. Day after day, we come into this place dedicated to and focused on delivering outcomes for the Australian people, despite the fact that what we are rewarded with from those opposite, in their representation of the Australian people, is references to flip-flops from Kmart, disorder and chaos. There's no plan and no alternative policy agenda, just the usual politics that we see from those opposite, seeking to promulgate chaos and division. It is their core political tactic, and it is a far cry from the level of policy critique and debate that our nation deserves. Frankly, all governments benefit from policy critique when they have a good opposition that is deeply involved in the policy discussions and debate, able to mount a clear alternative policy and able to debate the issues before the Australian people. But, no, all those opposite do is oppose and divide. Here in this place today I want to recognise that— (Time expired) 15:12 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Senator Pratt talked about flip-flops in Kmart. Senator Pratt is a dedicated senator, so I'm sure she wasn't doing online shopping during question time. Maybe she read some government briefs and saw the term 'flip-flop' there. It seems that it's almost part of every government brief that they can't stick to what they said before the last election. Maybe they were a bit confused when they came to government and so at the top of every brief it says, 'Make sure we flip-flop today, because we can't stick to the commitments we made in opposition.' Let's go through some of the Labor government flip-flops, which Senator Pratt spoke about so eloquently. They promised to keep people safe, particularly in relation to border security. Well, we can all see what the government has done in that area. There's the infamous $275 cut to power bills. Every Australian knows that their power bills have soared over the last two years, so that was another nice flip-flop from the Labor Party. They promised—committed—that Australians were going to be better off. As Senator Birmingham clearly pointed out in his question to the minister, a family with a $750,000 mortgage has now seen costs increase by $22,000 dollars per annum. At the same time, what have we seen happen to income tax receipts? They've gone up 23 per cent under this Labor government. What is that caused by? That is caused by the insidious effects of inflation and bracket creep—inflation that I think this government actually wants to see stay a bit higher for a bit longer because, over time, it will deflate their debt. There are other examples of flip-flops and broken promises. We've seen the stage 3 tax cuts, in relation to which the Prime Minister's word 'was his bond'. Of course, we know where that went. They promised cheaper mortgages. I've just talked about that. For a $750,000 mortgage held by an average Australian family, costs have increased by $22,000. They promised no increase in the tax burden, but that has gone up by 23 per cent. The Labor Party promised no changes to superannuation, but they've attacked self-managed super funds particularly. For the first time in Australia's history, unrealised capital gains are being taxed within a super fund. This is going to impact particularly on Australian farmers and small-business owners who have chosen to put part of their income generating asset—their farm or perhaps an office they work out of—into, as is quite legal and proper, their self-managed super fund. So, for the first time in Australia's history, if there is an uplift in the value of an asset to take individuals above the $3 million cap, suddenly an unrealised gain—a paper profit—is going to be taxed. The flip-flops just keep on going. They promised that franking credits wouldn't be touched, and they promised that industrial relations bargaining wouldn't be industrywide. They said: 'No, we wouldn't go there. We wouldn't go back to pattern bargaining. We wouldn't go back to the bad old days of the seventies and eighties.' But of course, they do. As Senator Pratt acknowledged, they flip-flop. This is a government that made so many commitments before the last election that they have walked away from in government—commitments which the Australian people thought meant something and which the Australian people relied on in making their decision. Commitment after commitment after commitment has been walked away from by this Labor government. We will continue to hold them to account, and we will continue to tell the Australian people what this Labor government is doing to them. 15:17 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I think it's important, when we come into the chamber, that we are forthright in our views, but I think it's really important that we actually put the facts on the record. It's not that the government on this side has only just discovered the cost of living. We have been putting forward legislation and policies to help Australian families. We recognise that there has been an increase in the cost of living and the impact of that. But what those opposite failed to tell you is that, when they were in government, their policy was to keep wages low. Since we've come into government, we've raised Australian wages. We've actually ensured that we are doing all that we can, by setting legislative frameworks, to close the disparity in pay between women in the workforce and their male counterparts who do the same job. We have achieved the lowest gender pay gap in this country on record. Unemployment is now at 3.7 per cent. Let's not forget that every single measure that we've put forward—like cheaper medicines, energy relief and 60-day prescriptions; all of those things which have a direct impact on the family budget—have been opposed by those opposite every single time. When it came to cheaper child care, they opposed it. We are about strengthening Medicare because it's a universal health system that is worth protecting. But the unfortunate thing is that it relies purely and solely on having a Labor government to ensure that those on that side don't erode it. We have given more relief to GPs so more people can get to see their GP. Those on that side have no credibility when it comes to the economy. They sing their own praises but, in the last budget, it was a Labor government which brought in the first surplus for so very long. Those opposite kept promising a surplus when they were in government for 10 years but they failed to deliver it. The good senator before me talked about tax cuts. You show me an Australian who is not getting a bigger tax cut that is opposed to the changes that we made? We did that after close consideration of the economic circumstances, the interest rates and the cost-of-living crisis. We are actually giving more Australians a bigger tax cut. We believe that, when you work hard, you should keep more of your pay. But those opposite are not happy. They wanted to maintain the Scott Morrison tax cuts, which only gave the big increase to the big end of town, to politicians and high-income earners. We are about supporting aspirational voters, aspirational families who are trying to get ahead. That is who we are prepared to deliver our tax cuts to. Let's turn to another issue. It amazes me why those on that side want to play politics with religion and religious discrimination. Why can't they come to the table and ensure that we have legislation that is going to be bipartisan? Why do they always have to try and take political mileage out of something that is fundamentally so important to Australians? No Australian should be discriminated against because of their faith or their religious beliefs. Here on this side, as a Christian, I feel very comfortable in the Labor Party because we are about ensuring that there's no discrimination in this country, whether it is on the basis of your colour, your nationality, your religious beliefs, your sexuality, your disability or, very importantly, your age. That is what we believe in but we are always happy to work with the opposition, but, when it suits them, they are very quick to get into bed with the Greens and take political mileage out of something that is fundamental to our community. It's a disgrace. We will come in here and debate with you every single day to ensure that the facts are put on the table, that we as a government have delivered on our election promises. I'm going to run out of time without talking about veterans' affairs. (Time expired) The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Before I give the call to Senator Rennick, I will set the clocks for three minutes then I'll put the question and I will give the call to Senator Hanson. I will then set the clock on two minutes and then I will come to the Greens. 15:22 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland It is a bloodbath out there. Australians are doing it tough under the Albanese government. Labour productivity is down 7.5 per cent over the last 18 months. Real disposable income has fallen by 7.5 per cent. Personal income taxes are up by 23 per cent, much higher than before the election. And labour income from self-employment has fallen by eight per cent. Why is that? It's because the Albanese Labor government have lost control the economy. They have let immigration run too high at over 500,000 people a year, and they have allowed interest rates to rocket upwards, causing building contractors to go broke. So not only have we got increasing demand for housing but also decreasing supply, so the gap between those people who can actually find a house and those people who can get into one is increasing all the time. That is a direct result of a reckless policy. I don't recall Australians ever being told at the last election that we were going to suddenly double—actually triple—immigration from levels pre-election of around 280,000 to around 550,000, and that is totally reckless. We're yet to hear the Albanese Labor government explain the reason for this. Why are they allowing this to happen? We are seeing tent cities rise up everywhere, even in my home town of Brisbane in parks. You cannot walk across a park or see a park now without a tent being pitched there. Just across from my electoral office is a park. We've got tents there. And, of course, the other big contribution to the cost of living is the enormous increase in energy prices as a result of the Albanese government's reckless rush into renewable energy. The way they're doing this is by heavily subsidising what is effectively unaffordable. So not only have we got increased energy prices; we have got wasted taxpayers' funds in these subsidies trying to prop up something that without subsidies wouldn't work. Just yesterday, I know that the energy minister, Chris Bowen, was skiting about how they'd spent $5 billion on batteries that will provide backup storage for just one million houses. How on earth is spending $5 billion to provide a couple of hours of storage for one million houses considered cheap, reliable and effective? It's not. The Albanese government is out of control, and they need to get their act together. Question agreed to. Ministerial Conduct 61 15:26 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Senator Wong) to a question without notice I asked today relating to ministerial conduct. According to Senator Wong, the Prime Minister and his government are meeting the requirements of the code of conduct for ministers and upholding the principles of Australian democracy. However, we know that's simply not true. This is especially the case with the nature-positive plan. They're hiding it. They're keeping it secret. Stakeholders have been invited to see some parts of the plan, but the restrictions on these people are extraordinary and anything but democratic, transparent or accountable. Before they're allowed to even enter the room, they must sign a large confidentiality agreement with heavy penalties which stops them from discussing the plan's contents or even going into the room in the first place. Stakeholders are told that they can't take photographs of the draft legislation and can't take any part of it with them. They're allowed a limited time to take a few handwritten notes. Labor rushes legislation through, not even giving senators remotely enough time to look at bills, consult stakeholders and constituents or develop a response or amendments. Labor was the only party which voted against my inquiry into the carbon capture trial threatening the Great Artesian Basin. Senator Wong couldn't even answer my questions today about whether the Prime Minister is really standing by the code of conduct for ministers that he personally signed. We're watching the slow death of Australian democracy. It began many years ago. It accelerated with the suppression of freedom and dissent by Labor and Liberal governments during the COVID-19 pandemic. The digital ID bill and this so-called nature-positive plan will only further the decline. I'm warning the Australian people to keep your eye on this nature-positive plan, because it's going to have a real impact on our environment, the farmers and everything and how we do business in this country. I'm telling the Australian people: wake up, Australia. Our democracy is being taken from us a piece at a time. Question agreed to. PricewaterhouseCoopers 61 15:28 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice I asked today relating to PricewaterhouseCoopers. This afternoon's question time showed that there is much more to be done to hold PwC to account. I asked the minister about the actions the government is taking and whether it will ban PwC from all commercial interactions and whether she agreed that the paid partnership structure has failed and needs an overhaul, and we're really still awaiting meaningful answers to these questions. There's so much that needs to be done. Australians must have and are looking for meaningful change, given the events they have watched unfold over the last year. The 12-month inquiry into consulting services that I initiated has exposed serious weaknesses in the governance, leadership and culture of PwC Australia and also raises serious questions about the opaque nature and structure of a large international partnership like PwC. The recent revelations about the secretive network rules used by PwC International to control PwC Australia raise serious questions. Who's in charge? What powers are exercised and by whom? How often have they been used and when? What can the Australian government and the Australian people do about it? The secret legal agreement that we now have knowledge of gives five partners sweeping powers. They are faceless International figures. They can impose their own chosen leader—and they did. This is a firm that not so long ago received millions of dollars in government contracts. Unbeknownst to us, at any time over the 20-odd years of their existence, they could have had International partners and parents swoop in and use the legal guardian card to block decisions. We know the faceless PwC International figures unilaterally replaced CEO Kristin Stubbins with their man from Global, Kevin Burrowes. We know that PwC International is currently imposing supervised remediation—to use their term—to take control of PwC Australia, who they have defined as a defaulting firm in the wake of the tax leak scam laws. PwC international is running the show. However, they refused to hand over the Linklaters report that spells out who did what in the International sphere as the PwC scandal and misuse of confidential information unfolded. More than a year has passed since I referred this matter to our committee, and PwC have still not provided a full and frank account of who did what in Australia or internationally. Getting accurate evidence from them has been like pulling teeth; it has been so reluctantly surrendered. PwC International's unwillingness to cooperate with the committee inquiries underway through this Senate speaks volumes about their attitude to the Australian people, to our parliament and to this Senate. They are making a mockery of the inquiry process working to uncover behaviour that all of us would agree is reprehensible and to ensure integrity in large consulting partnerships operating in Australia. The egregious events in PwC took eight years to surface. They came within a whisker of being buried and failing to come to the attention of the Australian parliament and people. Such a cover-up would have been a national disaster. It is critical than organisations like PwC or our public institutions and departments do not slow investigations or prevent the timely and fulsome release of evidence relevant to proper regulation, transparency and integrity in public governance. The value obtained for billions of dollars of public spending, the quality of financial services and their regulation, along with the wellbeing of thousands of Australian employees, rests on better governance, leadership and regulation in large consulting firms as well as a strong and effective regulatory response in public institutions. If the government truly wants to rebuild people's faith in the system, we need to hold PwC Australia and International to account. We need to lower the cap on the number of partners in these very large accounting firms. You cannot effectively run a partnership with a thousand partners. We need a vigorous and robust public sector with integrity and transparency, and we need good governance in the consulting industry. We need strong and effective regulatory structures that are free from capture by the big firms and by vested interests and organisations that do their jobs with vigour and independence. The response to the PwC tax leak scandal is a true test of this government's integrity and commitment to good policy, not just good politics. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 62 DOCUMENTS Basin Officials Committee, Murray Darling Basin Plan, Northern Basin Aboriginal Nations Funding Agreements 62 Order for the Production of Documents 62 15:34 The PRESIDENT 112096 Pursuant to order, I call on Minister Wong to provide an explanation. 15:34 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The government notes Senator Davey's continued interest in all things water and the Murray-Darling Basin. Obviously, she has had a long history in this area. The reality is that Senator Davey's requests have been so broad that, for the officials in our federal agencies and departments, they initially turned up as many as one million documents in scope. As previously explained to the Senate, the estimated time for a single person to review documents for just one of Senator Davey's requests would be about 8½ years. For the three we are discussing today, there are more than 500 pages of material. I note that, in response to one of Senator Davey's previous requests, we provided 170 pages of documents. I can assure Senator Davey that Minister Plibersek has sought to respond in as timely a manner as possible and can confirm that documents relating to orders for the production of documents Nos 455 and 457 have been provided for tabling today. Documents relating to order No. 456 will be tabled in due course. I say to Senator Davey, to Senator Fawcett, as a senior senator, and to Senator Duniam, as a frontbencher, in a former party of government, that I would hope that there would be some responsibility taken in the scope of documents sought. That was a discussion that was regularly had when I was Leader of the Opposition in the Senate—to recognise that a scope of documents that extends too widely is often unnecessary. We are keen and willing to provide transparency, but the senator will know there are limits to public resources. It would be useful if senior frontbenchers, as part of a former party of government, could be aware of this. 15:36 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I thank and appreciate Senator Wong for attending and giving that explanation. However, it is not satisfactory. One of the most obvious changes since the Albanese government came to power 18 months ago is how far we have come from having an open, transparent and accountable government. We have seen it in the way this government has gone about ignoring OPDs, not just from me but from others in the chamber. The amount of times that we have senators rise to complain about the failure to comply with an order for the production of documents is numerous. We have seen it in the way this government has gone about ignoring those on the front line, whether it be irrigation communities, pharmacists, Western Australian farmers in the banning of live exports and motor dealers in their rushed and hurried and now backflipped fuel efficiency standards. We see the absolute contempt this government has for this chamber. We need to look no further than the minister for water, whose refusal to engage with farming organisations and their communities in the Murray-Darling Basin is highlighted by her Twitter feed, which shows she has only been in the basin a handful of times. Although, to the credit of the minister for the environment, who is in charge of recycling, she is very adept at recycling photos on that Twitter feed! She keeps replaying: 'Look at me. I flew over the basin. Here's me poignantly looking out the window of my aircraft.' She's recycled that a few times. The lack of time she has actually spent on the ground has well and truly been noted. The minister for water's lack of interest in engaging with basin communities is now being mimicked by her own department, who should hang their heads in shame. To claim a webinar and a web survey is extensive consultation is an absolute slap in the face for communities, who, while being full of consultation fatigue, will not walk away from the table when it comes to their livelihoods and their wellbeing. I guess the department thinks that its current propaganda campaign of lies that is currently playing on television— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Davey, withdraw. Senator DAVEY 281697 Sorry, I withdraw. Their current campaign of television advertisements is tantamount to a public education campaign that couldn't be further from the truth. To put in context the volume of water that the government is planning to buy back: it is more than all the water left for irrigation in South Australia, Sunraysia and the Victorian GMID combined. If the water were to be bought out of these regions, their economies would be wiped out and Australians would be faced with massive increases in the cost of food. That is why I am so interested and that is why we have asked for these documents. The failure of the minister to release any information on how the government's water policies and legislation will impact these communities, how they came to some of the figures or provide any information about the cost of the government's policy is deplorable. The Senate inquiry into the water amendment bill was a farce, with the department tasked with implementing the bill refusing to say which communities will be at the forefront of providing the 450 gigalitres of additional water, what the environmental purposes of that water will be, how much recovering that water will cost and what the impact will be on taxpayers and communities into the future. We hope that the government has actually done the work to have that information, but we don't know. This is not the first rodeo when it comes for the Minister for the Environment and Water ignoring the wishes of the Senate. The failure to comply with the Senate and produce the documents, as requested by these OPDs, is just a repeat of past efforts. Last year we had the absurd situation where the government deliberately and repeatedly withheld documents from the Senate through Senate motions 318 and 319. Then the government couldn't even get their story straight as to why it couldn't comply. At first they said it was because there were over 1.8 million documents. That was revised and then it was claimed there were only 850,000 documents. It begs the question as to why the 459 staff at the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and the staff in the department have been so busy producing what could be about 1.5 documents per hour per staff member on this topic alone since the Albanese government came to power. I mean, really, I wish. That would be very efficient if that's how much they were producing or, you could say, non-efficient because what else are they doing? They're meant to be modelling, conducting reviews and providing fair and frank advice. The final insult was that, of the 1.8 million claimed documents, they only produced 37. That is why we had the follow-up OPDs—nos. 455, 456 and 457. I acknowledge that 455 and 456 have only been tabled today. They were due yesterday and I'm now told they have been tabled today. There has not been enough time for me to go through them. We are still waiting on 457 as a result of the minister's failure again to comply with Senate orders. We are again seeing the complete incompetence of this government and the complete disregard of this government towards this chamber. I don't want to see any senior bureaucrats bullied or reduced to tears, but I would respectfully ask that the water bureaucrats improve their productivity and not take over two months to pull together a handful of emails and documents. And if it's more than a handful, then you have to ask why. That is why, on our side, we look at efficiency dividends. As for the minister, her desire for secrecy and her lack of transparency is now commonplace among this government. We know this is the government of nondisclosure agreements and likes to do consultations behind closed doors with the heavy handedness of people who breach the confidence, which is not the open and transparent government that we were promised prior to the election. It is time the Minister for the Environment and Water directed her department to step away from the keyboard, release the information the Senate had requested and then get out into the communities to do proper consultation on the implementation of the remainder of the Basin Plan, which is what communities are crying out for. We cannot allow this government to continue to ignore the wishes of communities or the wishes of the Senate. Question agreed to. Defence Procurement: Submarines 64 Order for the Production of Documents 64 15:45 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria by leave—I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, by no later than midday on Tuesday, 16 April 2024: (a) all documents or correspondence between the relevant offices of the Governments of Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom (UK) that relate to Australia taking on radioactive waste from the United States and UK through the AUKUS deal, including associated costings; (b) all documents and correspondence relating to: (i) costings and expenditure for the acquisitions and sustainment of the AUKUS submarine fleet, including a complete breakdown of the projected $368 billion, and (ii) forecast costs of decommissioning of the AUKUS submarines and their long-term waste management and storage; and (c) all documents relating to an estimated timeline for retiring the AUKUS submarines due to technological advancements, disrepair or otherwise. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion by leave, as moved by Senator Thorpe, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [15:50]
(The President—Senator Lines)

39 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. 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.

 NOTICES 65 NOTICES Presentation 65 COMMITTEES 65 COMMITTEES Selection of Bills Committee 65 Report 65 15:52 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I present the fourth report of 2024 of the Selection of Bills Committee, and I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The report read as follows— SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 4 OF 2024 27 March 2024 MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE Senator Anne Urquhart (Government Whip, Chair) Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip) Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip) Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip) Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip) Senator Ralph Babet Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher Senator Matt O'Sullivan Senator David Pocock Senator Paul Scarr Senator Lidia Thorpe Senator Tammy Tyrrell Senator David Van Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 4 OF 2024 1. The committee met in private session on Tuesday, 26 March 2024 at 7.13 pm. 2. The committee recommends that— (a) the Customs Amendment (Preventing Child Labour) Bill 2023 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 1 July 2024 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral); (b) the provisions of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 20 June 2024 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral); (c) the provisions of the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024 and the Net Zero Economy Authority (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 10 May 2024 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral); and (d) the provisions of the Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 8 May 2024 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral). 3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees: Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024 Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024. 4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting: Airline Passenger Protections (Pay on Delay) Bill 2024 Australian Capital Territory Dangerous Drugs Bill 2023 Australian Postal Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 Broadcasting Services Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements During Live Sport) Bill 2023 Competition and Consumer Amendment (Continuing ACCC Monitoring of Domestic Airline Competition) Bill 2023 Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Declared Areas) Bill 2024 Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2024 Criminal Code Amendment (Inciting Illegal Disruptive Activities) Bill 2023 Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Commonwealth Frontline Workers) Bill 2024 Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair and Transparent Elections) Bill 2024 (No. 2) Electoral Legislation Amendment (Lowering the Voting Age) Bill 2023 [No. 2] Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Protecting Environmental Heritage) Bill 2024 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020 Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2024 Freeze on Rent and Rate Increases Bill 2023 Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024 Legislate the Date to End Live Sheep Export Bill 2024 Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 New Vehicle Efficiency Standard Bill 2024 New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2024 Parliamentary Business Resources Legislation Amendment (Review Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2024 Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering Better Financial Outcomes and Other Measures) Bill 2024 Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Market Infrastructure and Other Measures) Bill 2024. 5. The committee considered the following bills but was unable to reach agreement: Competition and Consumer Amendment (Divestiture Powers) Bill 2024. (Anne Urquhart) Chair 27 March 2024 Appendix 1 S ELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Customs Amendment (Preventing Child Labour) Bill 2023 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Elimination of child labour is an important goal that requires complex trade reform. The potential impact on import/export focused industries, customs enforcement agencies and trade relationships are some of the principal issues. Possible submissions or evidence from: Industry groups -Australian Industry Group, Council of small businesses, Department of Home Affairs, Australian Human Rights Commission, other human rights groups. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee Possible hearing date(s): TBD Possible reporting date: 1 July 2024 (signed) Malcolm Roberts Appendix 2 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: There is widespread interest in the effect of this legislation both across the parliament, and by the wider disability sector. Therefore, it is expected it will not be uncontroversial and a committee process will be useful to settle any outstanding issues. The Government proposes a reporting date of 24 April 2024 in order to meet the timeframes by which this legislation needs to take effect. Possible submissions or evidence from: Disability representative organisations and peak organisations. Individual participants, families and carers. Those who work in the disability sector, including service providers. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): To be determined by the committee Possible reporting date: 24 April 2024 Signed Senator Anne Urquhart SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration: High volume of stakeholder inquiries on this issue Complex legislative landscape Huge impact on people's lives if legislation is harmful Possible submissions or evidence from: Participants Families and carers Service providers Advocacy organisations Committee to which bill is to be referred: Community Affairs Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): 11- 21 June 2024 Possible reporting date: 20 July 2024 (signed) Nick McKim S ELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To carefully scrutinise this legislation and hear from interested parties. Possible submissions or evidence from: A range of stakeholders. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Community Affairs Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): April, May and June Possible reporting date: 20 June 2024 Signed Wendy Askew Appendix 3 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024, Net Zero Economy Authority (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024 Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration: Examine legislation Possible submissions or evidence from: Next Economy, climate groups, unions Committee to which bill is to be referred: Finance and Public Administration Possible hearing date(s): 23 and 29 April (backload hearing dates preferably) Possible reporting date: 10 May (signed) Nick McKim SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024 Net Zero Economy Authority (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To carefully scrutinise this legislation and hear from interested parties. Possible submissions or evidence from: A range of stakeholders. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): April, May and June Possible reporting date: 14 June 2024 Signed Wendy Askew Appendix 4 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Significant interest in these reforms. Possible submissions or evidence from: Cancer Council, Lung Foundation, Australian Medical Association, Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Community Affairs Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): During April break from sittings. Possible reporting date: Report by 8 May 2024. Signed Anne Urquhart S ELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To carefully scrutinise this legislation. Possible submissions or evidence from: A range of stakeholders. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Community Affairs Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): April and May Possible reporting date: 8 May 2024 Signed Wendy Askew SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024 Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration: High volume of stakeholder inquiries on this issue Significant health concerns involved—vaping harm vs tobacco uptake risk Concerns on capacity of GP practices to enable prescription model Possible submissions or evidence from: Public Health Organisations Medical Advocacy Organisations Vape consumers Committee to which bill is to be referred: Community Affairs Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): 15—24 May 2024 Possible reporting date: 8 May 2024 (signed) Nick McKim Senator URQUHART 231199 I move: That the report be adopted. 15:53 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: At the end of the motion, add: ", and: (a) the provisions of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Declared Areas) Bill 2024 and Crimes and Other Legislation Amendment (Omnibus No. 1) Bill 2024 not be referred to a committee; (b) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering Better Financial Outcomes and Other Measures) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 20 June 2024; and (c) the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Market Infrastructure and Other Measures) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 30 April 2024". Senator McKim JKM On behalf of the Australian Greens, could I please ask that the question on part (a) of the amendment be put separately to the question on parts (b) and (c)? That is to facilitate us taking a different position on those. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that part (a) of the amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report, as moved by Senator Chisholm, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [15:58]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 31 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Liddle, K. J. Lines, S. McDonald, S. E. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. 15 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 16:00 The PRESIDENT 112096 I now put parts (b) and (c) of the amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report as moved by Senator Chisholm. Question agreed to. 16:01 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia by leave—I ask that the opposition's opposition to parts (b) and (c) be recorded. The PRESIDENT 112096 It is so recorded. 16:01 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move: At the end of the motion, add: "and, in respect of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Divestiture Powers) Bill 2024, the bill be referred immediately to the Select Committee on Supermarket Prices for inquiry and report by 7 May 2024". I won't take up too much time because I know we've got a lot of things to deal with this afternoon, but I do want to explain why it is that the Greens believe that a select committee—the Select Committee on Supermarket Prices, in this case—is the appropriate vehicle to conduct an inquiry. That committee has heard already in its existence multiple witnesses and has received multiple submissions calling for the introduction of divestiture powers into Australia. It's a matter for the government that it has already ruled out the introduction of divestiture powers into Australia. Of course, by ruling out support for introducing divestiture powers, the Labor Party—once the party of the worker—has exposed itself as the party of capital. That's because, in opposing divestiture powers which would enable much-needed competition to be brought into the supermarket sector, the Labor Party is taking the side of the big supermarket corporations, Coles and Woolworths, who are each booking billion-dollar profits every year whilst using their market dominance to do over farmers, workers and customers. Labor is backing them in over the millions of Australians who are struggling to make ends meet and who are being price-gouged at the supermarket checkout. Australia needs divestiture laws because right across our economy there is too much concentration of market power. Monopolies, duopolies and oligopolies, which we have repeated examples of in this country, never give good outcomes to consumers and they never deliver good outcomes for suppliers. That's the case in the supermarket sector, in the bank sector, in the airline sector and in multiple other sectors in the Australian economy. Labor should support divestiture laws. The reason this inquiry is the appropriate vehicle is that there are people sitting on this committee who've heard repeated evidence about the need for divestiture laws in this country. We will be hearing evidence from a range of experts in this area and it is appropriate that the Select Committee on Supermarket Prices be the vehicle for an inquiry into this report. 16:04 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland We do not support the efforts to refer this private senator's bill to a select committee for inquiry. Senate legislation committees exist for the purpose of inquiring into bills. We believe that the Senate Economics Committee is the right place for this inquiry to take place. We will be moving an amendment to that effect and would encourage senators to support it. 16:04 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I move the following amendment to Senator McKim's amendment: Omit "Select Committee on Supermarket Prices", substitute "Economics Legislation Committee". The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is the amendment as proposed by Senator Ciccone to Senator McKim's amendment be agreed to. Question negatived. The PRESIDENT 112096 The government will record its opposition. The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator McKim be agreed to. Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the report of the Selection of Bills Committee, as amended, be agreed to. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 71 BUSINESS Leave Of Absence 71 16:06 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to Senator McAllister for today for personal reasons. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 71 COMMITTEES Public Works Joint Committee 71 Report 71 16:07 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the Chair of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the second report for 2024. Scrutiny of Bills Committee 71 Report 71 16:07 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania On behalf of the chair, Senator Dean Smith, I present Scrutiny Digest 5 of 2024 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, together with ministerial correspondence received by the committee. I seek leave to incorporate the tabling statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows— As Chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, I rise to speak to the tabling of the committee's Scrutiny Digest 5 of 2024. The digest opens by acknowledging the recent passing of Emeritus Professor Jim Davis. The committee does so to pay tribute to the outstanding contribution of Professor Davis as the committee's longest serving legal adviser, having supported the committee for 25 years, from 1983 to 2008. In this time, Professor Davis also served as legal adviser to the Standing Committee for Regulations and Ordinances from 1997 to 2000. On his retirement as legal adviser, the committee hosted a dinner, with speeches made by former Senators Helen Coonan, Barney Cooney and Andrew Murray. This demonstrates the high regard with which he was held across all corners of the Parliament. The speeches were consistent in their high regard for Professor Davis's wisdom, humour and strength of character. Andrew Murray remarked that Jim had an academic's depth; a practitioner's experience; a teacher's patience; a lawyer's precision; a necessary tolerance; a comic's wit; a libertarians' attitudes; and, crucially, a healthily larrikin-like suspicion of the Executive and its handmaiden, the bureaucracy. On behalf of the committee, I extend condolences to Professor Davis's family and friends. The digest also reports on the committee's consideration of 6 bills which were introduced into the Parliament during recent sitting weeks, as well as amendments made to 4 bills. In the Digest, the committee has identified potential scrutiny concerns in relation to 2 newly introduced bills. The Digest also contains the committee's comments on recent ministerial responses in relation to 4 bills. I would like to draw the Senate's attention in particular to the committee's comments on the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023 and an associated bill. The committee thanks the Attorney-General for his constructive response to the committee's comments concerning the bills. The committee previously raised concerns with the public interest certificate regime in the main bill. These provisions empower Commonwealth, state and territory Attorneys-General to issue certificates, which prevent the Tribunal from disclosing specified information or documents to applicants before making a decision. This potentially impacts the procedural fairness rights of individuals appearing before the Tribunal. Procedural fairness is a fundamental common law right that ensures fair decision-making. Amongst other matters, it includes requiring that people who are adversely affected by a decision are given an adequate opportunity to put their case before a decision is made—known as the 'fair hearing rule'. In Scrutiny Digest 2 of 2024, the committee requested advice from the Attorney-General on this matter. The Attorney-General has explained that the framework balances fair hearing rights with the need to protect sensitive information. Further, it would not be appropriate for the Tribunal to have discretion to disclose information under certificate as such responsibility is rightly vested in the responsible minister or Director-General of Security. These officers are uniquely placed to understand the sensitivity of the material and consequences of its disclosure. The committee remains concerned that the public interest certificate and intervention provisions will have a significant impact on an applicant's procedural fairness rights. The committee acknowledges the importance of the policy justification of protecting sensitive information from disclosure but maintains that fairness may be legitimately adjusted whilst adopting a more flexible approach. Additionally, the committee sought the Attorney-General's advice on the rigid approach adopted in the bill for particular requirements for proceedings that take place in the intelligence and security jurisdictional area of the Tribunal. The bill provides that applicants cannot be provided reasons for intelligence and security decisions and the Director-General of Security can issue sensitive information certificates and public interest certificates to prevent the disclosure of evidence or documents. The committee is of the view that there is room to recalibrate the balance of the risk of disclosure against the applicant's right to a fair hearing in a manner which better recognises the fundamental nature of that right and also in treating individuals with respect and dignity. The committee considers that the decision not to consider additional mechanisms for the protection of a fair hearing in the Intelligence and Security jurisdictional area is unfortunate and a lost opportunity. The committee also takes this opportunity to draw to the attention of the Senate a provision in the Consequential Amendments Bill that encroaches on the powers of the Parliament. If enacted, it would restrict the power of the Parliament or its committees to receive information or documents relating to protection visa decisions. While the committee acknowledges that the intention of the provision is to provide protection to the privacy and safety of persons involved in such decisions, the committee notes that the provision asks the Parliament to agree to an encroachment of its own powers. The power to seek information and documents is a fundamental power of a parliamentary chamber, necessary to support its ability to inquire into matters of interest. This in turn supports its ability to conduct fully informed debate on matters of public importance, and undertake its legislative function. The committee will closely scrutinise any legislative provision that represents an intrusion on the powers, privileges and immunities of the Parliament and is of the view that only in the rarest and most extraordinary of cases will such a provision be considered to be appropriate. In Scrutiny Digest 2 of 2024 the committee sought advice from the Attorney-General on this matter. Again, the committee thanks the Attorney-General for his response. However the response in this area did not fully engage with the substance of the committee's scrutiny concerns. In particular, the response did not consider whether existing mechanisms within parliaments that protect from disclosure information if there is a genuine public interest reason for it not to be disclosed. These mechanisms include the ability of officers to raise public interest immunity claims and the ability of committees to receive evidence on an in-camera basis, if making the information public is not in the public interest or necessary for the committee to perform its functions. The committee is of the view that such mechanisms would adequately protect from public release information relating to reviewable protection decisions where disclosure is not in the public interest. The committee has therefore recommended that the bill be amended to remove the provision. I encourage all parliamentarians to carefully consider the committee's analysis on this and other matters contained in the Digest. With these comments, I commend the committee's Scrutiny Digest 5 of 2024 to the Senate. Finance and Public Administration References Committee 73 Report 73 16:07 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I present an interim report of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee titled: PwC: The Cover-up Worsens the Crime. Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee 73 Reference 73 16:08 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I move: That the following matter be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 4 July 2024: Support to Ukraine by the Australian Government, with particular reference to: (a) the need for more timely, coordinated and comprehensive support spanning military, humanitarian and economic aid; (b) the potential for support to be coordinated on a whole-of-government basis; and (c) any related matters. 16:09 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to move an amendment to the motion in the terms circulated in the chamber. Leave granted. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 I move the motion as amended: Omit all words after "That", substitute "the following matter be referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 4 August 2024: Australian support for Ukraine, with particular reference to: (a) whether the support is timely, coordinated and comprehensive; (b) whether support is appropriately coordinated on a whole-of-government and whole-of-country basis; (c) efforts to hold Russia to account, including by addressing mis- and disinformation in Australian public debate and the region; and (d) any related matters. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment standing in the name of Senator Ciccone and moved by Senator Chisholm to business of the Senate No. 1 be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:13]
(The President—Senator Lines)

30 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. 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. 28 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Original question, as amended, agreed to.

 BUSINESS 74 BUSINESS Days and Hours of Meeting 74 16:15 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That (1) On Tuesday, 14 May 2024, the hours of meeting be midday to 6.30 pm and 8.30 pm to adjournment, and the routine of business from 8.30 pm be: (a) Budget statement and documents 2024-25; and (b) adjournment. (2) On Thursday, 16 May 2024: (a) the hours of meeting be 9 am to adjournment; (b) the sitting of the Senate be suspended from 5.30 pm till the ringing of the bells (at approximately 8 pm); and (c) on resumption, the routine of business be: (i) Budget statement and documents-party leaders and independent senators to make responses to the statement and documents for not more than 15 minutes each, (ii) adjournment proposed, and (iii) adjournment. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 74 COMMITTEES Public Works Joint Committee 74 Reference 74 16:16 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland On behalf of Senator Gallagher, I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable: Department of Defence—Albury Wodonga military area redevelopment project. Department of Defence—RAAF Base Wagga redevelopment project. Department of Veterans' Affairs—Proposed fit-out of new leased premises at 18 Marcus Clarke Street, Canberra. I table statements in relation to the works. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 75 COMMITTEES Perth Mint and Commonwealth Regulatory Compliance Select Committee 75 Reporting Date 75 16:17 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move: That the time for the presentation of the report of the Select Committee on the Perth Mint and Commonwealth regulatory compliance be extended to 21 June 2024. 16:17 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 The government will be opposing this motion. From day one this has been driven by partisan state politics. The committee has used valuable and scarce resources of the Senate to hold multiple public hearings and absolutely no new information has come to light. It's time for the committee to stop spending taxpayers money and scarce Senate resources so the Senate can divert its resources to important issues within the Commonwealth jurisdiction. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is the general business notice of motion No. 505 standing in the name of Senator Dean Smith, and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:20]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 42 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 19 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Farrell, D. E. 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.

DOCUMENTS 76 DOCUMENTS Department of Education 76 Order for the Production of Documents 76 16:22 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) order for the production of documents no. 374, agreed to by the Senate on 7 November 2023, relating to the Minister for Education's review of the Higher Education Loan Program Australian Taxation Office payments system, has only been partially complied with, (ii) a further order, no. 465, agreed to by the Senate on 27 February 2024, requiring the Minister to fully comply with order no. 374, by no later than 5 pm on 28 February 2024, has not been complied with, (iii) a further order, no. 490, agreed to by the Senate on 18 March 2024, requiring the Minister representing the Minister for Education to fully comply with order no. 374 or attend the Senate after motions to take note of answers on 20 March 2024 to provide an explanation of the failure to fully comply with the order, resulted in the Minister attending the Senate to provide such an explanation, (iv) in giving the explanation, the Minister stated 'I'm advised by the minister that he responded to that order, and enclose documents, with the exception of documents related to cabinet deliberations which were prepared for the dominant purpose of briefing a minister on a cabinet submission and to ensure cabinet remains an appropriate forum for informed consideration of policy advice', and (v) the fact that a document is prepared for the dominant purpose of briefing a minister on a cabinet submission is not in itself recognised by the Senate as a proper basis for the making of a public interest immunity claim; (b) orders that, unless order no. 374 is complied with in full by 29 March 2024, the Minister representing the Minister for Education be required to attend the Senate after motions to take note of answers on 14 May 2024 to provide a further explanation, of no more than 5 minutes, of the failure to fully comply with order no. 374 with particular reference to the claim that the documents are related to cabinet deliberations which were prepared for the dominant purpose of briefing a minister on a cabinet submission; (c) any senator may move to take note of the explanation required by paragraph (b); and (d) any motion under paragraph (c) may be debated for no longer than 30 minutes, shall have precedence over all business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each. 16:22 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 The government will not be supporting this motion. The minister has maintained his claim of public interest immunity in relation to certain documents sought. The claim is consistent with longstanding practices under previous governments. The minister has previously said that this issue would be considered by the Australian Universities Accord. It's been addressed in the accord's final report, which has now been released, and the government is considering its response to that report. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 512, standing in the name of Senator Henderson, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:24]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 29 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Thorpe, L. A. 31 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. 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. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

Defence Procurement: Submarines 77 Order for the Production of Documents 77 16:24 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, by no later than midday on Tuesday, 16 April 2024: (a) all documents or correspondence between the relevant offices of the Governments of Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom (UK) that relate to Australia taking on radioactive waste from the United States and UK through the AUKUS deal, including associated costings; (b) all documents and correspondence relating to: (i) costings and expenditure for the acquisitions and sustainment of the AUKUS submarine fleet, including a complete breakdown of the projected $368 billion, and (ii) forecast costs of decommissioning of the AUKUS submarines and their long-term waste management and storage; and (c) all documents relating to an estimated timeline for retiring the AUKUS submarines due to technological advancements, disrepair or otherwise. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 511, standing in the name of Senator Thorpe, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:28]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 17 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. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. (Teller) Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 30 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lines, S. McKenzie, B. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

BILLS 78 BILLS Defence Amendment (Safeguarding Australia's Military Secrets) Bill 2024, Defence Trade Controls Amendment Bill 2024 78

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

Defence Trade Controls Amendment Bill 2024

Third Reading 78 16:31 The PRESIDENT 112096 Senators, the time allotted for consideration of the bills listed in the order agreed to earlier today has expired. I will now put the questions required to conclude consideration of the bills, starting with the Defence Amendment (Safeguarding Australia's Military Secrets) Bill 2024 and a related bill. The question is that the bills be now read a third time. 16:31 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I was seeking the call to provide a clarification. I miss-voted on one of the previous motions, on 505. I was wondering whether that could be corrected in that I actually meant to oppose 505. Apologies. The PRESIDENT 112096 We are a long way past that, Senator Pocock. Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 I was just waiting to seek the call before we moved on to the guillotine. Senator Wong 00AOU I rise on a point of order. The senator is not in order. We have moved on. If it didn't change the vote, you can just record your position. I think you have done that now. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. We will record your vote, Senator Pocock. The question is that the Defence Amendment (Safeguarding Australia's Military Secrets) Bill 2024 and the Defence Trade Controls Amendment Bill 2024 be read a third time.    

The Senate divided. [16:36]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 32 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. Lines, S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walsh, J. C. 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.
Bills read a third time.

 Autonomous Sanctions Amendment Bill 2024 79

Autonomous Sanctions Amendment Bill 2024

The Senate divided. [16:39]
(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. 31 NOES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McKenzie, B. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walsh, J. C. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Third Reading 81 16:41 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now past. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023 81

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

Second Reading 81 16:41 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will put the questions on the remaining stages of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Share—Integrity And Transparency) Bill 2023. The question now is that the bill be read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. The PRESIDENT 112096 I shall now deal with the committee of the whole amendments, starting with the amendments circulated by the government. I understand the minister has a document to table. 16:42 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government's amendment to be moved to this bill. The PRESIDENT 112096 The Australian Greens have circulated an amendment to government amendment 24 on sheet RU100. The question is that the Australian Greens amendment on sheet 2305 to government amendments be agreed to. The Australian Greens ' circulated amendment— (1) Amendment (24), item 29, subparagraph 820-52(1)(c)(i), after "preparation costs", insert "unless those costs relate to the clearing of native forests". Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the government amendments on sheet RU100 be agreed to. Government's circulated amendment— (1) Schedule 2, page 6 (after line 15), after item 4, insert: 4A Section 705-60 (after table item 5) Insert: 4B Section 705-60 (table item 6, column headed "What the step requires") Omit "step 5", substitute "step 5A". (2) Schedule 2, item 7, page 7 (before line 3), before subparagraph 705-65(5A)(b)(ii), insert: (ia) the step 5A amount under section 705-102; or (3) Schedule 2, page 7 (after line 4), after item 7, insert: 7A Paragraph 705-65(5A)(c) After "(b)(i)", insert "or (ia)". (4) Schedule 2, page 7 (after line 6), after item 8, insert: 8A Subparagraph 705-75(5)(b)(ii) Repeal the subparagraph, substitute: (ii) the step 5A amount under section 705-102; or (iii) the step 6 amount under section 705-110; or (iv) the step 6A amount under section 705-112; 8B After section 705-100 Insert: 705-102 FRT disallowed amounts accruing to joined group before joining time — step 5A in working out allocable cost amount (1) For the purposes of step 5A in the table in section 705-60, the step 5A amount is the sum of all *FRT disallowed amounts of the joining entity that: (a) had not been applied by the joining entity under paragraph 820-56(2)(b) for the income year in which the joining time occurred or any earlier income year; and (b) accrued to the joined group before the joining time (see subsection (2) of this section). (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), a *FRT disallowed amount accrued to the joined group before the joining time if and to the extent that, assuming that as it arose it were instead a profit that was accruing, a distribution of that profit would have been a distribution made to the joined group out of profits that accrued to the joined group before the joining time. (3) However, a *FRT disallowed amount is not to be taken into account under subsection (1) to the extent that it reduced the undistributed profits comprising the step 3 amount in the table in section 705-60. 8C Section 705-105 (heading) Omit "to5", substitute "to5A". 8D Section 705-105 After "705-100", insert ", 705-102". (5) Schedule 2, page 8 (before line 1), before item 10, insert: 9A At the end of paragraph 705-160(2)(c) Add: or (iii) an amount is required to be subtracted (also the second entity's profit/loss adjustment amount) under step 5A in the table in section 705-60 (about *FRT disallowed amounts accruing to a joined group before the joining time); 9B Subsection 705-160(2) After "subparagraph (c)(ii)", insert "or (iii)". 9C At the end of paragraph 705-160(4)(d) Add: or (iii) an amount is required to be subtracted (also the third entity's profit/loss adjustment amount) under step 5A in the table in section 705-60 (about *FRT disallowed amounts accruing to a joined group before the joining time); 9D Subsection 705-160(4) After "subparagraph (d)(ii)", insert "or (iii)". 9E At the end of paragraph 705-235(2)(b) Add: or (iii) an amount is required to be subtracted (also the second linked entity's profit/loss adjustment amount) under step 5A in the table in section 705-60 (about *FRT disallowed amounts accruing to a joined group before the joining time); 9F Subsection 705-235(2) After "subparagraph (b)(ii)", insert "or (iii)". 9G At the end of paragraph 705-235(4)(c) Add: or (iii) an amount is required to be subtracted (also the third linked entity's profit/loss adjustment amount) under step 5A in the table in section 705-60 (about *FRT disallowed amounts accruing to a joined group before the joining time); 9H Subsection 705-235(4) After "subparagraph (c)(ii)", insert "or (iii)". (6) Schedule 2, item 14, page 9 (table item 2A, column 2), omit ", 820-C, 820-D or 820-E", substitute "or 820-C". (7) Schedule 2, item 14, page 9 (table item 2A, column 2, paragraph (b)), omit the paragraph, substitute: (b) debt deductions in relation to a financial arrangement that is entered into by an entity to fund etc. certain payments or distributions to one or more associate pairs of the entity. (8) Schedule 2, page 9 (after line 5), after item 15, insert: 15A After section 820-30 Insert: 820-31 Order of application of Subdivisions (1) First, work out if a *debt deduction of an entity for an income year is disallowed under Subdivision 820-EAA (debt deduction limitation rules for debt deduction creation). (2) To the extent that all or part of a debt deduction is disallowed under that Subdivision, disregard the debt deduction in applying the following provisions in relation to the entity for the income year: (a) Subdivision 820-AA; (b) Subdivision 820-B; (c) Subdivision 820-C. Note: The provisions mentioned in paragraphs (2)(a) to (c) may further disallow debt deductions of the entity. (9) Schedule 2, page 10 (after line 27), after item 21, insert: 21A Subsection 820-39(1) Omit "or 820-E", substitute ", 820-E or 820-EAA". (10) Schedule 2, page 10 (after line 29), after item 22, insert: 22A Subsection 820-39(2) Omit "or 820-E", substitute ", 820-E or 820-EAA". (11) Schedule 2, item 29, page 14 (line 19), omit "subsection (4)", substitute "subsections (4) and (4A) of this section". (12) Schedule 2, item 29, page 14 (after line 24), after subsection 820-47(4), insert: (4A) If, under subsection 820-46(5), an entity is taken to have made a choice to apply the third party debt test in relation to an income year: (a) the entity may not make a choice under subsection 820-46(3) (group ratio test applies) in relation to that income year; and (b) any choice previously made under subsection 820-46(3) by the entity in relation to that income year is revoked and taken never to have been made. (13) Schedule 2, item 29, page 14 (lines 25 and 26), omit "an entity revokes a choice under subsection (4)", substitute "a choice is revoked under subsection (4) or (4A) of this section". (14) Schedule 2, item 29, page 15 (lines 2 to 11), omit paragraph 820-47(6)(b). (15) Schedule 2, item 29, page 15 (lines 12 and 13), omit paragraph 820-47(6)(c), substitute: (c) the entity has applied to the Commissioner, in the *approved form, to revoke the choice before the earlier of the following days: (i) the day that is 4 years after the day the entity lodged its *income tax return for the income year; (ii) the day that is 4 years after the day the entity was required to lodge its income tax return for the income year; (16) Schedule 2, item 29, page 15 (line 22), omit "the entity mentioned in that subsection", substitute "an entity (the first entity)". (17) Schedule 2, item 29, page 15 (line 24), before "entity", insert "first". (18) Schedule 2, item 29, page 15 (line 33), omit "entity mentioned in subsection 820-46(5)", substitute "first entity". (19) Schedule 2, item 29, page 16 (before line 5), before paragraph 820-48(2)(a), insert: (aa) disregard the requirement in subsections 820-905(1) and (2A) that the entity is an *associate of the other entity, unless only paragraph 820-905(1)(b) applies; and (20) Schedule 2, item 29, page 16 (line 32), omit "the assets", substitute "assets". (21) Schedule 2, item 29, page 16 (after line 35), at the end of section 820-49, add: (3) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), disregard assets that are *membership interests in the borrower. (22) Schedule 2, item 29, page 17 (line 34), after "this Division", insert "other than Subdivision 820-EAA". (23) Schedule 2, item 29, page 18 (line 25), after "this Division", insert "(other than Subdivision 820-EAA)". (24) Schedule 2, item 29, page 18 (lines 29 to 32), omit paragraph 820-52(1)(c), substitute: (c) next, add the sum of the entity's deductions (if any) from its assessable income for the income year that are any of the following: (i) *general deductions that relate to forestry establishment and preparation costs; (ii) deductions under Divisions 40 and 43 (other than deductions for the entire amount of an expense incurred by the entity); (iii) deductions under section 70-120; (25) Schedule 2, item 29, page 19 (before line 1), before paragraph 820-52(1)(d), insert: (ca) next, if the entity is an entity to which subsection 820-60(1) applies—add the *excess tax EBITDA amount (if any) worked out under that section for the income year; (26) Schedule 2, item 29, page 19 (line 1), after "paragraph (c)", insert "or (ca), as the case requires,". (27) Schedule 2, item 29, page 19 (after line 6), after subsection 820-52(1), insert: Tax losses from earlier income years (1A) In working out the taxable income or *tax loss of a *corporate tax entity for an income year for the purposes of subsection (1), assume that: (a) the entity chooses to deduct, under subsection 36-17(2) or (3), all of the entity's tax losses for *loss years occurring before the income year; and (b) subsection 36-17(5) does not apply to that choice. (28) Schedule 2, item 29, page 19 (line 8), at the end of subsection 820-52(2), add ", to the extent that Division results in an amount of, or a *share of, a *franking credit being included in the entity's assessable income for the income year". (29) Schedule 2, item 29, page 19 (lines 9 to 13), omit subsection 820-52(3), substitute: Dividends etc. (3) In working out the taxable income or *tax loss of an entity for the purposes of subsection (1), disregard any *dividend or *non-share dividend paid to the entity by an *associate entity and included in the entity's assessable income under section 44 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. (30) Schedule 2, item 29, page 19 (line 14), at the end of the heading to subsection 820-52(4), add "other than AMITs". (31) Schedule 2, item 29, page 19 (line 15), after "trust", insert "other than an *AMIT". (32) Schedule 2, item 29, page 20 (line 1), at the end of the heading to subsection 820-52(6), add "other than AMITs". (33) Schedule 2, item 29, page 20 (line 3), after "a trust", insert "other than an *AMIT". (34) Schedule 2, item 29, page 20 (after line 10), after subsection 820-52(6), insert: Attribution managed investment trusts (6A) If the entity is an *AMIT: (a) treat the reference in subsection (1) to the entity's taxable income as being a reference to the *net income of the entity; and (b) treat the reference in subsection (1) to the entity's *net debt deductions as being a reference to the entity's net debt deductions taken into account in working out that net income; and (c) treat the reference in subsection (1) to the entity's deductions as being a reference to the entity's deductions taken into account in working out that net income; and (d) treat the references in subsection (1) to the entity's assessable income as being a reference to the entity's assessable income taken into account in working out that net income. Members of AMITs (6B) In working out the taxable income or *tax loss of an entity for the purposes of subsection (1), if the entity is a member of an *AMIT, and is an *associate entity of the AMIT: (a) disregard the operation of Division 276 in relation to the AMIT; and (b) disregard distributions from the AMIT to the entity. (35) Schedule 2, item 29, page 20 (line 32), omit "(6)", substitute "(3), (6), (6B)". (36) Schedule 2, item 29, page 21 (before line 1), before paragraph 820-52(9)(a), insert: (aa) disregard the requirement in subsections 820-905(1) and (2A) that the entity is an *associate of the other entity, unless only paragraph 820-905(1)(b) applies; and (37) Schedule 2, item 29, page 21 (after line 13), at the end of section 820-52, add: Notional deductions of R&D entities (10) In working out the taxable income or *tax loss of an entity for the purposes of subsection (1), if the entity is an *R&D entity that is entitled to a notional deduction for an income year under Division 355 in relation to *R&D activities of the R&D entity, subtract an amount equivalent to the amount of the notional deduction. (38) Schedule 2, item 29, page 24 (before line 30), before paragraph 820-54(5)(a), insert: (aa) disregard the requirement in subsections 820-905(1) and (2A) that the entity is an *associate of the other entity, unless only paragraph 820-905(1)(b) applies; and (39) Schedule 2, item 29, page 28 (after line 15), at the end of Subdivision 820-AA, add: 820-60 Excess tax EBITDA amount Scope (1) This section applies to an entity (the controlling entity) if: (a) the controlling entity is, for a period that is all or part of an income year, one of the following entities: (i) a company that is an *Australian entity; (ii) a unit trust that is a *resident trust for CGT purposes; (iii) a *managed investment trust; (iv) a partnership that is an Australian entity; and (b) the controlling entity is a *general class investor for all or part of the income year; and (c) the controlling entity has not made a choice under subsection 820-46(3) or (4) in relation to the income year; and (d) one or more other entities (each of which is a controlled entity) satisfy the conditions in subsection (2) of this section in relation to the controlling entity for the income year. (2) An entity (the test entity) satisfies the conditions in this subsection in relation to the controlling entity for an income year if: (a) the controlling entity has a *TC direct control interest of 50% or more in the test entity at any time during the income year; and (b) the test entity is, for a period that is all or part of the income year, one of the following entities: (i) a company that is an *Australian entity; (ii) a unit trust that is a *resident trust for CGT purposes; (iii) a *managed investment trust; (iv) a partnership that is an Australian entity; and (c) the test entity is a *general class investor for all or part of the income year; and (d) the test entity has not made a choice under subsection 820-46(3) or (4) in relation to the income year. Excess tax EBITDA amount (3) The controlling entity's excess tax EBITDA amount for the income year is the amount worked out using the following method statement. Method statement Step 1.For each controlled entity, work out the amount (if any) by which the *fixed ratio earnings limit of the controlled entity for the income year exceeds the sum of the following: (a) the controlled entity's *net debt deductions for the income year (for the purposes of this paragraph, treat a negative amount of net debt deductions as nil); (b) the total of the controlled entity's *FRT disallowed amounts for the 15 income years ending immediately before the income year (to the extent those amounts have not been applied under section 820-56). Step 2. For each controlled entity: (a) work out the controlling entity's *TC direct control interest for each day in the income year; and (b) for each day on which the amount was 50% or greater, add the amounts; and (c) divide the result of paragraph (b) by the number of days in the income year during which the controlled entity was in existence. Express the result as a percentage. Step 3. For each controlled entity, multiply the result of step 1 by the percentage worked out under step 2. If the amount worked out under step 1 for a controlled entity is nil, the result for that controlled entity under this step will be nil. Step 4. Add up the amounts worked out under step 3. Step 5. Divide the result of step 4 by 0.3. The result of this step is the excess tax EBITDA amount. Modification of TC direct control interest — companies (4) For the purposes of this section, in working out whether the controlling entity holds a *TC direct control interest in a company, apply subsection 820-855(2) as if it instead included the modifications of Part X of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 set out in the following table. Modification of TC direct control interest — trusts (5) For the purposes of this section, in working out whether the controlling entity holds a *TC direct control interest in a trust, apply subsection 820-860(2) as if it also included the modifications of Part X of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 set out in the following table. Modification of TC direct control interest — partnerships (6) For the purposes of this section, in working out whether the controlling entity holds a *TC direct control interest in a partnership, apply section 820-865 as if: (a) the reference to "greatest" were a reference to "least"; and (b) paragraph 820-865(b) were omitted. Modified meaning of Australian entity (7) For the purposes of this section, in determining whether an entity is an *Australian entity (including for the purposes of determining whether another entity is a *foreign entity) at a particular time: (a) for the purposes of paragraph 336(a) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, treat a partnership as being an Australian entity if, at that time, a *direct participation interest of 50% or more is held in the partnership by one or more of the following: (i) an Australian resident; (ii) an *Australian trust; and (b) disregard section 337 of that Act. (40) Schedule 2, item 33, page 31 (lines 6 and 7), omit subsection 820-85(2E). (41) Schedule 2, item 57, page 34 (line 10), omit "(2A)", substitute "(2C)". (42) Schedule 2, item 57, page 36 (lines 1 and 2), omit subsection 820-185(2E). (43) Schedule 2, item 76, page 39 (lines 6 to 9), omit paragraph 820-423(b), substitute: (b) debt deductions in relation to a financial arrangement that is entered into by an entity to fund etc. certain payments or distributions to one or more associate pairs of the entity. (44) Schedule 2, item 76, page 39 (after line 9), at the end of section 820-423, add: The rules in this Subdivision are applied before the rules set out in Subdivisions 820-AA, 820-B and 820-C. If a debt deduction of an entity is disallowed under this Subdivision, the debt deduction is disregarded for the purpose of applying those other Subdivisions (see section 820-31). (45) Schedule 2, item 76, page 39 (line 27), at the end of subparagraph 820-423A(1)(a)(iii), add "and". (46) Schedule 2, item 76, page 39 (lines 28 and 29), omit subparagraphs 820-423A(1)(a)(iv) and (v). (47) Schedule 2, item 76, page 39 (after line 29), after paragraph 820-423A(1)(a), insert: (aa) the entity is not a *securitisation vehicle; and (48) Schedule 2, item 76, page 39 (lines 32 and 33), omit ", see", substitute ": see". (49) Schedule 2, item 76, page 39 (after line 33), after note 1, insert: Note 1A: This Subdivision does not apply to certain special purpose entities: see section 820-39. (50) Schedule 2, item 76, page 40 (line 13), omit "*associate pair", substitute "associate pair". (51) Schedule 2, item 76, page 40 (line 21), at the end of subsection 820-423A(2), add: ; (e) the relevant entity's debt deduction mentioned in subsection (1) is referable to an amount paid or payable, either directly or indirectly, to any of the following: (i) an associate pair of the relevant entity; (ii) an associate pair of the acquirer; (iii) an associate pair of an associate disposer; (f) the acquisition mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection is not covered by section 820-423AA (which is about exceptions); (g) the relevant entity has not made a choice under subsection 820-46(4) to use the third party debt test for the income year mentioned in subsection (1) of this section. (52) Schedule 2, item 76, page 40 (after line 24), after subsection 820-423A(3), insert: (3A) For the purposes of subsection (2): (a) that subsection may apply in relation to an indirect *acquisition by an entity through one or more interposed entities even if an acquisition in the series is covered by section 820-423AA (which is about exceptions); and (b) in determining whether an acquisition occurs indirectly through one or more interposed entities: (i) it is sufficient if acquisitions exist between each entity; and (ii) it is not necessary to demonstrate that each acquisition in a series of acquisitions happened before the next acquisition. Example: Entity A acquires a membership interest in Entity B that is covered by the exception in subsection 820-423AA(1). Entity B later acquires, from Entity C, a CGT asset that is not covered by an exception in that section. There may be an indirect acquisition of the CGT asset by Entity A. (53) Schedule 2, item 76, page 40 (line 25), omit "paragraph (2)(a) and subsection (3)", substitute "subsections (2), (3) and (3A)". (54) Schedule 2, item 76, page 40 (line 27) to page 41 (line 22), omit subsection 820-423A(5), substitute: Financial arrangements involving associate pairs (5) This subsection applies if all of the following conditions are satisfied: (a) an entity (the payer) enters into, or has a *financial arrangement with another entity; (b) the payer uses the financial arrangement to: (i) fund; or (ii) facilitate the funding of; one or more payments or distributions, of which one or more is a payment or distribution that, to an extent: (iii) the payer makes to an entity (an associate recipient) that is an *associate pair of the payer; and (iv) is covered by subsection (5A) (which is about types of payments or distributions); (c) the entity mentioned in subsection (1) (the relevant entity) is any of the following: (i) the payer; (ii) an associate pair of the payer; (iii) an associate pair of an associate recipient; (d) the relevant entity's *debt deduction mentioned in subsection (1) is, wholly or partly, in relation to the financial arrangement mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection; (e) the relevant entity's debt deduction is referable to an amount paid or payable, either directly or indirectly, to any of the following: (i) an associate pair of the relevant entity; (ii) an associate pair of the payer; (iii) an associate pair of an associate recipient; (f) the relevant entity has not made a choice under subsection 820-46(4) to use the third party debt test for the income year mentioned in subsection (1) of this section. (5A) This subsection covers the following: (a) a *dividend, *distribution or *non-share distribution; (b) a distributionby a trustee or partnership; (c) a return of capital, including a return of capital made by a distribution or payment made by a trustee or partnership; (d) a payment or distribution in respect of the cancellation or redemption of a *membership interest in an entity; (e) a *royalty, or a similar payment or distribution for the use of, or right to use, an asset; (f) a payment or distribution that is wholly or partly referable to the repayment of principal under a *debt interest if: (i) the debt interest is issued by the payer; and (ii) the debt interest is a *financial arrangement that satisfies paragraphs (5)(a), (b) and (c); (g) a payment or distribution of a kind similar to a payment or distribution mentioned in the preceding paragraphs; (h) a payment or distribution prescribed by the regulations. (55) Schedule 2, item 76, page 41 (line 23), omit "paragraph (5)(c)", substitute "paragraph (5)(b)". (56) Schedule 2, item 76, page 41 (line 27), omit "(4)", substitute "(7)". (57) Schedule 2, item 76, page 41 (lines 28 and 29), omit "first associate issues the *debt interest", substitute "payer enters into or has the *financial arrangement mentioned in paragraph (5)(a)". (58) Schedule 2, item 76, page 41 (line 30), omit "second associate", substitute "entity with whom the payer enters into or has the financial arrangement,". (59) Schedule 2, item 76, page 42 (after line 3), after section 820-423A, insert: 820-423AA Exceptions for acquisition of certain CGT assets Acquisition of new membership interests in entities (1) For the purposes of paragraph 820-423A(2)(f), the acquisition of a *CGT asset is covered by this section if: (a) the CGT asset is a *membership interest in: (i) an *Australian entity; or (ii) a *foreign entity that is a company; and (b) the membership interest has not previously been held by any entity. Acquisition of certain new depreciating assets (2) For the purposes of paragraph 820-423A(2)(f), the acquisition of a *CGT asset is covered by this section if all of the following conditions are satisfied: (a) the CGT asset is a *depreciating asset other than an intangible asset; (b) an entity (the acquirer) holds the CGT asset immediately after its acquisition; (c) at the time of the acquisition, it is reasonable to conclude that the acquirer expects to use the CGT asset: (i) for a *taxable purpose; and (ii) within Australia; and (iii) within 12 months; (d) at the time of the acquisition, the CGT asset has not been *installed ready for use, or previously used for a taxable purpose, by any of the following: (i) the acquirer; (ii) an associate disposer of the acquirer; (iii) an *associate pair of the acquirer. Acquisition of certain debt interests (3) For the purposes of paragraph 820-423A(2)(f), the acquisition of a *CGT asset is covered by this section if all of the following conditions are satisfied: (a) the CGT asset is a *debt interest; (b) an entity (the acquirer) holds the debt interest immediately after its acquisition; (c) the debt interest is issued by an *associate pair of the acquirer; (d) the debt interest has not previously been held by any entity. (60) Schedule 2, item 76, page 42 (lines 14 to 19), omit subsection 820-423B(2), substitute: Financial arrangements involving associate pairs (2) If the conditions in subsection 820-423A(5) are met, then under subsection 820-423A(1) the *debt deduction is disallowed to the same extent as the extent to which the payer mentioned in paragraph 820-423A(5)(a) uses the *financial arrangement in a manner that satisfies paragraph 820-423A(5)(b). (61) Schedule 2, item 76, page 42 (line 21), after "deductions", insert "under". (62) Schedule 2, item 76, page 43 (after line 25), at the end of Subdivision 820-EAA, add: 820-423E Modified meaning of associate pair (1) This section applies for the purposes of determining whether, for the purposes of this Subdivision, an entity that is a unit trust is an associate pair of another entity. Treating certain unit trusts as companies (2) Subsection (3) applies if any of the following *CGT events are capable of applying to all of the units and interests in the trust: (a) *CGT event E4; (b) *CGT event E10. (3) For the purposes of determining, under section 318 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, whether: (a) the trust is an *associate of another entity; or (b) another entity is an associate of the trust; treat the trust as if it were a company. Application of sufficient influence test (4) In determining whether the trust is sufficiently influenced by another entity for the purposes of subsection 318(2) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, as applied by subsection (3) of this section: (a) treat the trust as sufficiently influenced by another entity or other entities if the trust is accustomed or under an obligation (whether formal or informal), or might reasonably be expected, to act in accordance with the directions, instructions or wishes of the other entity or other entities (whether those directions, instructions or wishes are, or might reasonably be expected to be, communicated directly or through interposed companies, partnerships or trusts); and (b) another entity or other entities are taken to hold a majority voting interest in the trust if either of the following percentages is not less than 50%: (i) the percentage of the income of the trust represented by the share of the income to which the other entity or other entities are entitled, or that the other entity or other entities are entitled to acquire; (ii) the percentage of the corpus of the trust represented by the share of the corpus to which the other entity or other entities are entitled, or that the other entity or other entities are entitled to acquire; and (c) disregard the operation that paragraphs 318(6)(b) and (c) of that Act would otherwise have by reason only of subsection (3) of this section. (5) Subsection (6) applies in determining whether the trust: (a) is sufficiently influenced by another entity for the purposes of section 318 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936; or (b) sufficiently influences another entity for the purposes of that section. (6) If: (a) there is any breach by any entity of the terms of a *debt interest issued by, or held by, the trust; and (b) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the breach occurred only to protect the interests of secured creditors in relation to the debt interest; sufficient influence is not taken to exist in relation to the trust merely because of the breach. 820-423F Modified meaning of Australian entity For the purposes of this Subdivision, in determining whether an entity is an *Australian entity (including for the purposes of determining whether another entity is a *foreign entity) at a particular time: (a) for the purposes of paragraph 336(a) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, treat a partnership as being an Australian entity if, at that time, a *direct participation interest of 50% or more is held in the partnership by one or more of the following: (i) an Australian resident; (ii) an *Australian trust; and (b) disregard section 337 of that Act. (63) Schedule 2, item 76, page 44 (line 1), after "a choice", insert ", or that are taken to have made a choice,". (64) Schedule 2, item 76, page 44 (line 4), omit "subparagraph 820-85(1A)(b)(i)", substitute "subsection 820-85(2C)". (65) Schedule 2, item 76, page 44 (line 6), omit "subparagraph 820-185(1A)(b)(i)", substitute "subsection 820-185(2C)". (66) Schedule 2, item 76, page 44 (line 22), omit "if", substitute "to the extent that". (67) Schedule 2, item 76, page 44 (line 26), omit "referrable to an amount paid", substitute "referable to an amount paid or payable". (68) Schedule 2, item 76, page 45 (lines 3 to 8), omit paragraph 820-427A(3)(c), substitute: (c) disregarding recourse to minor or insignificant assets, the holder of the debt interest has recourse for payment of the debt to which the debt interest relates only to Australian assets that: (i) are covered by subsection (4); and (ii) are not rights covered by subsection (5) (about credit support rights); (69) Schedule 2, item 76, page 45 (line 17), omit "Australian resident", substitute "*Australian entity (see section 820-427E)". (70) Schedule 2, item 76, page 45 (lines 18 to 27), omit subsection 820-427A(4), substitute: (4) This subsection covers Australian assets that: (a) are held by the entity; or (b) are *membership interests in the entity (unless the entity has a legal or equitable interest, whether directly or indirectly, in an asset that is not an Australian asset); or (c) are held by an *Australian entity that is a *member of the *obligor group in relation to the *debt interest. (71) Schedule 2, item 76, page 45 (lines 28 to 31), omit subsection 820-427A(5), substitute: (5) This subsection covers a right under or in relation to a guarantee, security or other form of credit support, other than a right that: (a) is any of the following: (i) a right that provides recourse, directly or indirectly, only to one or more Australian assets covered by subsection (4) that are not rights covered by this subsection; (ii) a right that, assuming that the holder of the right exercised the right, would not reasonably be expected to allow, directly or indirectly, the holder or another entity to have recourse for payment of the debt mentioned in paragraph (3)(c) against an *associate entity (see section 820-427D) of the entity that issued that debt interest; (iii) a right that relates wholly to the creation or development of a *CGT asset that is, or is reasonably expected to be, land situated in Australia (including an interest in land, if the land is situated in Australia); (iv) a right that relates wholly to the creation or development of a CGT asset that is, or is reasonably expected to be, moveable property situated, or to be situated, on land of a kind mentioned in subparagraph (iii), where that moveable property is, or is reasonably expected to be, relevant to the income producing use of the land and situated on the land for the majority of its useful life; (v) a right that relates wholly to the creation or development of a CGT asset that is, or is reasonably expected to be, offshore renewable energy infrastructure (within the meaning of the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act 2021) situated, or to be situated, in a declared area (within the meaning of that Act) for the majority of its useful life; (vi) a right that relates wholly to the creation or development of a CGT asset that is, or is reasonably expected to be, offshore electricity transmission infrastructure (within the meaning of the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act 2021) that is directly related to offshore renewable energy infrastructure covered by subparagraph (v); and (b) assuming that the holder of the right exercised the right, the right would not reasonably be expected to allow, directly or indirectly, the holder or another entity to have recourse for payment of the debt mentioned in paragraph (3)(c) of this section against a *foreign entity that is an *associate entity of the entity that issued the *debt interest. (72) Schedule 2, item 76, page 45 (after line 31), at the end of section 820-427A, add: (6) For the purposes of subparagraphs (5)(a)(iii), (iv), (v) and (vi), in determining whether a right relates wholly to the creation or development of a *CGT asset of a kind mentioned in the relevant subparagraph, disregard the extent (if any) to which the right relates incidentally to another matter. (73) Schedule 2, item 76, page 45 (line 32) to page 46 (line 21), omit section 820-427B, substitute: 820-427B Modified third party debt conditions for conduit financing (1) If a *debt interest satisfies the conditions in subsection 820-427C(1) in relation to an income year, then this section applies in relation to: (a) that debt interest (the relevant debt interest); and (b) the debt interest that is the ultimate debt interest mentioned in subsection 820-427C(1) in relation to the relevant debt interest. Special rules for third party debt conditions — ultimate debt interest and relevant debt interest (2) In applying section 820-427A in relation to the income year, in relation to the relevant debt interest and the ultimate debt interest: (a) treat the reference in subparagraph 820-427A(3)(d)(ii) to *associate entity debt as being a reference to associate entity debt other than: (i) a debt interest that satisfies the conditions in subsection 820-427C(1) in relation to the ultimate debt interest; or (ii) a debt interest issued by an entity that is an *Australian entity and that has made a choice under subsection 820-46(4) to use the third party debt test for the income year; and (b) treat references in paragraphs 820-427A(4)(a) and (b) to the entity as including the conduit financer mentioned in paragraph 820-427C(1)(a) and each entity that issues a debt interest that satisfies the conditions in subsection 820-427C(1) in relation to the ultimate debt interest. Special rules for third party debt conditions — relevant debt interest (3) In applying subsection 820-427A(3) in relation to the income year, in relation to the relevant debt interest, in addition to applying subsection (2) of this section: (a) treat the conditions in paragraphs 820-427A(3)(a) and (b) as being satisfied; and (b) treat subsection 820-427A(3) as also including the condition that the ultimate debt interest satisfies the *third party debt conditions (having regard to subsection (2) of this section) in relation to the income year. (74) Schedule 2, item 76, page 46 (line 23) to page 47 (line 21), omit subsection 820-427C(1), substitute: (1) If, in relation to an income year: (a) an entity (the conduit financer) issues a *debt interest (the ultimate debt interest) to an entity (the ultimate lender) that is not an *associate entity (see section 820-427D) of the conduit financer; and (b) an entity (the borrower) that is an associate entity of the conduit financer issues another debt interest (the relevant debt interest) to: (i) the conduit financer; or (ii) another entity (the conduit borrower) that is an associate entity of the conduit financer and the borrower; and (c) the amount loaned under the relevant debt interest: (i) if subparagraph (b)(i) applies—was financed by the conduit financer only with proceeds from the ultimate debt interest; or (ii) if subparagraph (b)(ii) applies—was financed by the conduit borrower only with proceeds from another debt interest that is also a debt interest that satisfies the conditions in this subsection in relation to the ultimate debt interest because of a previous operation of this subsection; and (d) the terms of the relevant debt interest, to the extent that those terms relate to costs incurred by the borrower in relation to the relevant debt interest, are the same as the terms of the ultimate debt interest, to the extent that those terms relate to such costs incurred by the conduit financer in relation to the ultimate debt interest; and (e) the conduit financer, the borrower and each conduit borrower (if any) are *Australian entities (see section 820-427E); and (f) it is not the case that subparagraph 820-46(1)(b)(i) or (ii) applies (fixed ratio test or group ratio test applies) to the conduit financer, the borrower or any conduit borrowers; then the relevant debt interest satisfies the conditions in this subsection in relation to the income year. (75) Schedule 2, item 76, page 47 (line 22), omit "(1)(e)", substitute "(1)(d)". (76) Schedule 2, item 76, page 47 (line 29), after "allowing", insert "(whether directly, or indirectly through one or more interposed borrowers)". (77) Schedule 2, item 76, page 47 (line 33), after "allowing", insert "(whether directly, or indirectly through one or more interposed borrowers)". (78) Schedule 2, item 76, page 47 (line 37), after "allowing", insert "(whether directly, or indirectly through one or more interposed borrowers)". (79) Schedule 2, item 76, page 48 (line 7), at the end of subsection 820-427C(2), add: ; and (e) disregard the terms (if any) of a relevant debt interest, to the extent that those terms have the effect of allowing (whether directly, or indirectly through one or more interposed borrowers) the recovery of costs of a borrower that: (i) are a debt deduction for the income year of the borrower; and (ii) are a debt deduction that is treated as being attributable to another debt interest under subsection 820-427A(2) because it is directly associated with hedging or managing the interest rate risk in respect of that other debt interest. (80) Schedule 2, item 76, page 48 (line 9), before "For", insert "(1)". (81) Schedule 2, item 76, page 48 (line 14), omit "820-427A(4)(b)", substitute "820-427A(5)(b)". (82) Schedule 2, item 76, page 48 (after line 18), after paragraph 820-427D(a), insert: (aa) disregard the requirement in subsections 820-905(1) and (2A) that the entity is an *associate of the other entity, unless only paragraph 820-905(1)(b) applies; and (83) Schedule 2, item 76, page 48 (after line 27), at the end of section 820-427D, add: (2) For the purposes of this Subdivision: (a) treat an entity (the first entity) that has entered into a *cross-staple arrangement with another entity as an associate entity of that other entity; and (b) if that other entity is itself an associate entity of a conduit financer mentioned in section 820-427C (whether because of another operation of this subsection or otherwise)—treat the first entity as an associate entity of the conduit financer. (84) Schedule 2, item 76, page 48 (after line 27), at the end of Subdivision 820-EAB, add: 820-427E Modified meaning of Australian entity For the purposes of this Subdivision, in determining whether an entity is an *Australian entity at a particular time: (a) for the purposes of paragraph 336(a) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, treat a partnership as being an Australian entity if, at that time, a *direct participation interest of 50% or more is held in the partnership by one or more of the following: (i) an Australian resident; (ii) an *Australian trust; and (b) disregard section 337 of that Act. (85) Schedule 2, item 88, page 52 (line 12), omit "820-59B(6)(b)", substitute "820-59(4)(b)". (86) Schedule 2, page 54 (after line 31), after item 98, insert: 98A Paragraph 820-881(a) Before "an *outward investing entity (non-ADI)", insert "a *general class investor,". (87) Schedule 2, page 55 (after line 11), after item 100, insert: 100A Subsection 820-910(1) Before "an *outward investing entity (non-ADI)", insert "a *general class investor,". (88) Schedule 2, item 121, page 58 (after line 9), after the definition of entity EBITDA in subsection 995-1(1), insert: excess tax EBITDA amount has the meaning given by section 820-60. (89) Schedule 2, item 144, page 63 (after line 8), after subitem (2), insert: (3) Despite subitem (1), Subdivision 820-EAA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, as inserted by Part 1 of this Schedule, applies in relation to assessments for income years starting on or after 1 July 2024. Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Senator David Pocock. The question is the amendment on sheet 2294 be agreed to. Senator David Pocock's circulated amendments— (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit "3", substitute "4". (2) Page 2 (after line 11), after clause 3, insert: 4 Review of operation of amendments (1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by Schedule 2 to this Act. Public consultation (2) The review must make provision for public consultation. Timeframe for review (3) The review must commence no later than 1 February 2026. Report (4) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 17 months of the commencement of the review. Tabling (5) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report. Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Pauline Hanson's One Nation. The question is that the amendments on sheet 2383 be agreed to. Pauline Hanson's One Nation's circulated amendments— (1) Schedule 2, item 144, page 63 (line 3), omit "The amendments", substitute "Subject to this Part, the amendments". (2) Schedule 2, Part 2, page 63 (after line 17), at the end of the Part, add: 146 Saving — old law continues to apply to Australian plantation forestry entities (1) Despite the amendments made by Part 1 of this Schedule, the old law continues to apply in relation to assessments for income years starting on or after 1 July 2023 for entities that are Australian plantation forestry entities for a period that is all or part of the income year, as if the amendments had not been made. (2) In this item: Australian plantation forestry entity, at a particular time, means an entity that solely or predominantly carries on a business, at that time, of establishing and tending trees for felling in Australia. old law means the following provisions, as in force immediately before the commencement of this item: (a) Division 820 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997; (b) any other provision of that Act to the extent that it relates to that Division; (c) any provision in an instrument (whether legislative or administrative) made under that Act to the extent that it relates to that Division.    

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

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

Question agreed to.

 16:48 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the amendments circulated by the opposition. The question is that the amendments on sheet 2248 be agreed to. Opposition's circulated amendments— (1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add: (2) Schedule 2, item 144, page 63 (line 4), omit "2023", substitute "2024". (3) Schedule 2, item 144, page 63 (line 8), omit "2023", substitute "2024". (4) Page 63 (after line 17), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 3 — Consultation 1 Consultation (1) Before 1 July 2024, the Treasurer must ensure that: (a) consultation on the amendments made by Schedule 2 to this Act is undertaken: (i) for a period of at least 3 months; and (ii) with such industry participants as the Treasurer considers appropriate; and (b) a report is prepared on the consultation. (2) As soon as practicable after the completion of the report referred to in paragraph (1)(b), the persons who prepared the report must give it to the Treasurer. (3) The Treasurer must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Treasurer.    

The Senate divided. [16:49]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 29 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Lambie, J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. 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. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) 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. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 16:51 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the amendments circulated by the Australian Greens. The question is that the amendments on sheet 2234 be agreed to. Australian Greens' circulated amendments— (1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add: (2) Page 63 (after line 17), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 3 — Petroleum resource rent tax transparency Taxation Administration Act 1953 1 Subsection 3E(1) After "a year of tax", insert "in relation to a petroleum project". 2 Subsection 3E(1) After "the year of tax", insert "and the petroleum project". 3 Paragraph 3E(3)(b) After "the year of tax" (wherever occurring), insert "and the petroleum project". 4 At the end of subsection 3E(3) Add: ; (c) the following information, according to information reported to the Commissioner sin the entity's PRRT return for the year of tax and the petroleum project: (i) the total assessable receipts derived by the entity for the year of tax and the project; (ii) the total deductible expenditure incurred by the entity for the year of tax and the project; (iii) if the total deductible expenditure mentioned in subparagraph (ii) exceeds the total assessable receipts mentioned in subparagraph (i)—the amount of the excess; (iv) the total of the amounts (if any) transferred by the entity to the project in relation to the year of tax under section 45A of the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Act 1987; (v) the total of the amounts (if any) transferred by another entity to the project in relation to the project and the year of tax under section 45B of the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Act 1987; (vi) the taxable profit of the entity for the year of tax and the project. Note: The amount of the excess mentioned in subparagraph (c)(iii) is known as the undeducted expenditure. 5 Paragraph 3E(4)(a) After "paragraph (3)(b)", insert "or (c)". 6 Subsection 3E(7) Insert: petroleum project has the meaning given by the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax Assessment Act 1987. 7 Application of amendments The amendments of section 3E of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 made by this Schedule apply in relation to a year of tax ending on or after the commencement of this item.    

The Senate divided. [16:52]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 17 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Babet, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 27 NOES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lines, S. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Third Reading 96 16:53 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment Bill 2024, Treasury Laws Amendment (Foreign Investment) Bill 2024 96

Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment Bill 2024

Treasury Laws Amendment (Foreign Investment) Bill 2024

Second Reading 96 16:54 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I will now put the questions on the remaining stages of the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment Bill 2024 and a related bill. The question is that the bills now be read a second time. Question agreed to. Bills read a second time. Third Reading 96 16:55 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bills be agreed to and the bills be now passed. Question agreed to. Bills read a third time. BILLS 96 BILLS Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill (No. 2) 2023 96

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

Second Reading 96 16:55 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I will now put the questions on the remaining stages of the Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill (No. 2) 2023. I will first deal with the second reading amendments circulated by the Australian Greens. This is on sheet 2445. The question is that the amendment on sheet 2445 be agreed to. Greens' circulated amendment— At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to introduce legislation to amend the Customs Act 1901 to prohibit absolutely the export of weapons and other military equipment to Israel".    

The Senate divided. [16:57]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

 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. 28 NOES Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 16:59 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question now is that the bill be read a second time. Question agreed to. Third Reading 97 16:59 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment Bill 2024 97

Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment Bill 2024

Second Reading 97 17:00 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I'll now put the questions for the remaining stages of the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment Bill 2024. The question is that the bill now be read a second time.    

The Senate divided. [17:04]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

28 AYES Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Lambie, J. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Van, D. A. 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.
Bill read a second time.

 17:06 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments circulated by Senator David Pocock. This is sheets 2426 and 2427. The question is that the amendments on sheets 2426 and 2427 be agreed to. Senator David Pocock's circ ulated amendments— SHEET 2426 (1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add: (2) Page 12 (after line 34), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 2 — Grants administration reforms Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 1 Section 6 After "The Dictionary in section 8 contains a list of every term that is defined in this Act.", insert "Some additional terms used in Schedule 1 to this Act are defined in clause 2 of that Schedule.". 2 At the end of section 7 Add: Some additional terms used in Schedule 1 to this Act are defined in clause 2 of that Schedule. 3 After Division 5 of Part 2-4 Insert: Division 5A — Grants 59A Grants Schedule 1 has effect. 4 At the end of the Act Add: Schedule 1 — Grants Note: See section 59A. Part 1 — Preliminary 1 Simplified outline of this Schedule This Schedule defines the resource management framework as an overarching accountability framework for the proper use and management of public resources, including for grants administration. This framework provides responsible Ministers, accountable authorities and officials with the flexibility to: (a) administer grants that contribute to a range of government outcomes; and (b) work together with non-government stakeholders, such as industry, small business and the not-for-profit sector. Part 3 of this Schedule sets out, as part of this framework, some specific requirements for grants administration. Part 4 of this Schedule establishes the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Grants Administration, which has a role in the resource management framework. 2 Definitions Note: A number of expressions used in this Schedule are defined elsewhere in this Act (see section 8), including the following: (a) CRF; (b) other CRF money; (c) proper; (d) relevant money. In this Schedule: Committee means the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Grants Administration(see Part 4 of this Schedule). grant has the meaning given by clause 3. grant agreement means a written agreement formalising a grant. GrantConnect means the Australian Government's central grants public reporting repository. Note: In 2024, this repository could be accessed at https://help.grants.gov.au. grants administration includes all processes involved in the grants lifecycle, including: (a) designing grant opportunities and activities; and (b) preparing program guidelines for the relevant grants program; and (c) assessing and selecting grantees; and (d) preparing and executing grant agreements; and (e) ongoing management of grantees and grant activities; and (f) evaluating grant opportunities and activities. program guidelines, for a grants program, has the meaning given by clause 18. resource management framework has the meaning given by clause 5. 3 Meaning of grant (1) A grant is an arrangement for the provision of financial assistance by or on behalf of the Commonwealth, or by or on behalf of a corporate Commonwealth entity: (a) under which relevant money or other CRF money is to be paid to a grantee other than the Commonwealth; and (b) which is intended to help address one or more of the Australian Government's policy outcomes while assisting the grantee achieve its objectives. (2) Without limiting subclause (1), a grant may take a variety of forms including payments made: (a) as a result of competitive or non-competitive selection processes; or (b) where particular criteria are satisfied; or (c) on a one-off or ad hoc basis. Note: Types of grants include, for example, research grants, grants providing for the delivery of services, grants that help fund infrastructure, and grants that help build capacity. (3) Despite subclause (1), none of the following arrangements are grants: (a) the acquisition of goods and services by a Commonwealth entity for its own use, or on behalf of another entity; (b) an act of grace payment approved under section 65; (c) a payment of compensation made under: (i) an arrangement relating to defective administration; or (ii) an arrangement relating to employment conditions; or (iii) an arrangement established by a law; (d) a payment to a person of a benefit or an entitlement established by a law; (e) a tax concession or offset; (f) an investment or loan; (g) a payment: (i) to a State under section 96 of the Constitution; or (ii) to a State or Territory for the purposes of the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009; unless the Commonwealth has a determinative input into the final recipients of the payments; (h) a payment made for the purposes of the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1995; (i) a payment made for the purposes of the Australian Education Act 2013; (j) a payment made for the purposes of the Higher Education Support Act 2003; (k) a payment of assistance for the purposes of Australia's international development assistance programme, which is treated by the Commonwealth as official development assistance; (l) a payment of a charitable donation by a non-corporate entity from monies received from individuals for that purpose; (m) a membership payment for the purposes of complying with Australia's obligations under international treaties; (n) a payment, or notional payment, from one Commonwealth entity to another; (o) a notional payment by a Commonwealth entity to itself. Note: Additional guidance on the range of arrangements referred to in this subclause is available on the Department's website (http:///www.finance.gov.au). Part 2 — Resource Management Framework 4 Background to the Resource Management Framework Ministers, accountable authorities and officials, and the third parties they deal with, operate within an environment of legislation and government policy. Within this broad context, the resource management framework consists of the legislation, policy and guidance governing the management of public resources. This framework contains an overarching requirement that accountable authorities govern Commonwealth entities in a way that promotes proper use and management of public resources. The key legislative requirements in this framework are located in this Act (including this Schedule) and in rules made under this Act. Ministers, accountable authorities and officials are subject to these requirements. Officials need to advise their Ministers about the requirements that their Ministers are subject to. 5 Meaning of resource management framework (1) The resource management framework is the overarching accountability framework for the proper use and management of public resources, including for grants administration, and consists of: (a) requirements in this Schedule; and (b) requirements in this Act other than in this Schedule; and (c) requirements prescribed by the rules for the purposes of a provision of this Act other than in this Schedule; and (d) requirements prescribed by the rules for the purposes of this paragraph; and (e) policy guidance in instruments made by the Finance Minister under subsection 105C(1). Note: For paragraph (e), in 2024 the relevant instrument is the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines 2017. Part 2 of that instruments sets out key principles for grant administration. In 2024, those Guidelines could be viewed on the Department's website (http://www.finance.gov.au). (2) Without limiting paragraph (1)(b), that paragraph includes requirements in: (a) section 15 (about the accountable authority of a Commonwealth entity governing the entity in a way that promotes the proper use and management of public resources); and (b) section 19 (about the accountable authority of a Commonwealth entity keeping the responsible Minister informed of the activities of the entity etc.); and (c) sections 21 and 22 (about the accountable authority of a Commonwealth entity complying with policies of the Australian Government). 6 Governing Commonwealth entities in accordance with the resource management framework (1) The responsible Minister, accountable authority, and officials of a Commonwealth entity must comply with the requirements in the resource management framework. (2) The accountable authority of a Commonwealth entity must ensure that the entity complies with any requirements in the resource management framework to which the entity is subject. Note: These requirements include those set out in Part 3 of this Schedule. Part 3 — Additional requirements for grants administration Division 1 — Objectives and general requirements for grants administration 7 Objectives of grants administration (1) The objective of grants administration is to promote proper use and management of public resources through collaboration with government and non-government stakeholders to achieve government policy outcomes. (2) This objective is achieved through compliance with the following: (a) the legislative, policy and reporting requirements and guidance set out in the resource management framework that are applicable to grants administration; (b) whole-of-government and individual Commonwealth entity grants administration practices. 8 Requirement for internal guidelines, controls etc. relating to grants administration A Commonwealth entity's: (a) internal guidelines and policies, and operational guidance and controls, relating to grants administration; and (b) program guidelines for grants programs; must be consistent with the resource management framework. 9 Requirements for performing grants administration A Commonwealth entity must perform its grants administration in a way that: (a) is proportionate to the risks identified and outcomes sought; and (b) achieves value with relevant money; and (c) involves effective and efficient governance and accountability; and (d) achieves probity and transparency; and (e) is consistent with the resource management framework. 10 Requirement to record legal authority and constitutional head of power supporting grants A Commonwealth entity must, before a grant is approved under the entity's grants program, record: (a) the legal authority supporting the grant; and (b) the constitutional head of power supporting the grant. Note 1: Examples of legal authority are: (a) section 32B of the Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Act 1997; and (b) specific legislation such as Part II of the Disability Services Act 1986; and (c) section 23 of this Act. Note 2: Ministers, accountable authorities and officials also have obligations under the resource management framework relating to approving the commitment of relevant money, including: (a) a Minister being satisfied, after making reasonable inquiries, that the expenditure would be a proper use of relevant money (see section 71 of this Act); and (b) approvals of proposed commitments of relevant money be recorded in writing (see rules prescribed under this Act). Division 2 — Requirements for planning and design of grant programs 11 Initial planning (1) An official of a Commonwealth entity must establish and document whether a proposed arrangement is a grant before applying the resource management framework to it. (2) An official of a Commonwealth entity who is involved in the entity's grants program must: (a) prepare draft program guidelines for all new grant opportunities under the grants program, and prepare revised draft program guidelines if significant changes are made to the program; and (b) have regard to any key principles for grants administration set out in instruments made by the Finance Minister under subsection 105C(1); and (c) ensure the draft program guidelines and related internal guidance are consistent with the resource management framework; and (d) brief the responsible Minister for the entity on the draft program guidelines; and (e) advise the responsible Minister for the entity on the relevant requirements of resource management framework, if the responsible Minister is considering approving the proposed commitment of relevant money for a grant under the grants program. 12 Third party administering grants for a Commonwealth entity (1) If a Commonwealth entity has an arrangement with a third party for the third party to administer grants on behalf of the entity, the accountable authority of the entity must ensure the arrangement: (a) is in writing; and (b) promotes the proper use and management of other CRF money; and (c) requires the third party to administer the grants so that the resource management framework is fully complied with. Working collaboratively across government (2) The accountable authority and officials of a Commonwealth entity involved in grants administration must work together across government and with non-government stakeholders. (3) When determining what the acquittal or reporting requirements are for those grants, the officials must have regard to information collected by Commonwealth Government regulators that is available to the officials. Division 3 — Approving commitments of relevant money for grants 13 Role of officials Approver is the accountable authority or an official (1) If the accountable authority, or an official, (the approver) of a Commonwealth entity approves the proposed commitment of relevant money for a grant under a grants program, the approver must record in writing: (a) the basis for the approval relative to the program guidelines for the grants program; and (b) how the approval achieves value with relevant money. Obligations on officials if approver is the responsible Minister (2) If the responsible Minister for the Commonwealth entity is to approve the proposed commitment of relevant money for a grant under a grants program, an official of the entity must provide written advice to the Minister that, at a minimum: (a) explicitly states that the spending proposal being considered for approval is a grant; and (b) provides information on the applicable requirements of the resource management framework (particularly any ministerial reporting obligations), including the legal authority for the grant; and (c) outlines the application and selection process followed, including the selection criteria, that were used to select potential grantees; and (d) includes the merits of the proposed grant relative to the program guidelines for the grants program, and whether the proposed grant achieves value with relevant money. (3) While the official does not have to rank all grants when briefing the responsible Minister on the merits of a specific grant or group of grants, the official should, at a minimum, indicate: (a) which grant applications fully meet the selection criteria; and (b) which applications partially meet the selection criteria; and (c) which applications do not meet any of the selection criteria. Any specific recommendations regarding grant applications for approval can be in addition to this information. 14 Role of the Minister as the approver (1) The responsible Minister for a Commonwealth entity must not approve the proposed commitment of relevant money for a grant under a grants program before receiving written advice under clause 13 from an official of the entity on the merits of the proposed grant. (2) If the responsible Minister gives that approval, the Minister must record in writing: (a) the basis for the approval relative to the program guidelines for the grants program; and (b) how the approval achieves value with relevant money. 15 Minister approving grants within the Minister's own electorate (1) A responsible Minister for a Commonwealth entity may approve the proposed commitment of relevant money in relation to a grant within the Minister's own electorate. Note: A Minister includes a Parliamentary Secretary (see the Ministers of State Act 1952). (2) However, if the Minister does so, the Minister must: (a) prepare a report about the grant that includes a brief statement of: (i) the reasons for the approval; and (ii) if the approval was contrary to the advice or recommendations of an official of the entity (see subclause 16(1))—the reasons for giving the approval contrary to that advice or those recommendations; and (b) table the report in each House of the Parliament no later than 2 sitting days of that House after the day of the approval; and (c) publish the report on GrantConnect no later than 2 business days after the day of the approval. (3) Subclause (2) does not apply if: (a) the Minister is a Senator; or (b) the grant is one that has been approved Australia-wide, state-wide, or across a region that is larger than the Minister's own electorate, on the basis of a formula. 16 Minister approving grants contrary to advice or recommendations (1) The responsible Minister for a Commonwealth entity may approve the proposed commitment of relevant money for a grant contrary to the advice or recommendations made by an official of the entity under clause 13. (2) However, if the Minister (including a Senator) does so, the Minister must: (a) prepare a report about the grant that includes a brief statement of reasons for giving the approval contrary to the official's advice or recommendations; and (b) table the report in each House of the Parliament no later than 2 sitting days of that House after the day of the approval; and (c) publish the report on GrantConnect no later than 2 business days after the day of the approval. (3) Subclause (2) does not apply if the Minister has already prepared, tabled and published a report about the grant under clause 15. Division 4 — Public reporting for grant programs 17 Scope and role of accountable authorities (1) This Division applies to a Commonwealth entity's grants administration for a grants program it is delivering or is proposing to deliver. (2) The accountable authority of the Commonwealth entity must ensure that the entity complies with this Division for the grants program. Note Effective disclosure and reporting arrangements for grants administration is essential for reasons of transparency and public accountability. Reliable and timely information on grants awarded is a precondition for public and parliamentary confidence in the quality and integrity of grants administration. 18 Making and publishing program guidelines (1) The responsible Minister for the Commonwealth entity must, by legislative instrument, determine program guidelines for the grants program that include the following: (a) the grant opportunity process; (b) the process (including selection criteria) for assessing grant applications and selecting grantees; (c) the process for notifying selected grantees and entering into grant agreements with them; (d) the key responsibilities and expectations of grantees under the grant agreements; (e) the process for monitoring and evaluating grantees and grant activities. Note 1: For paragraph (a), the grant opportunity process is the specific grant round or process where grants are available. This process includes mentioning whether grant opportunities are open or targeted. Note 2: A draft of the program guidelines must be prepared by an official of the Commonwealth entity (see subclause 11(2)). (2) The program guidelines for the grants program must be determined under subclause (1) at least 30 days before the first day applications for grants may be made under the grants program. (3) The Commonwealth entity must ensure that the program guidelines are publicly available on GrantConnect: (a) as soon as practicable; and (b) at least 7 days before the first day applications for grants may be made under the grants program. (4) Subclause (2) and paragraph (3)(b) do not apply for the grants program if the grants program relates to a national disaster or emergency. Note: As they are a legislative instrument, the program guidelines will also be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 6 sitting days after being registered (see subsection 38(1) of the Legislation Act 2003). 19 Reporting information about each grant under the program (1) The Commonwealth entity must report information about each grant under the grants program: (a) on the entity's website on or before the day the grant takes effect; and (b) on GrantConnect no later than 7 days after the day the grant takes effect. The information can be removed from the entity's website once it is accessible on GrantConnect. (2) Information reported under subclause (1) about a grant must specify: (a) whether the grant agreement for the grant contains any confidentiality provisions; and (b) if the grant agreement does so—the reasons for doing so. (3) If an official of the Commonwealth entity determines that reporting some information about the grant would be contrary to a law (such as the Privacy Act 1988), or the grant agreement for the grant, the Commonwealth entity must: (a) comply with subclause (1) as much as is legally possible; and (b) document the reasons for not fully complying with subclause (1); and (c) take reasonable steps to ensure that future grant agreements do not prevent full compliance with subclause (1). Note: For paragraph (a), it may be possible, for example, to omit the name of the grantee and other personal information that may contravene the Privacy Act 1988, and report other grant details. (4) If an official of the Commonwealth entity determines that complying with subclause (1) about the grant could adversely affect the achievement of government policy outcomes, the responsible Minister for the entity may seek an exemption from the Finance Minister. 20 Additional reporting requirements for grants programs worth at least $100 million (1) This clause applies to the grants program (the reportable program) if the total amount of money forming part of the CRF that is available for grants under: (a) the reportable program; and (b) each other grants program (if any) of the Commonwealth entity that: (i) is being or is proposed to be delivered in a financial year in which the reportable program is being or is proposed to be delivered (the current financial year); or (ii) was delivered in any of the previous 3 financial years; and that relates to the same or similar subject matter as the reportable program; is at least $100 million (the reportable program threshold). Note 1: The $100 million threshold is not limited to grants actually given in the current financial year or in the previous 3 financial years. Note 2: This clause applies separately (in parallel): (a) for each of the other grants programs covered by paragraph (b) that is being or is proposed to be delivered in the current financial year; and (b) for each financial year in which the reportable program is being or is proposed to be delivered. (2) The Commonwealth entity must prepare a report about each of the following stages of the reportable program: (a) the making under subclause 18(1) of the program guidelines for the reportable program; (b) the assessment and selection of grantees; (c) the entering into of grant agreements with selected grantees; (d) the conclusion of the reportable program (which should include an evaluation of the program's effectiveness). (3) The Commonwealth entity must give each report prepared under subclause (2) about a stage of the reportable program to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Grants Administration: (a) within 30 days after the day that stage was completed; or (b) such longer period as the Committee allows. (4) Each report prepared under subclause (2) must comply with the requirements: (a) approved by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Grants Administration; and (b) prescribed by the rules. (5) The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Grants Administration must table the report in each House of the Parliament no later than 2 sitting days of that House after the day the Committee receives it. Part 4 — Parliamentary Joint Committee on Grants Administration 21 Parliamentary Joint Committee on Grants Administration As soon as practicable after the commencement of this clause and the first session of each Parliament, a joint committee of members of the Parliament, to be known as the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Grants Administration, is to be appointed: (a) according to the practice of the Parliament; and (b) as required in this Part. 22 Membership of the Committee (1) The Committee is to consist of 16 members as follows: (a) 6 members of the Senate appointed by the Senate; (b) 10 members of the House of Representatives appointed by that House. (2) No more than 8 of the Committee's members may be from a recognised political party that forms part of the Government. (3) The Chair of the Committee must not be from a recognised political party that forms part of the Government. (4) A member of the Committee ceases to hold office: (a) when the House of Representatives expires by effluxion of time or is dissolved; or (b) if the member ceases to be a member of the House of the Parliament by which the member was appointed; or (c) if the member resigns the member's office as provided by subclause (5) or (6). (5) A member appointed by the Senate may resign the member's office by writing signed by the member and delivered to the President of the Senate. (6) A member appointed by the House of Representatives may resign the member's office by writing signed by the member and delivered to the Speaker of that House. (7) Either House of the Parliament may appoint one of its members to fill a vacancy amongst the members of the Committee appointed by that House. 23 Functions of the Committee The functions of the Committee are: (a) to oversee Commonwealth grant administration, including: (i) scrutinising grant program guidelines made under subclause 18(1), and regularly reporting to Parliament; about those guidelines; and (ii) scrutinising reports from Ministers under clauses 15 and 16 regarding grant approvals, and regularly reporting to Parliament about those reports; and (iii) any other matter relating to Commonwealth grants administration that the Committee resolves is of public importance; and (iv) referrals from any House; and (v) referrals from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit; and (b) to consider, and report quarterly to each House of the Parliament, each report given to the Committee under clause 20 during the quarter. 24 Powers and proceedings of the Committee Meetings (1) The Committee may meet at such times and at such places within Australia: (a) as the Committee, by resolution, determines; or (b) subject to any resolution of the Committee, as the Chair determines. Quorum and voting (2) At a meeting of the Committee, 6 members constitute a quorum. (3) All questions to be decided by the Committee are to be decided by a majority of the votes of the members present. (4) The Chair or other member presiding has a deliberative vote and, in the event of an equality of votes, also has a casting vote. (5) If the members present do not vote unanimously, the manner in which each member votes must, if a member so requires, be recorded in the minutes and in the Committee's report. Other matters (6) All other matters relating to the powers and proceedings of the Committee are to be determined by resolution of both Houses of the Parliament. 25 Annual report (1) The Committee must, in relation to each financial year, prepare a report on the performance of its functions during the year. (2) The Committee must table the report in each House of the Parliament. Public Service Act 1999 5 After subsection 41B(2) Insert: (2A) Paragraph (1)(a) does not apply for an alleged breach of the Code of Conduct relating to the resource management framework (within the meaning of Schedule 1 to the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013). 6 After subsection 41B(9) Insert: (9A) Paragraph (9)(b) does not apply for a breach of the Code of Conduct relating to the resource management framework (within the meaning of Schedule 1 to the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013). _____ SHEET 2427 (1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add (2) Page 12 (after line 34), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 3 — Improved grants reporting Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 1 Section 105A (paragraph beginning "It also") Omit "also". 2 Section 105A (after the paragraph beginning "It also") Insert: It also provides for reporting requirements for certain types of grants approved under instruments made under section 105C (see section 105CA). 3 At the end of Division 3 of Part 4-1A Add: 105CA Reportable grants approved under instruments (1) This section applies if a Minister: (a) approves a grant in accordance with an instrument made under section 105C; and (b) the grant is a reportable grant. (2) If the Minister approves a reportable grant, the Minister must provide a written report to the Finance Minister within 30 days of approving the reportable grant. (3) The report must include a statement of reasons that explains the basis on which the Minister approved the reportable grant. (4) If the Minister is a member of the House of Representatives and the Minister approves a reportable grantfor a grantee in their electorate, the Minister must include this information in the statement of reasons in subsection (3). (5) Subsection (4) does not apply if the reportable grant is awarded Australia-wide, state-wide or across a region on the basis of a formula, and the reportable grant falls in the relevant Minister's electorate. (6) The Finance Minister must table a copy of the report in each House of Parliament within 5 sitting days of that House after receiving the report. (7) In this section: grant means an arrangement for the provision of financial assistance by the Commonwealth or on behalf of the Commonwealth under which relevant money or other CRF money is to be paid to a grantee other than the Commonwealth, which can be awarded: (a) on the basis of a variety of processes, including the following: (i) a competitive or non-competitive selection process; (ii) where particular criteria are satisfied; (iii) on a one off or ad hoc basis; and (b) for a variety of purposes, including the following; (i) research; (ii) providing for the delivery of services; (iii) helping fund infrastructure; (iv) helping build capacity. reportable grant means a grant which is approved: (a) based on an application which: (i) an official has recommended should be rejected; or (ii) does not meet any of the relevant selection criteria; or (b) by a Minister, who is a member of the House of Representatives, for a grantee in their electorate.    

The Senate divided. [17:08]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

 14 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. 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. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 25 NOES Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Third Reading 107 17:09 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.    

The Senate divided. [17:11]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

 25 AYES Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Lambie, J. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 12 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. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.

 Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023 107

Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023

Second Reading 107 17:12 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I will now put the questions on the remaining stages of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023. I will first deal with the second reading amendment on sheet 2338, moved by the opposition. Oppo sition 's circulated amendment— At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes that: (i) the former government provided extensive support for 3.6 million small and medium businesses, which employ almost 8 million Australians, including through tax relief to support investment and reduce costs; energy programs and initiatives to reduce their power bills; and providing billions in support to keep small businesses open and Australians in jobs during the pandemic, (ii) small and medium businesses will be hurt the hardest by the Government's first round of workplace reforms, which will harm firm growth and hurt competition, (iii) despite promising to only raise taxes on multinationals at the election, the Government has broken promises by raising taxes on superannuation, on unrealised capital gains, on franking credits, and by ending small business tax incentives; and (b) calls on the Government to support the Opposition's amendment to restore the instant asset write-off to pre-COVID-19 levels to boost productivity and take pressure off prices".    

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

 26 AYES Antic, A. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. 29 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. 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. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 17:19 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question now is that the bill be now read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question is that opposition amendments on sheet 2337 be agreed to. Opposition's circulated amendments— SHEET 2337 (1) Schedule 1, heading, page 4 (line 1), omit "$20,000", substitute "$30,000". (2) Schedule 1, heading, page 4 (line 2), omit "small business entities", substitute "small and medium business entities". (3) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 9), after item 2, insert: 2A After subsection 328-180(3) Insert: Extension to medium business entities (3A) If you are an entity covered by subsection (3B) for an income year, then for the purposes of doing any of the following: (a) deducting under subsection 328-180(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 a proportion of the adjustable value of a depreciating asset for an income year in circumstances where paragraph (4)(d) of this section applies to you and the asset; (b) deducting under subsection 328-180(2) of that Act a proportion of an amount included in the second element of the cost for an asset in circumstances where paragraph (5)(e) of this section applies to you and the amount; (c) applying subsection 328-180(3) of that Act to you and an asset in circumstances where: (i) paragraph (5)(e) of this section applies to you and an amount included in the second element of the asset's cost; and (ii) paragraph (6)(e) of this section applies to you for a deduction for the asset for an income year; Subdivision 328-D of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 applies to you for an income year and the asset as if you were a small business entity for the income year. (3B) An entity is covered by this subsection for an income year if: (a) the entity is not a small business entity for the income year; and (b) the entity would be a small business entity for the income year if: (i) each reference in Subdivision 328-C of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (about what is a small business entity) to $10 million were instead a reference to $50 million; and (ii) the reference in paragraph 328-110(5)(b) of that Act to a small business entity were instead a reference to an entity covered by this subsection. (4) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (line 15), omit "$20,000", substitute "$30,000". (5) Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (line 24), omit "$20,000", substitute "$30,000". (6) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (line 1), omit "$20,000", substitute "$30,000".    

The Senate divided. [17:21]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLaughlin)

 38 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. 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. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 17 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) 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. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 17:23 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Senator David Pocock, on sheet 2252. Senator David Pocock's circulated amendments— SHEET 2252 (1) Schedule 1, page 4 (line 1) to page 5 (line 4), omit the Schedule, substitute: Schedule 1 — $20,000 instant asset write-off for small business entities Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 1 Section 328-170 (paragraph (b) of the paragraph beginning "This Subdivision") Repeal the paragraph. 2 Subsection 328-175(1) Omit "(10)", substitute "(9)". 3 Subsection 328-175(10) Repeal the subsection (not including the notes). 4 Subsection 328-175(10) (note 3) Omit all words after "of this", substitute "Subdivision in relation to income years between 12 May 2015 and 30 June 2023". 5 Section 328-180 (heading) Omit "$1,000", substitute "$20,000". 6 Paragraph 328-180(1)(b) Omit "$1,000", substitute "$20,000". 7 Paragraph 328-180(2)(a) Omit "$1,000", substitute "$20,000". 8 Paragraph 328-180(3)(a) Omit "$1,000", substitute "$20,000". 9 Subsection 328-205(4) (example) Repeal the example, substitute: Example: When Hannah's van was allocated to her general small business pool for the 2023-24 income year, she estimated that it would be used 50% for her florist business. Due to increasing business, Hannah estimates the van's use to be 70% for the 2023-24 year, and 90% for the 2024-25 year. She makes an adjustment under section 328-225 for both those years. Hannah sells the van for $20,000 at the start of the 2026-27 income year. She must now average the business use estimates for the van for the year it was allocated to the pool and the next 3 years to work out the taxable purpose proportion of its termination value. The average is worked out as follows: 50% (original estimate); plus 70% (2023-24 estimate); plus 90% (2024-25 estimate); plus 90% (no change on previous year); =300% ÷ 4 = 75% The taxable purpose proportion of the van's termination value is, therefore: 75% of $20,000 = $15,000 10 Subsection 328-210(1) Omit "$1,000", substitute "$20,000". 11 Subsection 328-210(3) (example) Repeal the example, substitute: Example: Alice's Landscaping is a small business entity for the 2023-24 income year and chooses to use this Subdivision for that year. The business has an opening pool balance of $25,000 for its general small business pool for that year. During that year, Alice acquired a new car for $40,000. The taxable purpose proportion of its adjustable value is: $40,000 x 80% business use estimate = $32,000 Alice also sold her truck for $39,600 during that year. The truck was used 100% in the business. To work out whether she can deduct an amount under this section, Alice uses this calculation: $25,000 + $32,000—$39,600 = $17,400 Because the result is less than $20,000, Alice can deduct the $17,400 for the income year. The pool's closing balance for the year is zero. 12 Subsection 328-215(4) Omit "$1,000", substitute "$20,000". 13 Subsection 328-250(1) Omit "$1,000", substitute "$20,000". 14 Subsection 328-250(4) (heading) Omit "$1,000", substitute "$20,000". 15 Subsection 328-250(4) (note) Before "or 328-181", insert "in relation to income years ending on or before 30 June 2023". 16 Subsection 328-253(4) (heading) Omit "$1,000", substitute "$20,000". 17 Subsection 328-253(4) (note) Before "or 328-181", insert "in relation to income years ending on or before 30 June 2023". Income Tax (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997 18 Subsections 328-180(2) and (3) After "of that Act", insert "(as in force immediately before its repeal by Schedule 1 to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Act 2024)". The question before the Senate is that the amendments on sheet 2252 be agreed to.    

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

 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. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 21 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McLachlan, A. L. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 17:26 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I will now deal with the amendments circulated by the Australian Greens. The question is that the amendments on sheet 2233 be agreed to. Greens' circulated amendments— (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (line 6), omit "30 June 2024", substitute "30 June 2026". (2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (line 9), omit "30 June 2024", substitute "30 June 2026". (3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (line 18), omit "30 June 2024", substitute "30 June 2026". (4) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (line 21), omit "30 June 2024", substitute "30 June 2026". (5) Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (line 27), omit "30 June 2024", substitute "30 June 2026". (6) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (line 4), omit "30 June 2024", substitute "30 June 2026". (7) Schedule 2, item 1, page 6 (line 14), omit "30 June 2024", substitute "30 June 2026". (8) Schedule 2, item 1, page 7 (line 6), omit "1 July 2024", substitute "1 July 2026". (9) Schedule 2, item 1, page 7 (line 11), omit "1 July 2024", substitute "1 July 2026". (10) Schedule 2, item 1, page 7 (line 21), omit "30 June 2024", substitute "30 June 2026". (11) Schedule 2, item 1, page 8 (line 28), omit "1 July 2024", substitute "1 July 2026". (12) Schedule 2, item 1, page 9 (line 14), omit "30 June 2024", substitute "30 June 2026". (13) Schedule 2, item 1, page 10 (line 20), omit "(for example, photovoltaic cells)". (14) Schedule 2, item 1, page 10 (after line 32), at the end of section 328-470, add: (7) Despite subsection (6): (a) an asset that is a solar photovoltaic system that is part of a package of energy upgrades is not excluded by that subsection; and (b) expenditure on such an asset is not excluded by that subsection.  

The Senate divided. [17:28]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

 17 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Babet, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rice, J. E. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 20 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. 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. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Third Reading 112 17:29 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Digital ID Bill 2023, Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023 112

Digital ID Bill 2023

Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023

The Senate divided. [17:34]
(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. (Teller) 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. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 26 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Hume, 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. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

The Senate divided. [17:37]
(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. (Teller) 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. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 26 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Hume, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

The Senate divided. [17:41]
(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. (Teller) 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. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 26 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Hume, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

The Senate divided. [17:44]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question negatived.

The Senate divided. [17:48]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question negatived.

 Third Reading 122 17:54 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bills be agreed to and the bills be now passed.    

The Senate divided. [17:54]
(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. (Teller) 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. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 26 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Hume, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bills read a third time.

 Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2023-2024, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2023-2024, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2023-2024 123

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2023-2024

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2023-2024

Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2023-2024

Second Reading 123 17:56 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now put the questions on the remaining stages of Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2023-2024, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2023-2024 and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2023-2024. The question is that the bills be now read a second time. Question agreed to. Bills read a second time. Third Reading 123 17:56 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bills be agreed to and the bills be now passed. Question agreed to. Bills read a third time. COMMITTEES 123 COMMITTEES Adopting Artificial Intelligence (AI) Select Committee, Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Environment and Communications References Committee, Economics Legislation Committee, Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee 123 Membership 123 17:57 The PRESIDENT 112096 I have received letters requesting changes in the membership of committees. 17:57 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to move a motion to vary the membership of committees. Leave granted. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 I move: Adopting Artificial Intelligence—Select Committee— Appointed— Senators McGrath, Payman, David Pocock, Reynolds, Sheldon and Shoebridge Participating members: Senators Allman-Payne, Antic, Askew, Bilyk, Birmingham, Bragg, Brockman, Cadell, Canavan, Cash, Chandler, Ciccone, Colbeck, Cox, Davey, Duniam, Faruqi, Fawcett, Ghosh, Green, Grogan, Hanson-Young, Henderson, Hughes, Hume, Kovacic, Liddle, McDonald, McKenzie, McKim, McLachlan, Nampijinpa Price, O'Neill, O'Sullivan, Paterson, Barbara Pocock, Polley, Pratt, Rennick, Rice, Ruston, Scarr, Sharma, Dean Smith, Marielle Smith, Steele-John, Sterle, Stewart, Urquhart, Walsh, Waters and Whish-Wilson Community Affairs Legislation Committee— Discharged—Senator Rice Appointed— Senator Allman-Payne Substitute members— Senator Cadell to replace Senator Hughes, and Senator Steele-John to replace Senator Allman-Payne, for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024 Senator Steele-John to replace Senator Allman-Payne for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 Participating members: Senators Allman-Payne and Hughes Community Affairs References Committee— Discharged—Senator Rice Appointed—Senator Allman-Payne Economics Legislation Committee Appointed— Substitute member: Senator Hanson-Young to replace Senator McKim for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Delivering Better Financial Outcomes and Other Measures) Bill 2024 Participating member: Senator McKim Environment and Communications References Committee— Appointed— Substitute member: Senator Whish-Wilson to replace Senator Hanson-Young for the committee's inquiry into waste reduction and recycling policies Participating member: Senator Hanson-Young Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee— Appointed— Substitute member: Senator Allman-Payne to replace Senator Barbara Pocock for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024 and related bill. Participating member: Senator Barbara Pocock National Anti-Corruption Commission—Joint Statutory Committee— Discharged—Senator Bilyk Appointed—Senator Ghosh. Question agreed to. BILLS 124 BILLS Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024, Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024 124

Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024

First Reading 124 17:58 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I indicate to the Senate that these bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have the bills listed on the Notice Paper as indicated on today's Order of Business. I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 125 17:58 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024 and move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— MIGRATION AMENDMENT (REMOVAL AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2024 The Albanese Government is committed to strengthening Australia's migration system. Making it better, stronger and fairer. And ensuring it is working in Australia's national interest. The Migration Amendment (Removals and Other Measures) Bill 2024 will provide the Government with necessary tools to strengthen our immigration compliance framework, including to better manage immigration detention. A BETTER, STRONGER AND FAIRER APPROACH This legislation has three components, it will: 1) Include an express statement of Parliament's intent in the Migration Act 1958 that those non-citizens who have no right to be in Australia should leave voluntarily, and if they will not leave voluntarily, that they will cooperate with their lawful removal from Australia, and that other countries should cooperate with Australia to facilitate the lawful return of their citizens. 2) Make it a crime for individuals to not cooperate with the Department on removal efforts where they have been given a direction to do something, with a penalty ranging from one to five years imprisonment. 3) Give the Minister for Immigration a new power to designate a country as a removal concern country where that country refuses to accept returns of their own citizens. This designation will prevent most nationals of that country who are outside Australia from making new Australian visa applications—while the designation remains in force. There are currently non-citizens in Australia who have exhausted all visa pathways to stay in Australia, who have been found not to be owed protection. But who refuse to engage with their home county to undertake actions like applying for a passport or attend meetings with officials from that country. Unfortunately, examples of non-cooperation with the Government's removal efforts have been going on for far too long. Against the expectations of the Australian community. And undermining the integrity of our migration laws. The Government is determined to address this issue and to ensure this key aspect of our immigration system is better, stronger and fairer. Put simply, we need these important tools to strengthen our migration system. EXPRESS PARLIAMENTARY INTENTION The Bill sets clear legislative expectations in relation to the behaviour of non-citizens who are on a removal pathway into the Migration Act 1958. As amended, the Act will make clear that a non-citizen who is on a removal pathway is expected to voluntarily leave Australia. And must cooperate with steps taken to arrange their lawful removal from Australia. When this legislation is enacted, it will make clear that the Parliament expects foreign countries to cooperate with Australia to facilitate the lawful removal of their citizens from Australia. DUTY TO COOPERATE WITH REMOVAL The Bill also provides the Minister with a power to direct certain non- citizens who are on a removal pathway to cooperate with removal efforts. Individuals considered 'removal pathway non-citizens' include: Unlawful non-citizens (people without any visa, including those in immigration detention); Bridging (Removal Pending) visa (BVR) holders; Bridging (General) visa (BVE) holders who hold the visa on the basis of making acceptable arrangements to depart Australia. This does not include BVE holders waiting for the outcome of a visa application, merits or judicial review; Certain other non-citizens on a removal pathway who hold a visa that may be prescribed for these purposes in the Migration Regulations. This Bill responds to circumstances where non-citizens are deliberately and unreasonably impeding or frustrating removal efforts. It provides an ability for the Minister to give directions to certain non- citizens who are on a removal pathway to cooperate with and facilitate efforts to arrange and effect their lawful removal from Australia. This may include, for example, directing the non-citizen to complete, sign and submit an application for a passport or other foreign travel document to facilitate their removal from Australia. The Bill also provides a power for the Minister to give a removal pathway non-citizen a direction to do other things the Minister is satisfied are reasonably necessary to determine whether there is a real prospect of removing the non-citizen becoming practicable in the reasonably foreseeable future, or to facilitate their lawful removal from Australia. The removal pathway direction provides a positive duty or:, the non-citizen to cooperate with removal efforts. This will be supported by mandatory criminal penalties for those found guilty of an offence of failing to comply with the direction. A failure to comply with a direction, without a reasonable excuse, will be a criminal offence carrying a mandatory minimum sentence of 12 months' imprisonment. And a maximum available sentence of five years' imprisonment. I want to reiterate, these amendments are targeted at non-citizens who have come to the end of any visa application processes. And, who are on a removal pathway. These individuals may be unlawful non-citizens who have exhausted their visa processing options. And who are being held in immigration detention Or they may be in the community on a Bridging Visa that is issued for removal purposes. It is imperative that individuals who are on a removal pathway cannot be allowed to frustrate the Government - And the Australian people by refusing to cooperate with their removal from Australia. APPROPRIATE SAFEGUARDS Importantly, this Bill also contains appropriate safeguards in relation to the exercise of this power. The amendments provide for certain circumstances in which the Minister must not give a direction, including: If the non-citizen has applied for a protection visa and the application is not yet finally determined. To take an action in relation to a country from which the individual is owed protection. Directly to children under 18 (but can make a direction to that child's parents to take certain actions), or To take actions related to making or withdrawing an Australian visa application, or in regards to court or tribunal proceedings. DESIGNATION OF A 'REMOVAL CONCERN COUNTRY' A further significant measure in the Bill is a new personal power for the Minister to designate a country as a country of removal concern, where the Minister determines it is in the national interest to do so. A foreign country should cooperate with Australia to facilitate the lawful removal of a non-citizen who is a national of that country. This amendment is necessary because regrettably, some countries will not allow their nationals to return to their home country. This is unless the person being removed is voluntarily cooperating with removal efforts. The main objective of this designation is to gain the cooperation of that country in accepting and facilitating the removal from Australia of their citizens. The power to designate a country of removal concern is an appropriate and proportionate measure to safeguard the integrity of Australia's migration system. Designating a country as a removal concern country will have the effect of preventing new visa applications by most nationals of the designated country who are outside Australia, while the designation remains in force. That is until satisfactory arrangements can be established between Australia and that other country to cooperate in relation to removal efforts. It is recognised that there would be sensitive matters of bilateral concern needing to be considered before designation of a removal country of concern. This is why the legislation provides that the Minister must consult with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs prior to making such a designation. There are appropriate exemptions in place to continue to allow visa applications from close family relatives of Australian citizens and eligible permanent residents. The Minister will also have a power to exempt certain classes of people or some classes of visa to, for example, continue to respect any international obligations that Australia may have under trade or other multilateral arrangements in relation to that country. The designation of a country of removal concern will also not affect dual nationals who hold a valid passport from a country that is not a removal concern country. It's important to note that the United States has a similar system in place to suspend visa grants for what they refer to as 'recalcitrant countries'. And in 2022 the UK also legislated for a similar scheme, which allows the Home Secretary to suspend or delay visa processing from countries which do not cooperate with removal of their citizens from the UK, or deem visa applications from these countries as invalid. So what we are proposing is in line with similar countries around the world. BRIDGING VISA SCHEME Finally, this Bill contains amendments to allow for the improved administration of the Bridging (Removal Pending) visa scheme established to manage NZYQ-affected non-citizens. This includes amendments to clarify that a new BVR may be granted without application at any time to a current BVR holder—for example, where it may be appropriate to adjust the imposition of certain visa conditions to respond to a change in the level of risk the visa holder presents to the community. The Bill also includes amendments to enable the Minister to revisit a protection finding in certain circumstances, where a non-citizen who holds a visa—such as a BVR- is on a removal pathway. At present, it is only possible to revisit a protection finding under the Act for an unlawful non-citizen. Following the High Court's decision in NZYQ, we now face circumstances in which this power needs to be expanded to certain non- citizens who hold a visa—particularly BVR holders. Without this amendment, the Act would not provide a means to revisit a protection finding while a removal pathway non-citizen is in the community on a visa. If the Government is to ensure that BVR holders and other non-citizens on a removal pathway are able to be removed as soon as it becomes reasonably practicable to do so, it is essential the Minister has the ability to revisit protection findings. This legislation sends a strong signal about the Government's expectations of cooperation with removal efforts, by non-citizens who are on a removal pathway, and by other countries where it is appropriate for them to accept their nationals on removal from Australia. The Government and the Australian people expect that individuals subject to removal under the Migration Act will cooperate with removal. In conclusion, this Bill, gives the Australian Government important new tools to our migration system better, stronger and fairer for years to come. I commend this Bill to the Chamber. OFFSHORE PETROLEUM AND GREENHOUSE GAS STORAGE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (SAFETY AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2024 Throughout our history, Australia's prosperity has been closely tied to the success of our resources sector. The contribution of the resources sector to Australia's national prosperity is significant, and it continues to play an essential and irreplaceable role supporting our economic wellbeing today. The Australian Government will always support a strong and resilient resources sector, and in supporting the sector we have a responsibility to ensure the ongoing health and safety of its workers. Nothing is more important than ensuring that every worker can come home safely at the end of a shift, or at the conclusion of a lengthy swing away from family and friends to the comfort of their homes. It is therefore incumbent on Governments to review and update our rules and regulations governing resources sector safety to ensure those rules and regulations remain fit-for-purpose. The Bill I am introducing to the Parliament today achieves this objective. Improving offshore safety This Bill proposes amendments to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 to improve safety outcomes for Australia's offshore resources sector workforce. The Bill implements outcomes of a review of the offshore safety regime for offshore resources sector workers which was undertaken by the Department of Industry, Science and Resources between 2019 and 2021. This review recommended several improvements to ensure that Australia's offshore resources safety regime continues to provide an effective, leading best practice framework for ensuring the health and safety of the offshore resources sector workforce. The Department of Industry, Science and Resources identified several additional measures to further strengthen Australia's offshore safety regime, which include improvements to operational health and safety, workforce health and wellbeing, and effective administration of the regime by the regulator. The Department of Industry, Science and Resources worked closely with stakeholders throughout the review process and during subsequent policy analysis. A representative group comprising employers, the workforce, unions and state and territory governments were consulted extensively throughout the review. A public consultation process was also undertaken. This Bill will implement the outcomes of the safety review, with additional reforms implemented by subsequent amendments to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Safety Regulations 2009 to be finalised following the passage of this Bill. The key safety measures in this Bill will: Strengthen the role of Health and Safety Representatives through better access to training; Allow Health and Safety Representatives to request reviews of safety management-related documents; Ensure Health and Safety Representatives have representation on Health and Safety Committees; Enhance the protection of workers' health and well-being by clarifying that the definition of health includes physical and psychological health; Provide further protections for workers against discrimination and coercion in the workplace; Modernise diving legislation to improve health and safety compliance in diving operations and dive vessels; Expand reporting requirements on safety issues relating to diving; Ensure that in situations where a separate operator is appointed by a titleholder, that separate operator is able to carry out all required duties under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 and its subordinate regulations; Strengthen notification and reporting requirements to improve death and serious injury notifications and simplify monthly reporting requirements; and Introduce a vessel activity notification scheme to ensure that the regulator knows when vessels enter and leave the offshore regime. The reforms proposed in this Bill will improve safety outcomes for Australia's offshore resources sector workforce. Several of the measures included in the Bill will also drive greater alignment between Australia's offshore petroleum safety regime and the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 and its regulations. Several measures identified in the safety review will be implemented in regulation following passage of the Bill. Some of these measures will be implemented through revisions to existing provisions, such as strengthening reporting obligations around sexual harassment, while others will create new provisions. The regulations are supported by existing powers in the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006. Where this is not the case, the Bill inserts new regulation-making powers in the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006. The Government will consult on development of these regulations before they are made. Improving jurisdictional interface in Australia's offshore areas To further enhance safety outcomes in Australia's offshore resources industry, the Bill introduces amendments to clarify the validity of certificates issued under the Navigation Act 2012 to provide greater regulatory certainty for disconnectable facilities. The proposed amendments will apply certain aspects of Commonwealth maritime legislation to disconnectable facilities that, from time to time, may need to disconnect to navigate away from cyclones or to undertake maintenance. These amendments will ensure that vessel safety certificates remain valid when a disconnectable facility transitions between the maritime and offshore petroleum regime, and this will improve safety outcomes. Enhancing offshore regulatory frameworks It is essential that the environmental management regulatory framework for offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas activities remains fit-for-purpose. In addition to enhancing safety outcomes for Australia's offshore resources sector workforce, this Bill introduces amendments to enable changes to be made to the Environment Regulations under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 while maintaining the validity of streamlined arrangements endorsed under section 146B of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. In February 2014 the Federal Minister for the Environment endorsed the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority's regulatory processes as a Program that meets the requirements of Part 10 of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Subsequently, the Minister also approved a class of actions which, if undertaken in accordance with the endorsed Program, will not require separate referral, assessment and approval under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The endorsed Program reflects the offshore environmental regulations under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 that were in place at that time. However, the Program cannot be amended to reflect changes to strengthen and improve those regulations over time. The amendments proposed in this Bill will enable changes to be made to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2023 while ensuring that those changes do not impact the application of streamlined approval arrangements already in place under section 146B of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The Australian Government is reviewing the offshore environmental management framework for petroleum and greenhouse gas activities to ensure the regime is fit-for-purpose and is appropriately designed to enable our economy to decarbonise over time. The amendments proposed in this Bill will support implementation of the outcomes of this review. Minor and technical amendments The Bill proposes additional minor and technical amendments to ensure the ongoing effective operation of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006. The amendments will: Enable the Minister for Resources or the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority to specify a reasonable timeframe for a person to comply with a remedial direction; Clarify the spatial extent of a greenhouse gas storage formation to ensure that it covers the entirety of the expected migration pathway of injected carbon dioxide; Ensure that the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 specifies when the annual titles administration levy imposed on a cross-boundary greenhouse gas assessment permit is due and payable; and Ensure that a person is subject to occupational health and safety obligations when undertaking activities in relation to a pipeline, where there is a remedial direction in force. The Bill, together with regulation changes in response to the safety review, will further strengthen the occupational health and safety outcomes for the offshore resources industry and make improvements to the operation of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006. The Bill represents the Government's ongoing commitment to improve occupational health and safety outcomes for Australia's offshore resources sector workforce. I commend the Bill to the chamber. The PRESIDENT 112096 In accordance with standing order 111, further consideration of these bills is now adjourned to 14 May 2024. Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day. Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024, Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Charges Bill 2024, Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2024 129

Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024

Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Charges Bill 2024

Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2024

First Reading 129 17:59 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 129 17:59 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That these bills now be read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— AGRICULTURE (BIOSECURITY PROTECTION) LEVIES BILL 2024 A strong and sustainably funded biosecurity system is essential to protect Australia from devastating and costly pest and disease outbreaks, and to safeguard our $99.9 billion agricultural, fisheries and forestry industries into the future. All Australians benefit from a strong biosecurity system. It protects our unique environment, economy, and way of life from a myriad of increasing and complex biosecurity threats. A robust biosecurity system is fundamental to protecting our international trade and enables our regional and remote communities to prosper, providing security for 1.6 million jobs across our agricultural supply chain. But a world-class biosecurity system does not just naturally occur. It needs to be sustained and supported by predictable, long-term funding that is equitable, transparent and secure. The Government has done just that. We have delivered on our election commitment of sustainable funding for Australia's biosecurity system. The May Budget last year included new and permanent funding of more than $1 billion over 4 years, and $267 million per year ongoing from 2027-28. This is a first for Australia. We have never had sustainable, predictable and permanent biosecurity funding. This is despite it being recommended in numerous reviews and reports, and continually highlighted as a priority for industry. Without this new package, funding for the Commonwealth biosecurity system would have declined over the forward estimates by 15.9 per cent, almost $100 million per year, to less than $500 million in 2026-27. The previous government's biosecurity funding legacy was to lock-in funding cuts of almost $100 million per year. Not only has this Government delivered greatly increased and permanent funding for the Commonwealth biosecurity system, we have made changes to the way biosecurity is funded to ensure it is more sustainable and more equitable. More taxpayer funding than ever before is being committed to biosecurity. Additionally, risk creators and those who benefit from strong biosecurity protection are also making additional contributions. Primary producers, whether growing for the domestic market or exporting into premium overseas markets—benefit considerably from our favourable biosecurity status. This is reflected in the returns being secured from our export markets and the costs of recovering markets where outbreaks occur. In 2022-23, ABARES forecast agricultural, fisheries and forestry exports to be valued at $82.7 billion. The Biosecurity Protection Levy will now support a direct contribution from primary producers to Commonwealth biosecurity funding. Funding from the Biosecurity Protection Levy will support Australia's biosecurity system and our efforts to manage the risk of the entry of pests and diseases that threaten our economy and environment. This package of three Bills will introduce a new legislative framework to provide for the imposition, collection and administration of the new Biosecurity Protection Levy. The package includes two imposition Bills and one collection Bill. The Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024 provides for the imposition of biosecurity protection levies that are duties of excise in relation to agriculture, fisheries and forestry products and goods produced in Australia. The Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Charges Bill 2024 provides for the imposition of biosecurity protection charges that are duties of customs in relation to agriculture, fisheries and forestry products that are exported from Australia. The Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2024 provides for the collection and administration of levies and charges imposed by the Levies Bill and Charges Bill. The two imposition Bills provide for the making of regulations that would prescribe the rate of biosecurity protection levies and charges. The legislation will provide for the imposition of biosecurity protection levy and charge separately to the Primary Industries levies and charges framework. We know that many producers already invest in biosecurity preparedness and response capabilities, be it on-farm as well as through research and development, membership fees for Animal Health Australia and Plant Health Australia or industry groups. These investments are critical to biosecurity. But they do not fund our biosecurity efforts at the border, at airports, seaports and mail centres, and nor do they fund the technical, scientific and surveillance work that is funded through the Australian Government biosecurity budget. This means that funding from the Biosecurity Protection Levy will not replace or duplicate the efforts of producers, rather, it supports important Commonwealth biosecurity activity to manage the risk of pests and diseases entering Australia in the first place. Currently producers, whilst a significant beneficiary, do not contribute directly to Commonwealth biosecurity efforts to manage the risk of pests and diseases entering Australia. However, it is not just down to producers to contribute more. Under the changes we have introduced, risk creators like importers and travellers, are also contributing more to Commonwealth biosecurity funding. From 1 July 2024, a new cost recovery charge on low value goods imported into Australia by air or sea will be introduced and is expected to recover around $27 million annually. Up to now, taxpayers have been paying this cost. This is in addition to an increase in fees and charges for importers that was implemented from 1 July last year. These increases were as a result of the first comprehensive review of biosecurity fees and charges since 2015 and are expected to add around $36 million to the biosecurity bottom line. As these and other changes to cost recovery roll out, we expect to raise around an extra $100 million per year from importers from 2024-25. Not only are importers paying more, but from 1 July this year, international travellers will also be contributing more to Government funding to support biosecurity costs associated with international travellers. The passenger movement charge will increase from $60 to $70 per international traveller. Biosecurity threats are increasing due to a rise in the volume and complexity of trade, the effects of climate change and the ever-increasing worldwide spread of pests and diseases. Our biosecurity system needs to keep up with these changes and we need to be able to plan for the future. The Government's structural reforms to biosecurity funding will bolster the Australian biosecurity system and ensure it continues to be recognised as among the best in the world. This package of bills will establish a new legislative framework that contributes to us maintaining our reputation as a supplier of safe, high-quality produce, and protecting our farmers, economy, and environment from biosecurity risks, now and into the future. AGRICULTURE (BIOSECURITY PROTECTION) CHARGES BILL 2024 The Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Charges Bill 2024 (Charges Bill) is part of a package of bills to provide for the imposition, collection and administration of a new Biosecurity Protection Levy to support Commonwealth sustainable biosecurity funding. This bill provides for the imposition of biosecurity protection charges that are duties of customs in relation to agriculture, fisheries and forestry products exported from Australia. The Charges Bill is being introduced with another imposition bill, the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024, and the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2024. Together, the package of bills will establish a new legislative framework for implementation and management of the Biosecurity Protection Levy to support the Government's commitment to sustainable biosecurity funding and the benefits it brings to all Australians. AGRICULTURE (BIOSECURITY PROTECTION) LEVIES AND CHARGES COLLECTION BILL 2024 The Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies and Charges Collection Bill 2024 (Collection Bill) is part of a package of bills to provide for the imposition, collection and administration of a new Biosecurity Protection Levy to support Commonwealth sustainable biosecurity funding. The Collection Bill provides for the collection and administration of biosecurity protection levies and charges, including through the making of rules. The Bill will trigger monitoring, investigation and enforcement powers of the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Act 2014, and will thus provide access to a set of modern and flexible compliance and enforcement tools, as well as information management, and offences and civil penalties. Compliance measures and penalties will be proportionate to the seriousness of the infringement. The Collection Bill will also provide for the appropriate use and disclosure of information, while ensuring effective safeguards for sensitive information. Alongside the Collection Bill are two companion bills: the two imposition bills, the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Levies Bill 2024 and the Agriculture (Biosecurity Protection) Charges Bill 2024. Together, the package of bills will establish a new legislative framework for implementation and management of the Biosecurity Protection Levy to support the Government's commitment to sustainable biosecurity funding and the benefits it brings to all Australians. The PRESIDENT 112096 In accordance with standing order 111, further consideration of these bills is now adjourned to 14 May 2024. Competition and Consumer Amendment (Fair Go for Consumers and Small Business) Bill 2024 131

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

Returned from the House of Representatives 131 BUSINESS 131 BUSINESS Days and Hours of Meeting 131 18:00 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That— (a) the Senate, at its rising, adjourn till Tuesday, 14 May2024, at midday, or such other time as may be fixed by the President or, in the event of the President being unavailable, by the Deputy President, and that the time of meeting so determined shall be notified to each senator; and (b) leave of absence be granted to every member of the Senate from the end of the sitting today to the day on which the Senate next meets. Question agreed to. Senate adjourned at 18:01 until Tuesday 14 May 2024 at 12:00