DOCUMENTS

2024-05-14 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Tuesday, 14 May 2024

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

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 12:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised. PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION 1 PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION Victoria 1 Senators Sworn 1 DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS National Disability Insurance Scheme 1 Order for the Production of Documents 1 12:05 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia The government continues to reiterate its view that it cannot agree with the assertions made in this motion. We do, however, acknowledge the interest in the chamber in reforming the NDIS to get it back on track and ensure its sustainability for future generations of Australians. I also acknowledge the recent commitment by the Leader of the Opposition to work together with the government to this end. On 7 February 2024 the government tabled the final report of the Independent Review into the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which was publicly released in December 2023. In producing this report the independent NDIS review panel travelled to every state and territory, including regional and remote communities. It heard directly from more than 10,000 Australians, worked with disability organisations to reach out and listen to more than 1,000 people with disability and their families, recorded more than 2,000 personal stories and received almost 4,000 submissions. The review delivered 26 recommendations and 139 supporting actions to respond to the terms of reference. In delivering its recommendations the review provided exhaustive analysis and proposals to improve the operation, effectiveness and sustainability of the NDIS. The independent NDIS review panel has said its reforms can improve the scheme and meet National Cabinet's annual growth targets of no more than eight per cent growth by 1 July 2026. Discussions have continued with senators across this chamber as well as with members in the other place to address questions about the government's NDIS reform agenda, and it is pursuing that together with the disability community. We look forward to working with senators in this place to get the NDIS back on track and ensure its sustainability for future generations of Australians. In relation to the order being discussed, the government has previously outlined that it has claimed public interest immunity over the requested documents, as disclosure would prejudice relations between the Commonwealth, the states and the territories. The Minister representing the Treasurer has already tabled key documents for the benefit of the Senate in addition to the aforementioned review. 12:08 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the explanation. Here we go again. At the beginning of every Senate week, the Senate requests of this government, of this Minister for the NDIS, the release of information about the impact of their so-called Financial Sustainability Framework. The Labor government continues to refuse to release the documents that relate to the impact of its commitment to limit spending on the NDIS and establish a growth target for the scheme of no more than eight per cent by 1 July 2026. This decision was made more than a year ago, before the last budget, yet still the community have no clear idea or commitment from the government of where the cuts in the NDIS are coming from. This government have made a deal with the states and territories behind closed doors. They have refused to release the NDIS Financial Sustainability Framework. Now they have developed their new NDIS legislation, whose goal must be to reach their eight per cent growth cap, and that legislation too has been made behind closed doors with disability advocates made to sign non-disclosure agreements—all of this uncertainty, in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. Labor: cutting the supports of disabled people and their families. In their last budget, they ripped $74 billion out of the NDIS. Disabled people and our families tonight have a knot of fear and anxiety as we wait to hear how much further Labor will go to balance their budget on the backs of disabled people. This government have reduced disabled people and our families down to numbers on a Treasury spreadsheet. To them, we are now little more than a financial burden to be reduced so that they can carry on giving subsidies to fossil fuel corporations and buying nuclear submarines. Imagine being so out of touch, so uncaring, that you decide to cut the supports of disabled people and their families, forcing them to choose between food or power or rent or disability supports, in order to continue spending money on nuclear submarines. We know that removing $74 billion from the NDIS will have catastrophic impacts on disabled people, and we now know that this government have taken every step possible to cover up the implications of that decision, including paying thousands of dollars to polling companies to help them work out a message to enable them to sell these changes to the disability community, while eliciting a degree of qualified tolerance for their otherwise unpalatable changes that disabled people have identified as those which would cause us harm. They have tried everything to achieve their political goal of being able to spend more money on US submarines than disabled people, who are trying to get a fair go. This Labor government are prioritising secrecy, they are passing the buck and they are actively choosing to make changes to the NDIS that will leave disabled people behind in a cost-of-living crisis. The Greens see what Labor is doing. The Greens and the disability community will not let them get away with it. You will not balance your budget on the backs of disabled people, and tonight you will not be allowed to crow about your surplus when so many are struggling to keep their heads above water. 12:13 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I too rise to take note yet again—I think this is probably about the 10th time that we have risen to take note of the government's abject failure in providing any transparency to this place on something as important as the NDIS funding. On the fig leaf of reason for the IPP is that it will prejudice relationships with states and territories—well, der! Of course it will, because the minister just mentioned it. The states and territories have even said that what you're putting forward in this legislation does not reflect the agreement that you had with the states and territories last year, so it will only prejudice state and territory relations because of your own incompetence and lack of transparency. So here we go again with another demonstration of the abject failure and incompetency of this government to manage not just this scheme but every single aspect of government that you have turned your hand to so far. This motion was agreed to in September last year, and I commend Senator Steele-John for this motion. It may surprise some in the gallery and elsewhere to know that this is one of the things that we do agree on very on much—the government's handling of and lack of transparency on this matter. The only thing I don't agree with Senator Steele-John on is the need for nuclear submarines, but, apart from that, we're on a unity ticket in relation to what he said. Tonight Labor is facing its biggest test in relation to the NDIS. For two years they've conducted a review that wasn't necessary, because the problems and solutions were already very clear. They've just shown that they do not have the ability to do it. The minister was just talking about 'getting the NDIS back on track'—a catchy name for the legislation! This is one of the worst of pieces of draft legislation I think I have ever seen. It was very clear that, of the package of recommendations in the report that they commissioned—which took two years and included some 26 recommendations and 139 subrecommendations—this deals with just four, in part. So we're not even getting the comprehensive actions that their own report requires. They're putting all of the hard decisions out until past the next election. You could actually call this saving-Bill-Shorten legislation. Of course, we will work with the government in good faith on this, and we will certainly be talking to our friends the Greens in relation to this. I'm not the shadow minister, but I'm sure we will be. Let's have a look at this legislation. In fact, first, let's have a look at their lack of transparency. As minister, I introduced a monthly report. The first thing they did was get rid of the monthly report. They now refuse, even at estimates, to answer additional estimates questions in relation to additional estimate variations. They did that at the last estimates. Senator Hughes 273828 It's probably in their manual. Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Exactly. In the manual, yes. I'm sure we'll come to the detail of this manual. At the last estimates, we saw the farce. The second-quarter report was well overdue. The CEO had a copy on a laptop; the minister in this building had a copy, but they didn't want to release it. And guess what? They released it the very next morning so that it could not be looked at in detail in terms of the Senate. They're doing the same thing again. The 42 days are up. The ministers all have it, but I bet you anything that they will not release the third-quarter report until after the next estimates. Shame on them. In the minute that I've got left, let me address this legislation. As I said, it's one of the worst pieces of legislation I have seen, and it's going to attempt to give the minister God powers that we would never, in a million years, have even thought to request on behalf of the minister. It is putting far too much into delegated legislation, of which there is no detail yet. 'Trust us. Trust Bill Shorten. Trust the Labor Party. We'll fill it all in later, and I'll use this power wisely.' Well, you haven't so far, not for two years. Not only that; it continues the complete lack of transparency. Senator Steele-John asked this chamber how much they're going to cut from participant plans. Well, according to the budget, it's $19 billion, Senator Steele-John, over the forward estimates. Senator Steele-John 250156 Yes. Senator REYNOLDS 250216 And when you have a look at this legislation, that is what this is designed to do: make bad decisions—we're not quite sure how but maybe on the basis of APTOS, which it was never designed to do—while they, over the next five years, say, 'We might suddenly start having a talk to states and territories about how we will do these assessments in the future.' States and territories haven't agreed to it because it's going to cost them billions. They're not going to do it because they don't have the money and they don't have the systems to take on these services. Shame on you. 12:18 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales I commend Senator Steele-John for putting forward this motion. It's NDIS Tuesday. Normally, it's NDIS Monday, but, of course, it's budget week, so it's NDIS Tuesday. For those that play along at home, transmission Tuesday is also coming up, so there are a few things on today. Yesterday I went to my son's school. He attends a special school. We had a very, very early morning Mother's Day breakfast. I somehow feel early morning breakfast on Mother's Day is an anathema! But, anyway, there we were, in the morning. I looked around at this beautiful school and these beautiful kids, and every single one of those kids is going to need lifelong supports. They don't have a speech delay. They don't have a minor global developmental delay. They haven't stubbed their toe. These kids have significant disabilities and are going to require supports for the rest of their lives. As I stood around talking to the other mums who were there, those of us that have got kids a little bit older—we all started our journey before the NDIS, so we remember what it was like when we did have to rely on the states, if there was anything available. I can tell you, in rural and regional New South Wales, that was not the case where we lived at the time. So the NDIS has been an absolutely life-changing scheme for my family and for the families of these kids. It certainly will be for younger kids coming through. The government is saying to families that are going to come through on the back of this new legislation, 'Don't worry; there'll be foundational supports. We're going to push you all back into the state system,' when we know that there are no supports in the school system. The school system vacated the field. The states left disability well alone as soon as the NDIS came into play. In fact, in any single allied health community program that they were delivering, they couldn't run away fast enough. You can't just stand this stuff up again overnight. The problem we've got on top of that is the NDIS price guide, which is just an abomination. This price guide has put the fees so high for NDIS participants—more than if you're on a healthcare card; more than if you're a veteran; more than if on aged care—that the NDIS is the best-paying gig in town. So there's no way someone who's gone into private practice as an occupational therapist or a speech therapist is going back to work for a state funded salary in community health. They're just not, because they can charge NDIS participants at the most ludicrous rate. Do we hear anyone talk about the price guide? Do we hear anyone talk about what the providers are doing in gouging this sector? That is absolutely what is happening. We don't know where these cuts are going to come from, but I can tell you where you could save a lot of money—by getting rid of that price guide. Let the market decide the price. People would pay what a normal person would pay. When I say 'normal person', I mean someone who walks in off the street—before I am verballed on that—rather than someone who's an NDIS participant. The point has been made by both of my colleagues here in the Senate that this is in the budget already. It's already in the budget from last year, so we don't know what's coming tonight. There could be another almighty whack tonight, and we don't know what that's going to be. The thing is, the Labor government have an almost golden opportunity, if they want to bring the states back to the table and change the funding arrangement, because aside from Tasmania there are wall-to-wall Labor state governments. They have a sea of red—and look how well the country is going with that! It's going really well for everybody; that cost-of-living crisis is awesome! Wall-to-wall red governments and— Senator HUGHES 273828 I'm sorry, Senator Farrell, your turn to speak was to actually provide the figures you were asked to provide. So, rather than interjecting on me, provide the documents you've been required to provide by order of this Senate. Stop interjecting over me and do your job. The people of Australia deserve more than this government. The people on the NDIS deserve more than this government. What they are getting from you is opacity. What they are getting from you is deceit. What they are getting from you is contempt and this behaviour that continues when you have an opportunity. Bill Shorten referred to Senator Reynolds and others, when they were in opposition, as a 'pearl-clutching kabuki theatre', because there was no sustainability issue according to him. He told every disability provider, every participant in this country—the whole sector—'There is no sustainability issue.' This lot don't know what they're talking about. Day 1, he comes in saying, 'Oh, the NDIS isn't sustainable. Hey, come and help me try and fix it—but we're not going to tell you how.' He is frightening families. He is frightening participants. And we know that the next generation of kids with a disability coming through are going to be hung out to dry by you. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 4 MOTIONS Middle East Conflict: Protests 4 12:23 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales At the request of Senator Waters, I seek leave to move a motion commending student protest encampments, as circulated. Leave not granted. Senator FARUQI 250362 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 Senator Waters moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to student protest encampments. If you have a heart, you should be haunted by the images coming out of Rafah, where Israel is slaughtering Palestinians again in plain view of the world. You should be haunted by the slaughter of newborns, toddlers and children in Gaza. You should be haunted by the attacks on hospitals, schools, refugee camps and mass graves. But you are cold, callous and calculating politicians who are instead full of contempt for those protesting this genocide. You are full of contempt for students who are camping out for Gaza. The moral bankruptcy of Labor and other so-called leaders in the face of this massacre is a stain on our collective conscience. The Gaza encampments at unis across the continent are a reminder, though, that all is not lost. It is a matter of urgency that they be supported. In a world where one Western government after another is complicit in Israel's genocide of Palestinians, in a world where we see the abject failure of the Labor government to take any action and in a world where the neoliberal university has been complicit in warfare, the students are fighting back. The Greens are in solidarity with students across the country peacefully protesting, taking action and speaking out for Palestine with such courage in the face of lies, abuse, harassment and intimidation. While the Labor government remains complicit in this genocide, we have the Liberal Party, who are utterly devoid of humanity. The Jewish Council of Australia's executive officer, Dr Max Kaiser, has said he is deeply concerned by what he calls: … the weaponisation of antisemitism by the Liberal Party to target students who are standing up against the genocide of the Palestinian people. Why are you lot so threatened by a bunch of university students registering their moral opposition to Israel's genocide that has slaughtered more than 35,000 Palestinians? Why aren't you as concerned about the genocide itself? Power to the students who have the integrity, the bravery and the humanity that are completely lacking in this government. Students in the US have faced extreme repression, abuse and outright violence from the police. Management of their own universities have disgracefully turned against them. This must not be mirrored here, but sadly and shamefully it has already started, with Deakin University wanting the encampments dismantled. In the past few weeks, we have seen very concerning attacks and violence targeted at peaceful Palestine encampments on campuses, despite protesters making clear that their encampments are proudly antiracist and do not tolerate antisemitism or any form of racism. An open letter signed by over 500 academics and staff across Australian unis demands that political leaders and media representatives cease their rhetorical attacks on and vilification of the student encampments. The world has changed forever. All eyes are on Palestine. We have protests and encampments across the world demanding an end to Israel's occupation, apartheid and genocide. Cries of a free Palestine are echoing from Hiroshima to Barcelona, from New York to Sydney, from rallies and encampments to sold-out concerts with Macklemore, who says: What is threatening about divesting and wanting peace? The problem isn't the protests, it's what they're protesting. These students understand that business as usual in the place where they live, work and study allows the genocide to continue unabated, and they are calling on their institutions to cut ties with weapons corporations and all those who are complicit in this genocide. They understand that our freedoms are interlinked and so are our oppressions. These students are firmly on the right side of history. Complicit governments and VCs cannot extinguish these protests and should not attempt to do so. Instead of trying to crush legitimate peaceful protests, it is time for VCs to listen to the divestment demands of the Gaza encampments. As for Labor, your hollow calls and empty words of concern to Israel are achieving nothing. Take action. Back the student Gaza encampments. Expel the Israeli ambassador. Sanction Netanyahu and his war cabinet. End military trade with Israel. 12:29 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria This motion to suspend standing orders must be opposed. The encampments on university campuses are fuelling shocking levels of hate, incitement and antisemitism across this country. They are dividing students and they are causing extraordinary distress to Jewish students and staff. What is going on in Gaza right now is horrific. The Israel-Hamas war is horrific, but I condemn Senator Faruqi, who failed to condemn Hamas, the terrorists who have terrorised innocent Palestinians and who murdered hundreds of innocent Israeli men, women and children on 7 October last year and are still holding many hostages. I commend Deakin University, which has shown leadership and has taken the very strong action to shut down the encampment at its Burwood campus. The request it has made to the organiser of the encampment is because of the university's responsibility to ensure the safety, security and amenity of all campus users. The letter by Kerrie Parker, Deputy Vice-Chancellor University Services, reads: 'The university takes its obligations in relation to ensuring the health, safety and wellbeing of staff, students and visitors to the campus very seriously. Our Deakin community and the individuals it comprises each have the right to access and enjoy a safe and secure learning and working environment free of impediment, intimidation and harassment. This is compromised by the continued presence of the encampment. The closure of Morgans Walk, a restriction brought about by the unacceptable behaviour of protesters, is creating an impediment to the normal use and function of the campus.' Senator Faruqi's representation that this is all peace and love is absolute rubbish. These encampments are causing hatred, distress and intimidation not just for Jewish students and staff but for so many visitors, students and staff on university campuses. The mother of a Jewish student wrote to me the other day and said, 'My son is being told not to go into the quadrangle, which is the centre of the University of Sydney, because of the encampment.' He is being barred from having free access to his own campus. It is an absolute disgrace. Frankly, this is a very important opportunity for the government to show leadership. It is a test of leadership for this hapless education minister, Mr Clare, and the Prime Minister, who need to say: 'Enough is enough. The encampments must end.' I salute Deakin University, which is showing leadership, which is taking a stand and which strongly supports free speech, the right to protest and academic freedom. The ability to undertake protest, political discourse and debate at Deakin and at every university should not be infringed upon or curtailed by activities which pose serious risks to students, staff and visitors at campuses. As Deakin says, the encampment there 'poses hygiene and safety risks and restricts the access, availability and use of Deakin premises and facilities for the benefit of the Deakin community of users'. So I say to the government and to Senator Chisholm, who I believe is going to speak next on this motion: please use this as an opportunity to at last take a strong stand against these encampments because, frankly, we have seen a shocking failure of leadership from the education minister, who could not even condemn or understand the use of terrorist chants like 'intifada', because they mean different things to different people. Even the Prime Minister had to step in and slap him down. This hapless education minister has failed to directly condemn the encouragement of children to chant terrorist chants, such as 'intifada', and it is time we saw leadership from the Albanese government to end the encampments. 12:34 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The government does not support this motion for the suspension of standing orders. Rather than disrupting the routine of business, there are other opportunities to advance these arguments in the Senate, including as a matter of public importance, as an urgency motion in the general business debate, in senators' statements or in the adjournment debate. It's also clear that this motion is drafted to be absolutist. It's another example of the Greens seeking to divide the community on these issues by taking an absolutist position. They are seeking to win votes in the community, rather than work to achieve social cohesion. But it is typical of what we have seen from the Greens on this matter. The government believes all Australians have the right to be safe in their home, in their communities and, indeed, in their education institutions, workplaces and online. The Australian government has a zero-tolerance approach towards violence and expects all students to act respectfully towards each other. Antisemitism, Islamophobia and any other form of racism, harassment, discrimination or intimidation must not be allowed to threaten the safety of students and staff on Australian university campuses. Any incidents on campus that contravene the law should be immediately reported to the police. Universities must uphold their obligations under the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021, which include having policies in place around freedom of speech, fostering a safe environment and ensuring student and staff wellbeing. While universities must uphold freedom of speech, this does not extend to protecting or tolerating discriminatory or hate speech, including antisemitism or Islamophobia. Universities are taking action where they have identified such issues. For example, the Australian National University is investigating claims of threats against Jewish students and has taken disciplinary action where it deemed appropriate. The University of Queensland is engaging with protest organisers, is monitoring activities and has increased security and has also reported incidents to police where it deemed appropriate. Monash University vice-chancellor emailed all staff on 9 May 2024 to affirm that, while the university defends freedom of speech, it does not tolerate behaviour that is not in line with university policies on community safety or antidiscrimination. Under the threshold standards, providers must also have effective grievance processes in place to enable complaints to be made without fear of reprisal and which provide for a review by an appropriate independent third party if internal processes fail to resolve disagreements. The higher education sector regulator, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, wrote to the higher education providers last week to remind them of their obligations under the threshold standards to ensure appropriate measures are in place to uphold the safety and wellbeing of students and staff. Should TEQSA identify any noncompliance with the threshold standards, its regulation actions can include placing conditions on a provider's registration, and TEQSA can also issue an infringement notice or seek a civil penalty in court in the conditions TEQSA places on providers if they are breached. Those are the options that are available. It is an issue the government has taken seriously. Again, I note that on this the Greens are always seeking to look for votes and mine for votes. They don't actually seek social cohesion, which is what the government is aiming to achieve. I move: That the question be now put. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 The question is that the motion be now put. Question agreed to. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 The question is that the motion moved by Senator Faruqi be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:44]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator O'Neill)

11 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 30 NOES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. McAllister, J. R. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

DOCUMENTS 7 DOCUMENTS Senate Estimates 7 12:44 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I table the document Approaches to Senate Estimates Questions on Notice Asked of All Agencies. It's certainly no secret. 12:44 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the document. The minister has just tabled a document titled Approaches to Senate Estimates Questions on Notice Asked of All Agencies—that's from the government. This should be a pretty simple document. It should be: 'Give honest, direct answers.' That would be the case if the government were living up to their rhetoric. The minister has tabled this document saying that it's no secret. I want to be clear at the outset that the government has only tabled this document because the Senate was about to order it to table this document. I acknowledge the Greens as well as the entire Senate crossbench for the fact that there was unanimous support from nongovernment senators in this place to call upon the government to table this document and to require the government to explain its contents. In the face of knowing that unanimous support from all nongovernment senators was coming—something you don't often see in this place—the government has decided at the last minute to table the document that the Senate was about to force it to table. Of course, we haven't had the chance to review it yet, because the document was a secret, Minister, until you just tabled it. But we came to ask for it because the coalition, the Greens and the Senate crossbench rightly shared in the outrage at revelations about the contents of this document. We shared in the outrage because this is not a document about how to transparently and honestly answer Senate questions. It's a document prepared—we don't know for sure—either in the Prime Minister's Office or the Prime Minister's department but certainly with the Prime Minister's stamp on it. It has been circulated to minister's officers and/or government departments, giving them advice on how to obfuscate, avoid, cover up and ensure that Senate questions go unanswered rather than answered. The hypocrisy we see from the Labor Party in this regard is quite astounding. The Albanese government was going to be a beacon of transparency, but instead they've come up with their own codified manual on how to cover up their misdeeds and mistakes. I want to give credit to journalists Anthony Galloway and Jennifer Duke from Capital Brief, who broke this story in the last couple of weeks. They were the ones who got extracts of this manual and were able to publish it. In publishing it, they brought to the attention of nongovernment senators the tactics of the government, about which I think we'd all been somewhat curious as we saw more and more consistent responses coming to questions—responses that didn't go remotely close to answering them. Although we've only just had the document tabled by the government, let's take a close look at some of the examples that the journalists have published to date of what is in this document. For example, a question may say, 'Has the department or agency held any organised external retreats or external speakers?' You might think the suggested response would be 'yes' or 'no' with provided details, but no; the suggested draft response is, 'The data requested is not captured centrally and obtaining it would be an unreasonable diversion of resources.' Too bad! If the person drafting the response was sitting at an external retreat last weekend, they should full well know that that external retreat happened and be able to report upon it. But no. The recommendation is to say, 'Oh, that would be too hard to answer; therefore, we cannot answer it.' What if a question were asked about the number of meetings the secretary or agency head has had with ministers in their portfolio over a defined period of time? The suggested draft response from the Albanese government about interactions between their ministers and their agency heads is this: 'The secretary regularly meets with portfolio ministers and, at times, ministers outside the portfolio'—no answer at all. This is the best of Yes Minister! This document must have been drafted by somebody sitting down in the Prime Minister's office, getting out the old VCR, putting in their old highlights from Yes Minister and going, 'This is what Sir Humphrey would have said,' because that seems to be the approach the government's taking. How many meetings might there have been? 'The secretary regularly meets with the portfolio ministers.' What is the minimum processing time for consideration of briefs by the minister? 'The department prepares briefs within agreed time frames on a case-by-case basis'—avoiding detail at every possible opportunity. Senator Cash I0M Tell us about this one. Transparency alert! Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Transparency alert! There is no— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Senator Cash! Senator Cash I0M I'm a little excited about the transparency alert! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Senator Cash, I urge you to contain your excitement. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X We see very little by way of transparency in this document or in relation— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Senator Birmingham, you have the call. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X What really strikes me is when we come to very precise questions about, for example, things to do with budget transparency. Now, this is very relevant. Today is budget day. We are going into the two-week budget estimates period after this Senate sitting week. A very focused, precise question would be, for the portfolio, 'Please provide a list of the 10 largest estimates variations in the most recent financial year.' You don't get much more precise than that. It's a specific question, specific to the budget, time limited to the last financial year, on a particular issue—namely, estimates variations, where a government department has changed in the course of the year how much it thinks it's going to spend on a particular item. You should absolutely be able to table precisely what those estimates variations are. What does the Albanese government's secret little manual on how to not answer questions suggest as a response to this very precise question? 'The portfolio additional estimates statements inform the parliament of changes to the proposed allocation of resources since the budget. The PAES, annual Appropriation Bills (Nos. 3 and 4) and Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) are tabled in the parliament usually in February each year.' So when senators, whether it is a coalition senator, a Greens senator, Senator Babet or any other member of the crossbench, go and ask a precise and detailed budget question of the Albanese Labor government, what do they get fed in return? A bunch of bureaucratic jargon referring them to go and try to work it out from the budget papers themselves—information that won't actually be in those budget papers. You will not find, in the detail that is requested, the information the government is referring you to go and find in the budget papers. They're setting senators up to run around in little circles, like a dog chasing its tail, never actually getting the answer. That's the type of contempt we are seeing from the Albanese government when it comes to how it is treating the Senate, when it comes to transparency issues and when it comes to the approach to estimates. What is so galling is that this is a government who made so much about these issues when in opposition. In 2022 Mr Albanese said: The Australian people deserve accountability and transparency, not secrecy. Well, this is the complete opposite of what Mr Albanese promised. He has actually taken lack of transparency, lack of accountability and government secrecy to a whole new level. The Prime Minister's office is directing, in a manual, government departments on how to avoid answering questions. You couldn't come up with a more precise example of the opposite of transparency. It's a scandal. The fact that the government, rather than coming in here apologising and saying, 'We're going to instruct our departments to ignore this, and we got it wrong,' instead came in here and said, 'It's no secret, and there's nothing to hide,' shows just how arrogant they are, just how out of touch they are and just how willing they are to break every single promise or commitment they made to the Australian people. 12:55 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Senator Birmingham is right about one thing: we did make a big issue about that in opposition, and there's a reason for that. Exhibit A is right there—Senator McKenzie. Exhibit B is right there—Senator Cash. When it came to avoiding questions at Senate estimates, we saw it all the time. They sat at the cabinet table with a former prime minister who appointed himself to five ministries. So we absolutely made a big deal about this because the Australian people demanded we make a big deal about it because they were sick of it. They were absolutely sick of it and the way they were being treated by the previous government. Those opposite have come in here, and it was a fine performance from Senator Birmingham—but they have a record of being in government that we remember. The Australian people remember, more importantly, that we have a big task to overcome. That is why we absolutely highlighted this in opposition. We are proud of our record in government of actually turning this around. The Australian people know they can expect us to be transparent, honest and accountable with them on every occasion, unlike those opposite from what we've seen. The Albanese government are delivering a higher standard of integrity, transparency and accountability and we are upholding a standard the opposition never, ever did. The Albanese government has reversed Australia's decade-long slide by lifting the country's ranking on Transparency International's annual Corruption Perception Index from 18 to 13. Senator Birmingham H6X Defend the document. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Order, Senator Birmingham! Senator CHISHOLM 39801 This didn't happen by accident. We have established the National Anti-Corruption Commission. That's another thing they talked about for years but did nothing about. We've strengthened the ministerial code of conduct, strengthened protections for whistleblowers, increased funding for the ANAO, restored transparency to AAT appointments, reinstated a standalone privacy and FOI commissioner and implemented the Bell inquiry recommendations in less than two years. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Order, Senator McKenzie! Senator CHISHOLM 39801 We've done all of that in less than two years—more than they did in a decade. The numbers of Senate estimates questions on notice, parliamentary questions on notice and orders for the production of documents have all skyrocketed in the 47th Parliament. Despite this surge, the Albanese government is on track to answer more questions than any previous government. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator CHISHOLM 39801 They don't like hearing about it, do they? They actually don't like hearing about a government with integrity and accountability and a record of delivering on this. The Albanese government is on track to answer more questions on notice than any previous government. As of 13 May 2024, less than 0.1 per cent of questions on notice remained unanswered from the first four rounds of Senate estimates in the 47th Parliament. We are continuing to respond to the mammoth number of questions received in the most recent round. The number of questions has skyrocketed, and it's important we consider whether answering all of them is the best use of public sector resources. Here are some examples of a few that have come through to just PM&C alone. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Senator McGrath and Senator Ayres, enough! Senator CHISHOLM 39801 'Which floor is the secretary's office on compared to that of the Prime Minister when the Prime Minister is working in that city?'—that is a question that they put on notice. 'What planning is underway in the case of the King's death'— Opposition senators: What's the answer? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Senator Chisholm, I'm going to have to ask you to resume your seat. A document was requested and has been provided. The minister is speaking to it. The response by Senator Birmingham to the tabling of that document was listened to with respect. I have called individual senators by name. You are out of order. I call on you to respect the standing orders of the Senate and allow the minister to respond. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Senator Birmingham is not immune to this sort of activity either. Senator Birmingham asked what temperature the department's buildings are currently set at. Senator Hume alone has asked 13,000 questions on notice in this term. That includes 331 questions concerning paper use by departments, 125 questions on working on the King's birthday and other public holidays and 31 questions concerning who might be the longest-serving agency member. The government wants the Public Service focused on answering questions that are in the public interest, not spurious questions seemingly written to waste the resources of the public sector. We are working across government to support efficient, timely responses to questions on notice. That is our record, and that is what we are doing. Despite receiving nearly half the number of questions per estimates round as the Albanese government did, the Liberals had failed to answer 360 questions on notice when they left office, some dating back as far as October 2019. The Liberals had failed to answer nearly 780 questions on notice by the time they left office in May 2022. Some of these were many years overdue, despite receiving far fewer questions on average: 86 a month versus 138 a month. Over the life of the previous government, this equalled an average unanswered question rate of 8.2 per cent, significantly higher than the Albanese government's rate of 1.4 per cent. As I pointed out, I think the Australian people remember, or I'm confident that they remember, but it's always worth reminding them of the record of those opposite during their decade in power and of the work we had to do to overcome so much damage they had done to accountability and transparency in this country. The former Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, secretly appointed himself to five ministerial positions without the knowledge of the public, his own government or the ministers whose positions he'd appointed himself to. Then home affairs minister Peter Dutton refused to appear before an inquiry into allegations he misused his ministerial powers to intervene in two separate cases to allow a French au pair and an Italian au pair into the country. According to the committee's final report in September 2018: It should be noted that on 29 August 2018, the committee extended an invitation to the Hon Peter Dutton MP, Minister for Home Affairs, to appear at the hearing. The committee received no response. After repeatedly denying that she or her office had tipped off media ahead of a 2017 police raid on the AWU offices on behalf of the registered organisations committee, then employment minister Senator Cash was forced to admit that one of her staffers had, in fact, done so. Senator Cash then refused to provide a witness statement to the AFP in their subsequent investigation. Senator McKenzie only gave evidence to an inquiry into sports rorts after the Senate forced her to do so. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Senator Chisholm—sorry; I have to respond to, I'm assuming, a point of order. What is the point of order, Senator Scarr? Senator Scarr 282997 That's right, Acting Deputy President, on a personal reflection: the accusation made against— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Thank you. I note that. Can I just ask the minister to withdraw the personal reflection. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 I withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Thank you. Please continue. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Senator McKenzie gave evidence to an inquiry into sports rorts only after the Senate forced her to do so. The Select Committee on Administration of Sports Grants had previously requested Senator McKenzie appear as a witness on no less than six occasions, but she'd declined every time. The coalition voted against a motion requiring Senator McKenzie's appearance at the inquiry. The shadow Treasurer, Mr Taylor, as energy and emissions reduction minister, changed the law to keep secret electricity price hikes, ahead of the 2022 election, and deliberately concealed from the public and the energy market construction delays and hefty cost blowouts on the Snowy 2.0 project. Then environment minister Sussan Ley suppressed the state of the environment report ahead of the 2022 election because it revealed that the Liberals' and Nationals' environmental performance was even worse than feared. And, of course, there's the gold standard of integrity and accountability: Barnaby Joyce! He has a long record of disgrace when it comes to these issues. He was appointed a special envoy for drought assistance and drought recovery by former prime minister Morrison, and he spent almost $1 million of taxpayers' money in nine months, spent less than three weeks in drought-affected communities and did not produce a report beyond a text message to the Prime Minister, which was, of course, kept secret. So, when they come in here to talk about these issues, it is important that we remind people about their record in government. They have absolutely no credibility to stand on when they accuse this government. We have a proud record, in the two years we have been here, of restoring integrity and accountability. It is one that the Australian people understand. They still judge those opposite harshly. Those opposite have shown no remorse for their actions in government. We will absolutely remind the Australian people, at every opportunity we get, of their diabolical record. And the Australian people treated them accordingly. 13:03 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland It's very rare that the Greens, the entire crossbench and the coalition agree on something. Now, answering questions at estimates is not optional, but it appears that this government would like it to be. We know that from leaks of a document distributed by the Prime Minister's office to ministerial offices in recent weeks that provides advice on how to avoid answering questions in estimates. Here are just a few choice quotes from Capital Brief: The document … urges everyone to consider referring questions to another department or agency 'where appropriate', and tells them to provide 'only information required to answer the question'. … … … In the document, departments and agencies are advised to avoid answering a question on how many external retreats and speakers they have organised. Instead, they should respond with: 'The data requested is not captured centrally and obtaining it would be an unreasonable diversion of resources.' … … … When asked how many meetings their secretary has had with ministers, departments are advised to respond: 'The Secretary regularly meets with portfolio ministers and, at times, ministers outside the portfolio.' We had an earnest defence by Senator Chisholm, but that cannot overcome the fact that this is a Prime Minister's Office instruction manual on how to avoid giving meaningful answers in Senate estimates. We only know of it because someone with ethics and with concern for democracy leaked part of this document last week, which of course led to all non-government senators tabling a motion asking the government to disclose the full document and also asking the Prime Minister's representative to come in and give an account of themselves. About five seconds before that was meant to happen, the government in fact tabled a copy of the document, but it's very embarrassing that it took the threat of this motion for them to do so. It's very embarrassing for the government that they didn't fess up and do this of their own volition and that it took the rest of the chamber to force them to do the right thing. I've had a quick squiz through the full document. I don't know whether it has been altered. I don't know if that is in fact the original document, so we will scrutinise that very closely. The second part of the motion that was going to be moved would have required Senator Wong to attend and explain 'what the actual' is going on. We called on the government to say who wrote this document, who ticked off on this document and who was sent this document. None of that has happened today in the government's hasty tabling of what they say is the full version of this cheat sheet on how to not answer questions in estimates. So we still don't know the extent of knowledge that the Prime Minister himself had over this entire debacle. What we do know is that the PMO is saying the quiet bit out loud. They clearly don't want to answer questions or provide transparent information about their decisions or their policies. The Prime Minister should immediately retract this document. The Senate standing orders make it an offence for a witness to refuse to answer a question, unless they make a valid claim of public interest immunity, so questions in Senate estimates are meant to be answered. So much for the transparency and accountability that this Labor Party promised in government! This document does not provide advice that is consistent with the commitment that the Australian people deserve accountability and transparency, not secrecy. If the Prime Minister wants to live up to that commitment to transparency, he should immediately—today—retract this document. In recent estimates, it has been getting harder and harder to get answers to questions—and detailed answers, at that—and it is not acceptable from any government but particularly not from a government that said they would be better on transparency and accountability. I want to flag that the author of this document—we don't know who it is because there isn't a name on the tabled version—could be in contempt of the Senate. We don't know if the Prime Minister wrote this document or if the Prime Minister authorised this document. There's an argument that the Prime Minister could be in contempt of the Senate. Privileges resolution No. 6 says that a person should not 'improperly interfere with the free exercise by the Senate or a committee of its authority'. It further talks about offences by a witness: A witness before the Senate or a committee shall not: … … … (b) without reasonable excuse, refuse to answer any relevant question put to the witness when required to do so; or (c) give any evidence which the witness knows to be false or misleading in a material particular, or which the witness does not believe on reasonable grounds to be true or substantially true in every material particular. I think you can mount an argument that this document is instructing departmental officials to breach those rules and is therefore instructing departmental officials to be in contempt of the Senate. This is a cheat sheet on how to mislead senators in estimates, and it's the Prime Minister showing absolute disregard for the process of open democracy. He is trashing his own so-called promise of more accountability and transparency. I reiterate that the Prime Minister should retract this document today and start delivering on their promise of a more accountable and transparent government, because this is a betrayal by the Labor government of their promises for a better government. At this point they are just Scott Morrison in a different coloured tie. 13:10 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I speak to this motion to take note. I have yet to read the document in full and in detail, yet its existence is very disturbing, as other speakers have already said. At Senate estimates, Anthony Albanese's office is putting words in the mouths of department heads. How can we trust their answers? We cannot trust this government. Repeatedly we're getting the suppression of democracy—repeatedly—and we're seeing arrogance. Let's have a look at some data, and then I'll come back to talking more about this document. As of the end of December 2023—7 December, specifically—after 94 Senate sitting days in the 47th Parliament, Anthony Albanese's parliament, 14 guillotine motions have been agreed to. Under the previous Morrison government, in the 46th Parliament, 14 guillotine motions were agreed to. Now we start to see the difference. A total of 87 bills have been subject to the guillotine in the 47th Parliament under the Labor-Greens-teals-Pocock coalition led by Anthony Albanese. In the 46th Parliament, under the Morrison Liberals, there were 59. So we have seen almost 50 per cent more under this government, under the coalition that Labor formed with the teals, Senator Pocock and the Greens, quite often with Senator Jacqui Lambie's support. They promised transparency and accountability. Instead we get the suppression of democracy, repeatedly. Arrogance—that's what we say it is. Arrogance. We see that the suppression of democracy is a form of control. Always beneath control there is fear. Of what is the Albanese Labor-Greens-teals-Pocock coalition afraid? It's afraid of truth and afraid, fundamentally, of an informed citizenry. They don't want people to know. The media has seen copies of the document. 'The PMO's secret manual on sidestepping Senate estimates questions'—that's the headline in Capital Brief. The article says: Capital Brief has seen a document sent by Anthony Albanese's office advising departments on how to handle questions on notice from Senate estimates. Current and former senators say the edict represents contempt of the Senate. Contempt of the Senate is a very serious matter. Another article in Capital Brief says: Current and former senators, lawyers and a former top judge have said the drafting of the document could result in contempt of the Senate. … … … Anthony Albanese's office has stood by a document it issued to senior bureaucrats which advised them how to sidestep Senate estimates questions on the basis that inquiries have "skyrocketed" since Labor came to government. Well, that's your job! I don't care if they have skyrocketed. We'll keep asking questions. I'll get to the Prime Minister's office's manual—what we've seen of it so far; I haven't dissected it. When the interests of several departments are involved, the Government Guidelines for Official Witnesses before Parliamentary Committees and Related Matters call for departments to consult with other departments as part of the drafting process. This includes instances where the same or similar Senate estimates questions on notice are asked of all or multiple departments and agencies. Why are you worried about different answers from different departments? Look at some of the topics covered—well, we'll go through that another time. I know this is not a motion by leave to seek a variation of standing orders, but One Nation normally opposes them because the Senate should be focused, firstly, on Senate responsibilities and, secondly, on government business. We want the government to govern. Senate estimates, though, are a vital part of holding governments and bureaucrats accountable for taxpayer funds. Why do you hide from that? Anthony Albanese's department wants to hide the truth from the people. We have seen the Fair Work Commission and the Fair Work Ombudsman stumbling through an answer to my questions attempting to get to the bottom of their complicity with the CFMEU and major multinational labour hire firms in stealing $30,000 to $40,000 per miner each year from thousands of casual miners in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley. They hide the facts wilfully. The Fair Work Ombudsman office relies on fraud, repeatedly. The Labor minister for workplace relations ignores and diverts. It's embarrassing for departments. We look forward to reviewing the formerly secret document in detail, because democracy is at stake. Question agreed to. BILLS 13 BILLS Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023 13

Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023

Second Reading 13 13:15 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise to speak on the Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023. The bill before us establishes an Australian antislavery commissioner as a statutory appointment within the Attorney-General's portfolio. The bill—I am pleased to say—builds on the important work that the coalition did. In fact, the coalition was world-leading in terms of our record of combating modern slavery. The term modern slavery itself is an umbrella term. It is used to describe all human trafficking, slavery and slavery-like offences in our Criminal Code. It can refer to human trafficking, as I said; forced labour and servitude; debt bondage; forced marriage; and child labour, including, in its absolute worst forms, the commercial sexual exploitation of children and the exploitation of children for illegal activities such as drug trafficking. Modern slavery, unfortunately, can occur in every industry and every sector, but, regardless of the circumstances, it has incredibly severe consequences for victims. Modern slavery practices distort global markets, undercut responsible businesses and can pose significant risks to entities that find themselves inadvertently benefiting from slavery practices at some point in the supply chain. It is an egregious abuse of the dignity and the rights of an individual, and that is why the coalition has been fighting modern slavery for a number of years—in fact, for many, many years. And I certainly commend the work that Senator Linda Reynolds has been doing on the global stage in this regard. If you look at the history of tackling modern slavery, it was a coalition government that first introduced slavery offences into Australia's Criminal Code, and we did that through the Criminal Code Amendment (Slavery and Sexual Servitude) Act 1999. Prior to that, the law on slavery and the slave trade had been governed by 19th century imperial acts. Those acts employed archaic language and related to outdated circumstances and institutions that had either changed or long since fallen into disuse. It was a coalition government in 2018 that passed Australia's Modern Slavery Act 2018. Why did we do this? It was an important transparency measure to shine a light on not only slavery risks in international supply chains, to help businesses better control their own risks, but also the business model of those who profit from the servitude of others. Consistently, it has been coalition governments that have brought a coordinated and strategic approach to the fight against slavery and human trafficking. This coordinated approach started some time ago, in fact, with the Australian government's 2004 Action Plan to Eradicate Trafficking in Persons. That was released by John Howard when he was Prime Minister of our great nation. It was then succeeded in 2015 by the National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking and Slavery 2015-19, which laid the foundation for the current work and the current framework that we now have in place. Most recently, we have shown the way forward by implementing the National Action Plan to Combat Modern Slavery 2020-25, and that was released by my colleague and very good friend, the member for La Trobe. Australia has benefited from the coalition's multidecade-long fight against slavery and human trafficking, and Australia has benefited from the coordinated multipillar approach to modern slavery for which we have all advocated. It's also worth reflecting on those other pillars in our strategy against modern slavery; that puts the bill we have before us into context. There are five national strategic priorities that provide the foundation for our fight against modern slavery. The first is about prevention; it is our first national strategic priority. Doing things like addressing risks in global supply chains and stopping forced marriage in Australia help cut off modern slavery at its very root. The second national strategic priority is rooted in the justice system and the criminal law: to disrupt, to investigate and to prosecute modern slavery. Our national action plan is clear. When we encounter slavery, human trafficking and similar offences, perpetrators must be held to account by our police and our investigative agencies. The third national strategic priority is about—and this is so important—supporting and protecting survivors. This means supporting victims and survivors, who are, as we know, predominantly women and girls. It also means working with civil society and with business. The fourth national strategic priority is partnership. This means working with state and territory governments, victims, civil society and international partners. Modern slavery is a global problem that needs cross-border solutions. And the fifth national strategic priority is research; we need a strong evidence base to support our response to these crimes. These five national priorities established in 2020 by the former coalition government provide the framework that has consistently shaped the approach we have taken to modern slavery. One of our core achievements in the field, the Modern Slavery Act, aligns with these priorities not only by identifying slavery risks in the global supply chains but also by building an evidence base about practices around the world. Similarly, on the coalition side, the calls we have made for Magnitsky-style sanctions in response to forced labour and other abuses in Xinjiang province align with actions taken by our like-minded peers. Australia should be collaborating with its international partners to call out and address modern slavery issues, including by applying the coalition's Magnitsky-style sanctions to hold those responsible to account. In Australia, where we encounter slavery, human trafficking and similar offences—and I think it's absolutely disgusting we even have to say that, but that does remain and it is a fact in our country—perpetrators are held to account by our police and investigative agencies, who enforce our criminal laws. Yet when these same offences are encountered overseas, including by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Albanese Labor government has shied away from using existing tools already available to it. Quite frankly, there is no answer to the question as to why it would do that. Despite the coalition offering the Albanese government bipartisan support to do this, the Albanese Labor government has refused to take concrete action in holding perpetrators in Xinjiang to account and by joining with international partners to impose Magnitsky-style sanctions. Of course, that is exactly what Australia and the Australian government should be doing. As our work over many years has made clear, to fight effectively against modern slavery you need to coordinate your efforts across multiple fronts. Taking action in one area—for example, by establishing a new commissioner—does not, it is very clear, alleviate the need for action on other fronts. Whatever this bill does, it does not take concrete steps to combat modern slavery on the international stage. The bill establishes an Australian antislavery commissioner, and this then provides an enabling effect. The commissioner's functions as set out in the legislation generally relate to support liaison, encouragement consultation and advocacy. The commissioner would be influential in shaping responses to modern slavery. But, in many respects, the direct outcomes would be delivered by others, and that's why we describe it as 'an enabling effect'. For example, the commissioner would play a role in engaging closely with business in relation to slavery issues in international supply chains; however, the commissioner would not be responsible for administering the Modern Slavery Statements Register. Similarly, the commissioner could play a role in identifying slavery risks in Australia and overseas; however, they would not replace the police when it came to investigating slavery offences, and nor would the commissioner duplicate the functions of Australia's Ambassador to Counter Modern Slavery, People Smuggling and Human Trafficking. Importantly, however, this educative and enabling role has been welcomed by businesses and by civil society. In keeping with our national strategic priority of collaboration, groups like the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Business Council of Australia have welcomed the opportunity to work with the commissioner to further address slavery risks, and this is a welcome sign from the business community. The bill was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry, and a final report has now been handed down as a consequence of that inquiry. I commend, in particular, Senator Scarr for his work in forensically analysing this bill during the inquiry and for the recommendations that he made, on behalf of the coalition, to improve the transparency and accountability of the commissioner. The government has addressed many of the recommendations made by Senator Scarr, on behalf of the coalition, in the legislation. In particular, it has now circulated amendments that directly address the concerns that have been raised by Senator Scarr on behalf of the coalition about the disclosure of sensitive information. We understand that the majority of the other recommendations that have been made by Senator Scarr will be dealt with in an addendum to the explanatory materials, and we welcome that development. Again, the coalition will continue to argue for an effective, multipronged and coordinated response to modern slavery, and I commend the bill to the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Senator Sheldon, you have three minutes. 13:27 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales First of all, I want to say to Senator Scarr in particular that I know his deep interest, and that of the other members of the committee, in the work that's been done. A lot of consideration has been put into deliberating on this bill. I rise to speak on the Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023. And of course, slavery is a horror that still exists today. It did not end with the abolition movement in the 19th century. In 2019, the Australian Institute of Criminology found there were between 1,300 and 1,900 victims of slavery in Australia—although, for every victim detected, there are around four undetected victims. Globally, as many as 45 million people are today subjected to modern slavery. Some are forced to work in the supply chains for products we use every day. Modern slavery is a serious issue that, for far too long, has not had a suitably serious response. Labor has called for a tough modern slavery act since 2017. When the Turnbull government took up our policy and introduced the Modern Slavery Act a year later, it was watered down to let businesses profiting from slavery off the hook. The then shadow Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, said in 2018 that there was one large problem with the Turnbull government's proposed bill: the requirements were not enforced in any way; companies were free to completely ignore the statutory requirements and would face no penalty. In sum, the act is a completely toothless law. Now this view is shared broadly across expert groups focused on anti-slavery efforts and workers' rights. The act required that a review be undertaken three years after the commencement. The review, led by Professor John McMillan, was completed last year. The Human Rights Law Centre, in its submission to that review, said: … while the MSA has led to increased awareness, policies, procedures and internal training on modern slavery over the past three years, the legislation does not currently appear to be driving a 'race to the top' to address modern slavery as it was intended to do. Compliance with the mandatory— (Time expired) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Thank you, Senator. You will be in continuation. It being 1.30, we shall move on to senators' two-minute statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 15 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Discrimination 15 13:30 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland 'Antisemitism is being expressed more openly than at any other time in my lifetime': a phrase reportedly uttered by Prime Minister Albanese while addressing the Labor caucus yesterday. No level of mental gymnastics can possibly reconcile this statement with the Labor government's decision to vote to support Palestinian statehood, to recognise a contested state at a time when it is run by a fascist terrorist organisation—a state that believes in the eradication of the Jewish people and the LGBTQ community and a state that has used rape as a tool of attack. It is simply incomprehensible that the Prime Minister wraps himself in the pride and women's flags yet takes such action. Antisemitism increased by 700 per cent from October to November in Australia last year following Hamas's terrorist attack and is only becoming more prevalent. Recently, in my home state of Queensland, at the University of Queensland, a Jewish lecturer's office was ransacked, with the perpetrator urinating on the floor and posting signs saying 'resign'. Again, just days later, a group of pro-Palestinian supporters, spoken to by Greens MP Max Chandler-Mather by megaphone, later stormed a building on campus, with one student smashing a classroom window with a bollard. Australian students fear going to university. An antisemitic curtain of fear is smothering Jewish students. We ought to condemn this action of the Albanese government and have a proper inquiry into antisemitism. Though the Prime Minister may call out antisemitism as a problem in this country, it is the weakness of his government that is to blame for the rise of antisemitism. South Australia: Rural and Regional Health Services 15 13:32 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia One of the great privileges that I get in this job is to spend a lot of time in regional South Australia—a world-renowned tourist destination, a food bowl and a growing economic powerhouse. It is a place with the most incredible communities of people. It's also pretty unique in terms of its population distribution. South Australia has a very focused population in Adelaide and a much more spread-out population with much smaller numbers. We don't have the large regional towns that you see in other states—across the eastern seaboard, particularly. That means that our distribution of services can be somewhat challenged. It is difficult and requires alternative thinking and more innovative solutions to come up with the manner of how we provide the services that people deserve in regional South Australia and manage to deliver them. One of the first things I did when I came to the Senate was work on the GP inquiry that was looking at access to GP and primary health services across regional and rural areas. Throughout that process, all I heard were innovative solutions that were coming up in various areas, in these towns where they could see how they could actually deliver. When we came to government shortly after that, we were determined to deal with the policy malaise and the neglect from those 10 years of the Liberal-National government, which had left some of those regional areas ignored. So I am delighted to hear the announcement last week, between the Albanese and Malinauskas governments, of a single-employer model. This means that GPs who are training get to stay in those areas and build those relationships. They will be employed and they will have entitlements. This will make a fundamental difference to our regional areas and their access to health services. Environment 15 13:34 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Two weeks ago, the bulldozers rolled into the ancient woodlands at Lee Point in the Northern Territory—the home of the endangered gouldian finch and the eastern curlew. These bulldozers have rolled in and destroyed 400-year-old trees, the habitat of these endangered species. There are 270 species of Australia's unique birds that live in this area, including these endangered species. It is the home of endangered black-footed tree rats and the endangered northern brushtail possums. This is government sanctioned extinction, because it has been approved by the Minister for the Environment and Water, Tanya Plibersek. The government bulldozers are clearing for a government agency, Defence Housing Australia. This is a government agency destroying these ancient woodlands, agreed to and approved by the government's own environment minister. It must stop. It was paused last week because there are now allegations of illegal land-clearing. If you can't even ensure that your own government agency is abiding by the law, what hope do we have that this government and the environment minister will be able to hold any company, any proprietor, to account? Minister Plibersek's approval at Lee Point is failing our environment and is failing to even uphold the weak environment laws that we have. The minister must take responsibility. Put a stop to this clearing, this bulldozing of these ancient woodlands once and for all. Grocery Prices 16 13:36 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales During the break in sitting down here, we produced a number of committee reports. It was great to work on the Senate Select Committee on Supermarket Prices with so many across the chamber, chaired by Senator McKim of the Greens. With all the high-ranking recommendations, something that didn't grab a lot of attention was the treatment of big-box stores—retailers such as Bunnings, Chemist Warehouse, Ikea and businesses like that—and their influence on the market. We were looking at supermarkets primarily, so this was slightly out of scope, but the last recommendation was that we have a closer look at these big-box stores. Some of the evidence we got was quite scary. While we were looking at supermarkets, where the big two have up to two-thirds, 66 per cent, of the retail market, evidence before us showed that Bunnings had 70 per cent of horticulture—trees, plants and these sorts of things—in the retail market. Their treatment of growers and suppliers is quite bad. They had no minimum orders and encouraged overplanting so that the prices remain low. It was quite concerning. People were scared to come and give actual evidence, but we heard things about how these big tool suppliers can actually get you to produce the same tool or product but put it in a different box, meaning you've got a different product number so that when you go to price match it—because 'lowest prices are just the beginning'—it's a different product. It's exactly the same thing you use; it's just a different product number. That's the sort of thing we're hearing about. In the tool industry especially, we're already seeing charges that have been successful against people for retail price maintenance. We'll be working—the Greens are working with us, and we're working across the aisle—to bring an inquiry to have a look at this. You can't just say that some evidence is right without examination. These places need to be able to put their own views forward. Bunnings had a chance to come forward, and they put two spin doctors up—not a CEO or anyone with real knowledge—and that's not good enough. I look forward to working with the Senate in trying to get to the bottom of this and help Australians get a better deal. Domestic and Family Violence 16 13:38 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Our country is hurting. We have a deadly crisis on our hands, and it is a crisis that is seeing women's lives cut short, often at the hands of men that they know. There has been a lot of discussion in recent weeks about violence against women and just how we solve this complex, layered and tragic problem and how we meet the worthy objective of the National Plan to End Violence Against Women and Children in a generation. This year alone, 28 women have been killed at the hands of men—women whose lives have been violently stolen by partners, by husbands and by sons. It has sometimes been by strangers, but it has mostly been by men they've known, men they've loved and men they've shared some part of their lives with. We know it's not all men, just as we know that men need to be driving the solutions here too, because this isn't a women's issue. It's not confined to one generation either. The same fears and feelings that have led to the social media phenomenon that has exposed that women feel safer in the woods with a bear than a man have persisted and pervaded for our mothers, for our grandmothers and for our great-grandmothers. For some of us, this issue is deeply personal. For all of us, it is deeply and extremely important, because ending violence against women is—and needs to be—everybody's business. It needs to be men's business too. We all have a responsibility here. I am hopeful that we can stop this scourge in our society. We can stop it at the start. But, to do so, we have to change the way we talk to our children to keep them safe. The way we talk to our sons matters just as much as the way we talk to our daughters—actually, it matters more. All of us can change that and all of us can prioritise that, because we cannot let this continue to be seen as a women's issue to solve. Communications Legislation Amendment (Prominence and Anti-siphoning) Bill 2023 17

Communications Legislation Amendment (Prominence and Anti-siphoning) Bill 2023

13:40 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania The Australian government has brought new laws before parliament that aim to keep sport free for all Australians to watch—except, let me be honest with you here: they do not do that. You need to buy a new TV and subscribe to a streaming service. We're already seeing this with Amazon buying exclusive rights to the ICC tournaments, including the next cricket World Cup. This is a massive problem. You should not have to have a subscription to watch Aussie sport. It is so un-Australian. Is the government really suggesting that you have to be cashed up now to watch Aussie sport on our TVs? There is another part of this bill that is very important; it's called 'prominence'. Let me explain. When you buy a new smart TV, you plug it in, you turn it on and you see tiles down the bottom of the screen for the different streaming services. You don't automatically see what is free. Let me give you an example. If you search for Bluey on one of these smart TVs, it shows you where you can buy Bluey, instead of showing Aussies that they can watch Bluey for free on our ABC. The government knows they need to fix this, but they need to go one step further. While Australians have always had free access to sports like AFL, NRL, cricket and the Olympics, global streamers are now buying them up and putting them behind a paywall, like the cricket on Amazon. The bill stops subscription services like those of Amazon, Apple and Disney from buying exclusive broadcast rights, but it doesn't guarantee the availability of free coverage for the increasing number of Australians who rely on the internet for free TV. The bill should require that free broadcast and free digital streaming rights must be acquired by a free-to-air broadcaster before the event can be acquired by a subscription provider. I will be coming with amendments, and the government should take them seriously because Australians have the right to see sport free on their TV without searching for it and getting stuck with paying for it, which is exactly where you have put them. Beef2024, Rockhampton: Infrastructure 17 13:42 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I want to take a moment to congratulate the team at Beef Australia who successfully put on a fantastic Beef2024—'beef week', so to speak—in Rockhampton last week. It was a very successful event. It was a celebration of all things beef. I think it was the best agricultural show in Australia and probably in the world, too. There were over 119,000 movements through the gates at beef week last week, and 600 international delegates came from all over the world. It was great to welcome them back after a closed-border Beef2021. There were massive new innovations, like Beef TV, which you could watch all around the country—79,000 people watched through Beef TV. A great job was done by Andrea Crothers and her team. There was a new feature called M'Eat Street, with food vans with cuisines from all over the world. It was great for people in town. I took my kids and family there. It was fantastic. There were 5,000 students who turned up to learn about the beef industry through beef week, including one of my children, Henry. He was there for the day. It was fantastic for schoolkids to be involved. There were lots of politicians as well. They weren't as welcome, probably—except for the local ones, of course—but it was great to see so many of us turn up to Rockhampton! It was great to see so many colleagues up there during beef week. It was a massive benefit to the town of Rockhampton—$100 million, reportedly. We all saw the traffic jams and snarls that we're not really used to in Rockhampton, but that did represent so many people visiting our town, spending their money and helping lots of small businesses as well. I'm sure the next beef week, in 2027, will be just as successful. We'll have the Rocky ring road, hopefully, by then, so the traffic won't be as bad. But we desperately need a convention centre in Rockhampton. That's something I will be fighting for. We have to rehabilitate a basketball stadium, at the moment, to hold major events like beef week. We deserve a proper convention centre for Rockhampton to make the next beef week even more of a success. Kimberley Blak Pride Festival 17 13:44 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I rise today to celebrate the success of the inaugural Kimberley Blak Pride festival, held on the lands of the Djukan and Yawuru people in Broome, Western Australia. It took place from 26 April to 4 May, and it began with a parade that made history as it marched through the streets of Broome, led by the Yawuru traditional owners. I was so honoured to march alongside and behind festival founder and coordinator local Yawuru man Tony Lee, and I pay tribute to him today. The festival is a legacy of work done at Sydney World Pride last year that really did a lot of global, leading work to celebrate the cultural diversity and rights of LGBTIQ+ people who are also part of first nations communities around the world. It was wonderful to see that celebration and that cultural strength brought forth in the Kimberley town of Broome. The festival really reached and brought people right throughout the Kimberley, the north-west, Perth and even nationally. It brought together cultural and social events showcasing the talent and leadership of local LGBTIQ+ First Nations people in the region. We heard stories of discrimination and bullying but, equally importantly, of visibility, cultural strength and strength in identity. The festival provided a really important platform for people celebrating their identity and whole self. May there be many more. Oil and Gas Exploration 18 13:46 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania This is a message to all those Australians out there—my tribe, surfers; divers; ocean lovers; communities right around the coastline of this big country—who've fought and rallied around the nation to stop oil and gas drilling in our oceans. For you, Labor's Future Gas Strategy is a kick in the guts. To anyone who voted for change at the last election—and there were millions—and expected action on climate: you have been betrayed, completely and utterly betrayed, by a government that has completely and utterly capitulated to the fossil fuel industry because that government is completely and utterly captured by powerful vested interests. If you want evidence, look no further than Labor's Future Gas Strategy. Not only have we written tax law and policy in this place so that the fossil fuel industry avoids paying a cent to the Australian people, not only have we written protest laws to crack down on those fighting for climate action, but we are now going to publicly fund oil and gas exploration in our oceans and on our lands—more dangerous seismic blasting; more risky oil and gas exploration; more phony, unicorn carbon capture and storage. Australians can do one simple thing at the next election—that is, vote for the Greens and vote for climate action. (Time expired) Homelessness 18 13:49 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania How can we tackle homelessness when crucial developments are being knocked back? I was horrified last week when Hobart City Council voted against a development for social housing in North Hobart. The vote went against the planning experts' advice that it should pass. This development by Vinnies would have helped over 50 women my age, and they're the people most at risk of homelessness right now. These women are often coming out of long-term relationships with no housing or financial stability. They're finding themselves out in the cold, on the streets or sleeping in tents. It could be your mother or your sister. It could one day be me. I've been on a public housing waiting list. I know what it's like to have a pit in your stomach every day, not knowing if you're going to have a roof over your head that night or not. Everyone deserves to be safe at night. Last year I negotiated a minimum guarantee of 1,200 homes for Tassie from the Housing Australia Future Fund. I fought hard for Tassie to get its fair share of this funding so we could start sending homelessness backwards for the first time ever in Tasmania. Projects like this proposed social housing development are exactly the kinds of things that money should be going towards. State and local governments need to make sure developments get moving. That's their part of the job when it comes to the housing crisis. If they're not up to the task then something needs to change. The number of houses approved across Australia last year was the lowest in the last decade. State planning laws need to be made easier for councils to approve homes. If the experts say a development should be approved, that advice should be listened to. Everyone wants to fix homelessness, but it's in their own backyards. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. Orthodox Easter 18 13:50 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales On 4 May I attended a Greek Orthodox service at the invitation of Archbishop Makarios, the head of the Greek Orthodox Church in Australia, and the president of the Kogarah parish, Nick Varvaris, who's also a former member of the federal parliament. The Orthodox Easter is an important moment in the Orthodox calendar and is celebrated by Greek, Russian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Macedonian and Ukrainian Orthodox communities in our country. It was a tremendous honour to be there for the midnight service, which went into 5 May, with the archbishop and the other bishops of the Greek Orthodox Church in New South Wales. I want to take the opportunity to thank and acknowledge the diocese and the great work it does in our community in providing services to the Greek Australian community, which has been a huge contributor to our society, particularly given the massive waves of Greek Australians who arrived after the Second World War. I want to acknowledge Archbishop Makarios and also the president of the parish, Nick Varvaris, for hosting me and other dignitaries on the evening to celebrate the Greek Easter. Personal Information and Privacy 19 13:52 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Last weekend across every capital city, as well as in Cairns and Mackay in my home state of Queensland, thousands of Australians came out to protest this Labor government's Digital ID Bill and the evil agenda behind it. Everyday Australians recognise that this bill is an attack on their freedom, privacy and way of life. The Brisbane rally in King George Square, in the heart of the Greens electorate of Brisbane, drew more than a thousand everyday Australians. The crowd displayed a level of awareness of national and international issues that must be making those who mock One Nation nervous. The public are waking up to the plan that successive Liberal and Labor governments have had and are implementing to use Australia as a crash test dummy for the crony communist seizure of the wealth and human rights of everyday Australians, the purpose of which is to transfer even more wealth into the hands of the world's predatory billionaires by using the Online Safety Act, the Identity Verification Services Act, the Digital ID Bill and the misinformation and disinformation bill to identify, apprehend, punish and imprison anyone who resists this slide back into feudalism and serfdom. Free speech defends every other human right. The witnesses to the Digital ID Bill inquiry, including the Human Rights Commission, drew attention to the lack of privacy and human rights protections in the bill. The committee ignored the evidence before them and returned a glowing recommendation to pass the bill in a report likely authored in the bowels of Geneva or New York, with almost identical legislation appearing in other Western wealthy nations at the same time. Then the bill passed through the Senate, with the debate guillotined—not one word of debate to air Australia's views on this hideous, far-reaching bill. One Nation has a petition to immediately repeal this evil bill. So far 70,000 Australians have signed it. The Albanese government now need to do something that they have so far refused to do—listen to the public, to the people. Repeal the Digital ID Bill or take the whole serfdom agenda to an election and ask the Australian people: is this the future you want? Violence against Women 19 13:54 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Violence against women is a national emergency, and this government, in the budget tonight, should fund it as such. As I've done for years now I'm going to read the names of women killed by violence this year, using records kept by a volunteer organisation called Counting Dead Women—kept not by the government, as those records should be, as we do with the road toll, but by volunteer organisations. This year at least 28 women have been killed by violence. Their lives and their names matter: Joan Drane, aged 78; Erica Hay, aged 30; Emma Bates, aged 49; Molly Ticehurst, aged 28; Yixuan Cheng, aged 27; Pikria Darchia, aged 55; Jade Young, also aged 55; Dawn Singleton, aged 25; Ashlee Good, aged 38; Tara Morrison, also aged 38; Hannah McGuire, aged 23; an unnamed 66-year-old woman; Mauwa Kizenga, aged 22; Chaithanya 'Swetha' Madhagani; Joanne Perry, aged 53; an unnamed woman in her 60s; Samantha Murphy, aged 51; an unnamed 26-year-old woman; Min Cho, aged 41; Amarjit Kaur Sardar, aged 41; Samira Kammaledine, aged 80; an unnamed woman in her 60s; Vyleen White, aged 70; Antoinette Tozer, aged 76; Alana Martin, aged 30; Keira Marshall, aged 29; Nerol Doble, aged 65; and Alison Robinson, aged 39. The government owes it to these women to fully fund frontline services. Space Industry 19 13:56 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria In all our Defence white papers, from the 2020 DSU through to last year's DSR and this year's NDS, it has been made clear to the Australian public that space is a new domain alongside air, land, sea and cyber. To quote from the NDS: Space is a critical element of the integrated force for every ADF operation … Like in every domain, Australia has heroes in its sovereign industrial base that bring innovation, technical knowhow, risk-taking and, ultimately, successful defence capability for Australia and our export markets. However, sadly, this seems to be in spite of our defence bureaucracy rather than because of it. Governments past and present budget billions of dollars to fund capability, all of which I support. However, frustratingly, all too often it is the government agencies responsible—or that should be responsible—for enabling Australia's development and acquisition of these capabilities that act as roadblocks or, worse, handicap our sovereign manufacturers. Today I'd like to highlight one of these Australian hero companies: Gilmour Space. Gilmour has had its first homegrown, homebuilt Eris orbital launch vehicle ready to launch from Bowen spaceport in Queensland for over a month. But the Australian Space Agency has stalled the launch by not issuing the necessary certification. Gilmour lodged all the necessary paperwork over six months ago, yet the agency is dragging its feet. Gilmour has its second launcher ready to go. The faster they can launch, the faster they can learn and the faster they can earn revenue for an Australian defence company. I call on the minister to put a rocket up the Australian Space Agency. Ukraine 20 13:58 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania It's now over two years since Russia began its illegal, full-scale invasion of Ukraine. While the media attention in Australia has waned in favour of more recent world events, the violence, the torture, the rape and the atrocities inflicted on the citizens of Ukraine has continued unabated at the hand of Vladimir Putin. Such atrocities were recently highlighted in a screening of the documentary film Bullet Holes organised by the Australia-Ukraine Parliamentary Friendship Group at Parliament House, which horrifically detailed the systematic killing of Ukrainian children at the hands of Russian forces. I'm proud to say that Australia's commitment to Ukraine remains resolute. In April this year the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence, Richard Marles, announced a further $100 million military assistance package for Ukraine. This latest package includes $50 million for short-range air defence systems, $30 million for uncrewed aerial systems, and $15 million for other high-priority equipment—such as combat helmets, rigid hull inflatable boats, boots, fire masks and generators—and the delivery of air-to-ground precision munitions. This takes Australia's military assistance to $880 million since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine and brings Australia's overall support to Ukraine to over $1 billion. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 We will move to question time. MINISTRY 20 MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 20 14:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia by leave—I advise of changes to ministerial arrangements. The Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher, will obviously be absent from question time today on account of commitments relating to the presentation of the 2024-25 budget. In the absence of Senator Gallagher, ministers will represent portfolios at question time in accordance with the letter circulated to the President, party leaders and independent senators. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 20 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE International Relations: Australia and China 20 14:00 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Media reporting on 7 May revealed that on 4 May a Chinese military jet intercepted and deployed flares in front of an Australian Defence Force helicopter operating from HMAS Hobart in international waters to enforce UN sanctions against North Korea. It was reported that the ADF helicopter needed to take defensive manoeuvres to avoid the dangerous incident and the practice of the Chinese military jet. Minister, on what date did the Albanese government first raise Australia's concerns to the Chinese government regarding the incident that occurred on 4 May? 14:01 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you to Senator Birmingham for the question. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and I have been very clear publicly about the unacceptable and unsafe conduct which took place while the Australian Defence Force was contributing to international efforts to enforce UN Security Council sanctions against North Korea. My recollection is—and I will check this—that the Deputy Prime Minister made public Australia's concerns on the day that we were advised of this incident. But I will check the precise date. I want to make some broader points about what messages we have been clear about with the Chinese foreign minister and the Chinese government. When I engaged with the Chinese foreign minister, Wang Yi, as well as Minister Liu, I made clear two points. One was that Australia will continue to operate in international airspace and international waters in accordance with international law. The second point I made clear is that we will continue to express our concerns about unacceptable conduct. I'd also make the point that, unlike Mr Dutton, we're not just talking about this; we are doing it. In addition to transits and sanctions enforcement, you would be aware, Senator Birmingham, that we recently conducted joint sails with Japan, the Philippines and the United States for the first time. I again express publicly our concern at this incident and our care for the safety of Australian personnel who were operating in accordance with UN Security Council sanctions against North Korea. We would continue to urge that all militaries in the region, including the PLA, operate safety and— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, first supplementary? 14:03 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia The Prime Minister told media in six different press conferences from 7 May that Australia had raised the incident 'at every level' with the Chinese government. He said, 'We've made the appropriate diplomatic representations,' and, 'We won't be shy about taking the opportunities to raise these issues, to make the strongest representations possible.' Can the minister please inform the Senate which ministers have sought or conducted calls with their Chinese ministerial counterparts since the incident on 4 May? 14:04 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I can be clear that the ambassador has been spoken to by my department. I can be clear to you that we have raised the points I have raised with the Chinese directly. I understand that Senator Birmingham and Mr Dutton—we've seen his transcripts—would like to try and generate some partisanship on this. We all stand in support of the ADF—all of us. I don't think there's any doubt that China has heard the message of the Deputy Prime Minister, who publicly made these statements very soon after advice was received, because they have responded. I say to Senator Birmingham: we continue to deal with these issues consistently and in a mature way. Like all Australians, we support the ADF in these operations as in all operations. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, a second supplementary? 14:05 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Have any Albanese government ministers sought a call with their Chinese government ministerial counterparts since 4 May, and if not why not? 14:05 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia We have dealt with this matter appropriately and consistently. I know that part of being in opposition is that you set these sorts of tests. We have made public our concerns to the Chinese authorities, including from the second-most-senior member of the government. I hardly think the implication that Senator Birmingham is seeking to make is correct. We have made this public. And I will say, certainly for my part, that this is something I have raised, as I said, with Foreign Minister Wang Yi and with Minister Liu, and I will continue to raise. It is a matter of principle. It goes to Australia's bipartisan position in relation to international rules and norms. Australian personnel will continue to operate in accordance with international law in international waters and international airspace. We would look to all militaries in the Indo-Pacific and globally, but certainly in this region, to act in accordance— (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 21 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Australian Political Exchange Council: New Zealand 21 14:06 The PRESIDENT 112096 I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the gallery of the Australian Political Exchange Council's 15th delegation from New Zealand. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and, in particular, to the Senate. Honourable senators: Hear, hear! Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 Point of order: I don't think they're the New Zealand delegation! The PRESIDENT 112096 My apologies. Wherever you are from, we wish you a very warm welcome to the Senate! I've pre-empted that we are expecting the New Zealand delegation. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 21 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Budget 21 14:07 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. While I know we have to wait until later today for the budget detail, I've heard the Treasurer talk about how tonight's budget will balance the fight against inflation with the need to gear our economy for growth. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WALSH 252157 Can the minister update the Senate on what we can expect to see in tonight's budget and how it will help achieve the Albanese Labor government's No. 1 priority of easing cost-of-living pressures? 14:08 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I notice that the opposition interjected just as we were getting to cost of living being the No. 1 priority. It says something about their priorities, doesn't it? What I would say to senators is that this government, the Albanese Labor government, will deliver a budget that is responsible, affordable and suited to the times, just like our first two budgets. This will be a budget for every Australian from a government working for all Australians—a budget about the two things that have driven our government for the last two years: cost-of-living relief and a future made in Australia. We know Australians are feeling under pressure, so this budget will deliver an historic cost-of-living relief package without adding to inflation. That's because cost-of-living relief is our priority and the first priority of this budget. Our budget is designed to deliver to every Australian, for every Australian, a tax cut for every taxpayer and stronger Medicare in every community, funding 29 more Medicare urgent care clinics, taking the total to 87 across the country, all while boosting bulk-billing and making medicines cheaper. This budget will deliver more homes in every part of this country, and this budget will deliver a better deal for working parents. We are investing in a future made in Australia for every Australian, attracting more investment in homegrown industries so we can make more things here. We are opening the doors of opportunity by making university and TAFE more accessible and more affordable, including wiping $3 billion in debt and prac placements to help both those goals. Of course, the contrast between this budget and the mismanagement of those opposite couldn't be more stark. All we need to look back to is the budget from 10 years ago, Mr Dutton's 2014 budget. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walsh, first supplementary? 14:10 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Since the 2022 election, we've seen the results of the Albanese Labor government's efforts to drive down inflation to take the pressure off household budgets. Can the minister update the Senate on the impact of the government's policies and how tonight's budget will further help? 14:10 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Walsh. We know that Australians are doing it tough, and that is why helping Australians with the cost of living is our No. 1 priority in tonight's budget. Inflation still is the big near-term challenge in our economy, and I would remind those opposite that, under this government, annual inflation is now less than half its peak and much lower than the 6.1 per cent that we inherited at the time of the election. So remember that, whenever they talk to us about inflation, 6.1 per cent is what we inherited at the time of the election. Real wages are growing. We have record numbers of new jobs, expanding business investment and the lowest gender pay gap on record. The measures that we put in place took half a percentage off inflation in the year to the March quarter in 2024. Many of the measures those opposite opposed. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walsh, second supplementary? 14:11 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I'm pleased to hear that the Albanese Labor government will tonight deliver a budget that is responsible and suited to the times. Can the minister provide further detail about how tonight's budget will demonstrate Labor's record of responsible economic management? 14:12 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Responsibly managing the budget means the Albanese Labor government can deliver tax cuts for every taxpayer, stronger Medicare in every community, more homes across the country, a better deal for working parents and investment in a future made in Australia. Let's remember the effect of the measures that were opposed by those opposite: they took half a percentage point off inflation in the year to the March quarter in 2024. In that time, childcare prices fell by 5.6 per cent. Without our policy, they would have jumped 15 per cent. Electricity prices rose by two per cent. Without the government's energy plan, the rise would have been about 15 per cent. All of these measures were cost-of-living relief, which those opposite tried to block. This budget will deliver for Australians. It will deliver for the future of the country, and it will stand in stark contrast to the sort of approach that we saw from Mr Dutton and his colleagues 10 years ago, when we saw cuts to health, cuts to education, cuts to Medicare and cuts to the ABC. (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 22 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Australian Political Exchange Council: New Zealand 22 14:13 The PRESIDENT 112096 I now draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the gallery of the real Australian Political Exchange Council's 15th delegation from New Zealand, and I apologise because I acknowledged you when you weren't here, even though I met with you yesterday. I should have known who you were—so my apologies! On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and, in particular, to the Senate. Honourable senators: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 22 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Live Animal Exports 22 14:13 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Watt. The National Farmers Federation has warned that the government shutdown of live sheep exports legitimises extreme animal activism at the expense of farmers and their families, demonstrating that no agricultural industry is truly safe from ideology driven policies if it means scoring political points. Given the live sheep trade has increased by more than 40 per cent since 2021-22, who in the WA farming community did you consult with about the timing of your announcement, and will you now concede that your government's decision to ban the trade is simply the ideological agenda of animal activists? 14:14 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator McKenzie, for giving me an opportunity to talk about the facts regarding the Albanese government's policy to phase out live sheep exports and to phase in more value-adding to Australian livestock products. What we're about in the country, in this government, is actually about more value-adding and delivering more jobs in agriculture, in manufacturing and in every other industry. Unfortunately, the National Party are yet to come to that point—that they actually support creating jobs onshore in Australia through more value-adding. There are a number of subquestions in what Senator McKenzie was asking. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister Watt, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 There are so many things this is apparently about! What this is about is delivering an election commitment. What this is about is delivering an election commitment that we took to the last two elections—to phase out a trade that collapsed under the National Party leadership of the agricultural portfolio. That's what happened with this trade. We know that Senator McKenzie, Mr Littleproud and all the Nats are working themselves up about this policy. What they haven't told the farmers of Western Australia is that, over the decades the Liberals and Nationals were in government, live sheep exports by sea decreased by 1.5 million head, amounting to $144 million. If you want to talk about getting rid of the trade of live exports of sheep, maybe have a look at your own record. You reduced the exports of live sheep by 1.5 million over your decade in office, valued at $144 million. Senator McKenzie 207825 I have a point of order on relevance. I actually asked: who in the WA farming community did he consult with when he decided to shut this trade down? The PRESIDENT 112096 You did indeed, Senator McKenzie. And there was also an introductory paragraph that went to a whole range of matters, and the minister is being directly relevant. Please continue, Minister. Senator WATT 245759 I'm happy to specifically answer that point from Senator McKenzie. I have personally met with representative groups for sheep farmers and with sheep farmers themselves on at least a dozen occasions over the two years that I've held this role. I've met them in Perth. I've met them in Canberra. And we appointed an independent panel who spent several months meeting with these people face to face. Of course, we're not alone in wanting to see live sheep exports phased out. It was only in 2018 that Senator Henderson, as the then member for Corangamite, said that the sensible path for both sides of the debate is to construct a carefully considered transition to ending the trade permanently. We know there are Liberals who support this. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, first supplementary? 14:17 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria The Animal Justice Party posted the following statement on their website following your announcement, Minister: 'We're proud that the Animal Justice Party could deliver the knockout blow by demanding the end of the live sheep export as a requirement for our preferences at the Dunkley by-election in March. Ongoing conversations behind the scenes between the Animal Justice Party and Labor leadership has helped fine tune government policy.' Minister, why did you sell out sheep farmers from WA for preferences in the east coast Melbourne by-election? 14:17 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland For starters, we're not selling out the sheep industry in Western Australia or anywhere else. We're actually investing $107 million to provide more value-adding and more onshore processing and more exports and more domestic sales of lamb. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator McKenzie, you've asked your question. You've been extremely vocal. I'm asking you to listen in silence. Minister, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 I've seen this argument pushed out over the last few hours by the National Party and some of their supporters in the agricultural sector—that apparently the Labor Party did a deal with the Animal Justice Party for a by-election in 2024 to deliver a commit that we first announced back in 2019. We announced the commitment in 2019. We re-announced it in 2022. We've said all along we're going to deliver it. But apparently it was the preference deal we did in 2024, according to the National Party, that was the killer blow, that was the influence. It is absolute nonsense. It is another lie being peddled by the National Party to prop up a trade that has been declining— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, I'm going to ask you to withdraw that. Senator WATT 245759 Okay, I'll withdraw that. It is another misrepresentation by the National Party to prop up a trade that has been in decline for 20 years, particularly while they were in office. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, second supplementary? 14:19 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria At a time when Labor shamelessly refuses to settle the live export class action from its unlawful ban back in 2011 and the Animal Justice Party has boasted that its next political win will be to end live cattle exports, will the minister today unequivocally rule out a ban on the Australian live cattle export industry? Senator Davey 281697 Go back to Beef Week! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Davey, order! 14:19 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I actually went to Beef Week, Senator Davey. I don't think you were there. As to Senator Birmingham's question, yes, I have categorically and repeatedly ruled out phasing out or banning live cattle exports from this country, as has the Prime Minister. Our policy has only ever been in relation to live sheep exports, and that is the way it remains. Senator McKenzie raises the issue of the outstanding class action around live cattle exports, and that is something I have said many times that I would like to see resolved. What Senator McKenzie and her National Party colleagues won't tell you is that their government ran that case to trial over several years and never put up a single dollar to settle that case. In contrast, the Albanese government has already offered over $200 million to settle that case, a significant amount of taxpayers' money and much more than the National Party or Liberal Party ever did. The National Party are hypocrites. They want to pretend they're supporting farmers while they ran down the live sheep export trade and while they ran the live cattle export decision all the way to court, year after year after year. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator McKenzie, you are being extremely disruptive and disorderly. Domestic and Family Violence 24 14:20 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Women today, who I believe is Senator Wong. At least 28 women have been killed by violence this year, almost twice as many as at this time last year. Men's violence against women is a national emergency, but Labor refuses to provide an emergency response. The women's safety sector has repeatedly called for $1 billion each year for frontline services so that no-one who seeks help has to be turned away, back to violence. You said you'd be a government for women, so will the Albanese government finally recognise men's violence against women as a national emergency and commit $1 billion per year for frontline services in tonight's budget? 14:21 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Waters. I think all of us in this chamber understand that family and domestic violence destroys lives. All of us in this chamber understand that violence against women is a national crisis. I would hope that all of us in this chamber—rather than partisanship—would be working towards how we diminish and end this scourge which has blighted the lives of so many people for so many decades. I think you know that the government have been working with the states and territories to end violence in a generation, and we are accelerating efforts to meet that goal. I would hope that you would know that the prevention of violence against women has been a priority of this government since we took office. But we do know there is so much more to do. We need to focus on prevention and we need to focus on perpetrators, and this important work will take time, determination and a relentless focus on preventing violence and helping survivors. None of us can rest until we see a cessation of the violence, which is such a crisis for so many people in this country. To date, the government has invested in record levels to support the national plan. We've also expanded the single parenting payment. We've invested in housing to help women and children leaving violence. We've acted to make the family law system safer for women and children. We've made major changes to the Sex Discrimination Act to prevent sexual harassment. We've taken long overdue action against sexual assault on campus. We've commenced the ALRC review to strengthen justice responses to sexual violence. We've made new commitments, a new permanent leaving violence payment of $925 million, a billion dollars— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters, first supplementary? 14:23 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland On that last point, the National Cabinet's announcement simply extended the Morrison era escaping violence payment that has been plagued by maladministration and delays. It will help women reach out to support services, but it will only increase demand on those already stretched services. When will the government properly resource frontline services to meet this increased demand? 14:24 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia First, I'll deal with the leaving violence program, which replaces the current trials. I would have thought that victims-survivors having the certainty of knowing a safety net will be there if they need it is a positive step. I would also note that the payment will be indexed annually to ensure it maintains its value and complements other financial supports. It builds on the improvement we made to the escaping violence payment when we came to government. I would also make the point that there is a national plan which has been developed in partnership with victims-survivors. This is driven by our more than $3 billion investment to respond to the needs of women and children experiencing violence but also supporting the critically important work of preventing violence, intervening before it escalates and aiding the recovery of victims-survivors. We've boosted funding for online services, which included restoring the funding which was due to cease under the former government's— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters, second supplementary? 14:25 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland On the weekend, Labor reannounced the $1 billion that the Greens procured in HAFF negotiations that had already been announced in MYEFO and pretended that it was new money for crisis accommodation for women and children escaping violence. Retargeting existing money is not new money. When will you stop recycling Morrison-era payments and previous budget commitments and actually commit new money to frontline services and prevention programs? 14:25 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia As I said at the outset, I would hope that all of us, rather than trying to take a partisan approach to this, might try and work together on this issue, Senator Waters. You would be aware that we are delivering more safe places for women and children experiencing family and domestic violence, which will assist more than 2,800 women and children each year, and an additional 720 new places will be available under the next round. There is no quick fix to this. Senator Waters 192970 Not without funding there isn't. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Waters! You have asked your question. Senator WONG 00AOU We have provided substantial amounts of additional funding under the national plan, but there is no quick fix to this. This is something all of us, men and women, need to work together on, because what we see is a crisis. It's a crisis that all of us need to respond to. Higher Education 25 14:26 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Senator Watt. The Albanese government has stated that tonight's budget is about providing cost-of-living relief without adding to inflation. When speaking with young people, I am constantly told that the debts they acquire while studying are adding to cost-of-living pressures. What is the Albanese government doing to make the HECS-HELP system fairer and to support more Australians to access affordable higher education? 14:27 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Sheldon, for your question. We know that there are people doing it tough right now across Australia, and that's why helping Australians with cost-of-living pressures is the Albanese government's No. 1 priority. We are driving down inflation to take pressure off household budgets. We want people to earn more and keep more of what they earn, but we know that there is still more to be done. Labor's economic plan provides relief where it's needed without adding to inflation. A particular focus of our plan is helping younger Australians. In last year's budget we increased rent assistance, we poured billions of extra dollars into building more homes and young people's wages are now growing above inflation. From 1 July this year, we are delivering tax cuts for every taxpayer, rewarding hard work and putting more money back in Australians' pockets. Under Labor, younger Australians will get a tax cut which they wouldn't have received under the Liberals and Nationals. As part of tonight's budget, the Albanese government has cut the student debt of more than three million Australians, wiping around $3 billion in student debt. We will cap the HECS-HELP indexation rate at the lower of the consumer price index and the wage price index. Not only that but we are backdating these changes to wipe the effects of the spike in the HECS-HELP indexation rate in 2023. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WATT 245759 I am surprised to hear at least two frontbenchers from the coalition criticising the decision of the Albanese government to wipe $3 billion worth of student debt. We know now who is for more student debt, and that's the people who are interrupting right now. This change from the Albanese government will ensure that indexation will never grow faster than the average wage. Australians with an average HECS-HELP debt of $26,500 will receive a credit of around $1,200. The new Commonwealth prac payment will also be available to eligible domestic students studying nursing, midwifery, teaching and social work at universities and those studying nursing qualifications through eligible vocational education providers. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sheldon, first supplementary? 14:29 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales The universities accord report was released earlier this year. What did it say about cost-of-living pressures facing students, and why is the Albanese government making these changes now? 14:29 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks again, Senator Sheldon. The Australian Universities Accord:final report, which was released in February this year, included 47 recommendations to reform the higher education sector for the next decade and beyond. Students and unions highlighted the very real concerns about placement poverty and cost-of-living pressures. The big hike in HECS-HELP debt last year hit a lot of Australians hard, particularly a lot of younger Australians. We've heard the message and we're acting. We want younger Australians to reach their potential, earn a good wage and have fulfilling careers. We also want to help fix the skill shortage, which festered under those opposite, to make sure Australia has the skills and services we need to thrive. That's why the Albanese government will provide relief for students while protecting the integrity and value of the HECS-HELP system and establish a Commonwealth prac payment. We need more nurses, more midwives, more teachers, more early childhood educators and more social workers, and the Albanese Labor government will help deliver them. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sheldon, second supplementary? 14:30 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales HELP—like the previous Higher Education Contribution Scheme—is designed to reduce upfront barriers to education. This life-changing support has made it possible for millions of Australians to get a university degree. How will these changes benefit Australian students, and how will students be able to access these important cost-of-living measures? 14:31 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Sheldon. The Albanese government is providing much needed cost-of-living relief for younger Australians by cutting $3 billion in student debt for more than three million Australians in this month's budget. We're introducing legislation to cap the HECS-HELP indexation rate to be the lower of either the consumer price index or the wage price index, and that will be backdated from 1 June 2023. I guess we might get to see whether this will be another cost-of-living measure that the Albanese Labor government puts forward that the opposition votes against. This means that indexation will be reduced from 7.1 per cent to 3.2 per cent in 2023, and from 4.7 per cent to four per cent in 2024. Australians with an average HECS-HELP debt of $26,500 will receive a credit of around $1,200, and those who have recently paid off their student loans may be eligible for a cash refund. The Albanese government is serious about assisting younger Australians with cost-of-living pressures, and these measures will help do that. (Time expired) Housing 26 14:32 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing, Senator Farrell. Minister, the government has said that housing will be one of the centrepieces of the budget, with regard to the government's claim to be doubling homelessness funding as part of the new $9.3 billion five-year national agreement on social housing and homelessness. How much of that money is new money, and how much is simply being transferred from social housing funding to homelessness? 14:32 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Pocock for his question. Of course, what we'll see in the budget tonight is what we're all waiting to see. I think your question is asking me to anticipate the Treasurer's comments. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, on a point of order? Senator David Pocock 256136 President, I don't know if this goes to relevance, but this is a pre-budget announcement— The PRESIDENT 112096 Just a moment, Senator Pocock. Please resume your seat. I have a senator on his feet for a point of order. I expect there to be silence so I can hear the point. Senator Pocock? Senator David Pocock 256136 President, I'm not sure if this goes to relevance, but it's this bizarre situation where the government make all these pre-budget announcements and, when asked about them, they say, 'We can't foreshadow what's in the budget,' even though they've told us what's in the budget. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Pocock. You could've have simply asked me about relevance and not made a statement. The minister is being relevant. Please continue, Senator Farrell. Senator FARRELL I0N Thank you, President. I don't want to foreshadow what the Treasurer is going to say in what will be another wonderful Albanese government budget. But I can say this: the Albanese government does believe that everyone deserves a safe and secure place to call home. After a decade— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator FARRELL I0N Well, Senator McKenzie, after a decade of no action under the former coalition government, the latest data from the ABS shows that the number of people experiencing homelessness has climbed by 6,000 people between 2016 and 2021. And, of course, it is unacceptable that almost 123,000 Australians were reported as experiencing homelessness in the most recent data. Your question related particularly to the ACT. Of course the ACT will share in the new $9.3 billion national agreement on social housing and homelessness, incorporating a $423 million increase on the previous agreement. And— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, first supplementary? 14:35 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory How much of the billion dollars for transitional accommodation for women and children fleeing domestic violence and for youth, which we know is not new money, will be spent on building new social and affordable homes? How many new homes will be built both nationally and here in the ACT? I understand you may have to take this second bit on notice, but please don't apply the PMO's playbook to that one, if that's alright. 14:36 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Pocock for his first supplementary question. It's a little bit unclear to me from your question as to whether you're talking specifically about the ACT or the issue generally, but let me talk about the issue generally and then try and bring it back to the ACT. We are targeting $1 billion of the National Housing Infrastructure Facility to support crisis and transitional accommodation for women and children fleeing domestic— Senator FARRELL I0N Do want to hear the answer to the question, Senator McKenzie? Senator Pocock— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Farrell, direct your comments to me. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator McKenzie, you are being particularly disorderly this question time, so I would ask you to listen in respectful silence. Minister Farrell. Senator FARRELL I0N The government is targeting $1 billion of the National Housing Infrastructure Facility funding to support crisis and transitional accommodation for women— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, second supplementary? 14:37 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Given that domestic and family violence is one of the main drivers of homelessness in Australia, why has the government so far failed to renew funding for peak homelessness advocacy bodies National Shelter and Homelessness Australia as well as frontline service providers and failed to increase the rate of safety net payments? 14:38 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Pocock for his second supplementary question. I think, when the budget is released in its totality today, you will see, Senator Pocock, that this government is seriously dealing with the issue of the housing shortage and homelessness in this country in a way that previous governments have not been able to do. We've got a commitment to resolving the homelessness issue and the housing issue. This budget will obviously be a very responsible budget, but it will be a budget which produces a surplus and which will directly address the sorts of issues that you are concerned about in this— (Time expired) Export Finance Australia 28 14:39 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Minister Farrell. Given that the role of Export Finance Australia is to support Australian exports, can the minister inform the Senate of how many loans the EFA has provided to Australian defence manufacturers and exporters? 14:39 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Van for his question. I don't have those specific details with me today, Senator, but as soon as we leave the chamber I'll get those figures for you and provide them to you as quickly as I can. This government, of course, has had a key focus on the trade issue and trying to expand our trade—both to restore the trade that we had with China and to diversify or encourage the diversification of trade with other countries. The program you're talking about, the export grants program, is very much a feature of trying to assist Australian companies in that expansion program. We'll see tonight from the budget just how much importance trade has in ensuring that we deliver a surplus in this budget. This is a government that supports trade. We're a trading nation. We believe we can do more than we're doing at the moment, and we'll be using programs like the one that you've mentioned to ensure that Australian companies get the best possible support that they can from Austrade, from these grants, to ensure that we continue to build on our strong performance in the trade portfolio. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Van, first supplementary? 14:41 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria Minister, I was referring specifically to defence manufacturers and exporters. I assume you'll need to take this on notice as well, but can you tell the Senate how many of those loans were provided on the commercial account that EFA runs? 14:41 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Van for his first supplementary question. As you've said, I will ensure that I provide that information to you as quickly as I can. The opportunities for providing assistance to companies exporting defence facilities will be an important part of this government's future trade proposals. Of course, with the AUKUS development, there are opportunities for many Australian companies to seek to export their technology overseas. One of the features, I think, of the most recent changes in the United States' policies with regard to the supply— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Van, second supplementary? 14:43 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria Minister, the opportunities for a foreign owned company to import into Australia seem to be greater than for Australian companies to export. Given that the government has provided $3 billion for EFA to use for loans that are in the national interest—again, I assume you'll take this on notice—can you tell the Senate how many loans, and of what value, have been provided by EFA on the National Interest Account? 14:43 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Van for his second supplementary question. Again, I don't have those figures off the top of my head, but all of the decisions that EFA make when they consider where to invest Australian finances are, of course, in the national interest. There have been some very recent announcements. One that I was directly involved in was the Arafura mines, just north of the town of Alice Springs—a wonderful opportunity for us to value-add on the critical minerals that we're going to use to decarbonise our country and assist with the decarbonisation of other countries. Senator McKenzie 207825 I liked Malinauskas's idea better. Senator FARRELL I0N No, it's the way to do it, Senator McKenzie. (Time expired) Communications Legislation Amendment (Prominence and Anti-siphoning) Bill 2023 28

Communications Legislation Amendment (Prominence and Anti-siphoning) Bill 2023

14:44 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Communications. Watching free sport on our TV is part of the Australian way of life. Whether it's the footy, the cricket or watching the Matildas in action, sport brings us together as a community, whether you're rich or poor. The government's new communications bill will stop this for Australians who watch free-to-air TV over the internet—an increasing number as fewer and fewer aerials are sold. No more free sport for them. As we struggle to get our kids off social media and outside into the fresh air, we should be doing everything we can to give them sporting idols to look up to in their lives. Will the minster please explain why this government won't ensure the antisiphoning rules truly protect the right of all Australians to watch free sport no matter how they access their television services? 14:45 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Lambie, for the question. Like you, I very much enjoy watching sport on free to air, and I know many Australians do as well. Of course, some of us choose to go for Queensland teams, but others make the wrong decision and go for another state! You can't help everyone. The issue that Senator Lambie does raise is obviously an important one. We have seen a very big move towards pay TV to be able to watch some of the leading sporting events in our country, and that is something that is of great concern to the Albanese government. I know that Minister Rowland, as the communications minister, has been working on this for quite some time. Under Minister Rowland's leadership, the government has reviewed the antisiphoning scheme and antisiphoning list and is in the process of amending both to recognise the contemporary media environment. So—as a position statement from the government—we are absolutely committed to maintaining free access to events of national significance, including sporting events. The antisiphoning scheme is a key mechanism for achieving this. We did commit to reviewing the scheme in the context of the 2022 federal election to ensure that it remains fit for purpose in a contemporary media environment. Although there was broad support for the objective of free access to important sporting events, submissions to the review highlighted differing views on key issues. There has been a particular issue, I know, regarding the telecasting of women's sport, which is growing in popularity in a massive way—the Matildas, our netball teams and a range of other sports as well. There has been hug progress in the recognition of women's sport in recent years, and I know that Minister Rowland is particularly interested in ensuring greater parity in the broadcast of women's sporting competitions and events. The bill currently before parliament is a significant expansion of the scheme, and it does address a gap under the current scheme through which Netflix, Amazon and other online— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, first supplementary? 14:47 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Recent data shows that just 61 per cent of Australian free-to-air TV viewers watch it through an aerial and that that number is going down. Recent data also suggests that watching sport and having a common passion is a great way to enhance social cohesion, something that seems to be lacking in this country. As more and more high- and medium-density housing is built, fewer aerials and ground stations are going up. Why is the government ignoring these figures and leaving those Australians behind to watch sport only via paid streaming services? 14:48 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks again, Minister Lambie. As I said, Minister Rowland and the government as a whole— Senator Henderson ZN4 Minister Lambie! Senator WATT 245759 Sorry, Senator Lambie. An opposition senator interjecting— Senator WATT 245759 You're obsessed with deals—get a grip. As I said, this is an issue that Minister Rowland is taking very seriously. I share—and I know Minister Rowland shares and the government as a whole shares—your concern that Australians should have free access to major sporting events that are of national significance. You're right, Senator Lambie: they are things that bring us together as families and as communities. We do want to make sure that you don't have to pay to see every event of that kind. That's why the bill that's before the parliament is an improvement to the system. It's about stopping some of the online broadcasters from acquiring exclusive rights to events without a free-to-air broadcaster having any rights. That will enhance the ability of free-to-air television broadcasters to acquire rights to iconic events. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, second supplementary? 14:49 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania The government's new rules will make it easy to find news, free sport and Aussie shows on new smart TVs, but, Australians, this will only help people who have enough money to get a new TV. Due to the cost-of-living crisis, just one in 10 households changed their TV in the last six months. Why won't this government let the millions of Australians who can't afford to get a new TV watch free-to-air sport? 14:49 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Lambie. I don't agree that the way the government is approaching this will result in that outcome. As I've said a couple of times now, we absolutely share your desire for the average Australian to be able to watch sporting events of national significance on free-to-air TV. It's not something that should be discriminated against on the basis of your wealth. We understand there is a role for pay TV in the media environment, but there are certain events that should be preserved for free-to-air TV. So, as I said, the bill that's before the parliament is designed to address a gap under the current scheme through which Netflix, Amazon and other online entities could acquire exclusive rights to events without a free-to-air broadcaster having any rights. That change will enhance the ability of free-to-air television broadcasters to acquire the rights to some iconic events, noting that, where free-to-air broadcasters acquire the television rights to such events, they typically also acquire the rights for their own streaming services. Manufacturing Industry 30 14:50 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Science, Senator Farrell. I refer to the Albanese Labor government's recent announcements about our plan to rebuild Australia's manufacturing capability and ensure a future made in Australia. Can the minister advise how the Albanese government is working to deliver a future made in Australia and create more well-paid, secure jobs across the country, including in my home state of Queensland? 14:51 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Green for her question. The Albanese Labor government is preparing for the opportunities of the future and wants to ensure that all Australians benefit. Too many times we've seen Australian know-how and Australian resources used to create jobs and opportunities for other countries. We need to help industries grow and create the conditions that they need to thrive locally. Just a few weeks ago, the government made a major investment in technology in Queensland. Around the world, Australians are leading the charge on quantum technologies, and this government is committed to ensuring the future of quantum happens here in Australia. That's why the Albanese government is investing $470 million in PsiQuantum to ensure their next phase of growth happens right here in Australia. This will create 400 new jobs in Brisbane, directly at PsiQuantum, and countless more as our quantum ecosystem evolves and grows. We are building manufacturing— Senator FARRELL I0N I am! I'm doing that exactly, Senator Birmingham. We're also building manufacturing opportunities for the future, helping Australia achieve its potential as a renewable energy superpower. Last month, also in Queensland, that very fine minister, Minister Husic, attended the launch of the new Fortescue hydrogen electrolyser advanced facility. The facility— An honourable senator interjecting— Senator FARRELL I0N Yes—an advanced facility. The facility will produce green hydrogen electrolysers at an industrial scale. This project is strengthening the nation's manufacturing capability and creating new well-paid jobs. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Green, first supplementary? 14:53 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I do have another question. Can the minister please inform the Senate how the Albanese Labor government is backing local businesses to be more competitive in new and emerging industries and ensuring that Australia's industrial, technological and scientific strengths will benefit all Australians through our plan for a future made in Australia? 14:54 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Green for her first supplementary question. Science and technology will be central to unlocking the next generation of opportunities for young Australians, like these people up here in the gallery. In my own state of South Australia, earlier this month, we saw the first commercial civil space rocket launched from Australian soil, facilitated by local company Southern Launch, and it was a great success. This is the first time that a hybrid rocket has been powered by paraffin wax, a more environmentally friendly alternative to the traditional rocket fuel. It's a great example of an Australian industry competing globally and creating jobs locally. The CEO of the Koonibba Community Aboriginal Corporation, Corey McLennan, said that, every time we do a launch, there are somewhere up to 25 jobs in our local community. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Green, a second supplementary? 14:55 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Minister, why is it important that we rebuild Australian manufacturing and create more manufacturing jobs, and what has been the Liberals' and Nationals' response to reforms designed to actually help manufacturers? 14:55 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Green for her second supplementary question. After 10 years of neglect and negativity towards Australian manufacturing— Senator Watt 245759 Not 10—12! The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator FARRELL I0N okay, 12—the Albanese government is cleaning up the mess left by the coalition. We're getting to work creating secure manufacturing jobs. This is a stark contrast to the approach of those opposite. Those opposite are all negativity, zero plan. At every opportunity, they are opposing what will grow manufacturing in this country into the future, and they opposed energy price relief. They opposed the National Reconstruction Fund. Their instinct was always to oppose tax cuts for manufacturing workers. This government proudly supports Australian businesses to grow and to thrive, and that's why we are getting on with the job of growing Australian manufacturing. Members of Parliament: Staff 31 14:56 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland My question is to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Wong. Minister, the following are your words from 2021, directed at the coalition government: 'A serious crime was covered up.' 'It's a cover-up.' 'The cover-up is unreal.' In an estimates hearing that year, Senator Gallagher stated: 'It is a cover-up of the cover-up of the cover-up. It's like a triple cover-up.' You followed that with, 'You'—the government—'should be ashamed of yourselves.' In a relevant recent Federal Court judgement, Justice Lee found, when examined properly and without partiality, the cover-up allegation was objectively short on facts and long on speculation and internal inconsistencies. He further stated that the publication of the cover-up component caused: … confusion, and did much collateral damage—including to the fair and orderly progress of the underlying allegation of sexual assault through the criminal justice system … Do you now accept that no cover-up occurred and that the politicisation of this matter caused much collateral damage? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Scarr, I will advise you that statements made by senators before they were a minister are not relevant to their role as minister. I will invite Senator Wong to answer your question with the caveat that I've just explained. 14:57 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I am surprised at that question. There were quite a number of findings made by the judge, and can I indicate my personal sympathy for Ms Higgins, who the judge found was raped in the minister's office. Other than that, I think there has been much said in many contexts about this, and, unlike some on that side— An opposition senator interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Canavan, I'm calling for order! Senator WONG 00AOU Unlike some on that side, I think this is a matter which it would be best if we moved on from in the spirit— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator WONG 00AOU I remind those opposite of the— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Order, particularly on my left! Order, Senator Ayres! Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU Higgins made a public statement about healing. I thought it was— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister Wong, please resume your seat. I would ask all senators in this place to listen in respectful silence. Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU Ms Higgins made a public statement about healing. This is a woman who a court has found to have been raped in the office of a minister. I would have thought she deserves a little bit more respect. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Scarr, resume your seat, please. I would expect all senators in this place to listen with respectful silence. If you want to make a contribution, make it at some other time, not by being disorderly and disrespectful in this chamber during question time. Senator Scarr. 15:00 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland In 2021, you stated about my friend and colleague Senator Reynolds: … Senator Reynolds did not lead by example, and she let a woman down badly—a woman to whom she had a duty of care. So I ask this: what are the consequences for Senator Reynolds? I ask you, Minister: what should be the consequences for your inaccurate accusation and politicisation of this matter? The PRESIDENT 112096 Once again, Senator Scarr, I remind you that this question is not in order. It was made while the member was in opposition, so that caveat applies. I'm going to ask Minister Wong if she wishes to make a contribution, and I'm asking all senators to listen in respectful silence. 15:01 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Again, I'm surprised that those opposite wish to continue with this, and I refer to my first answer. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Scarr, second supplementary? 15:01 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Justice Lee added: … it is the only alleged cover-up of which I am aware where those said to be responsible for the covering up were almost insisting the complainant to go to the police. Minister, will you reflect on and apologise for your role in promoting the false narrative of a cover-up? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Scarr, once again, before I call Minister Wong, that question is not in order. It is referring to comments allegedly made at a previous time when people on the government side were not ministers. I invite Minister Wong to make a contribution if she wishes. 15:01 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Serious allegations were made, appropriate questions were asked in relation to those serious allegations, and Justice Lee has made findings which confirm the seriousness of the allegations. Women's Economic Security 32 15:02 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Women, Senator Wong. The Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance—who is helpfully also the Minister for Women—have told us that this budget will have a focus on addressing the cost of living. We have also heard the Minister for Women tell us many times that women's economic equality is a core economic imperative and a central focus of the Albanese Labor government. Ahead of tonight's budget, can the minister tell us how the Albanese government has so far supported women's economic security and helped them manage the cost of living? 15:02 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank Senator Stewart for her question. We are fortunate on this side to have so many women gracing the Labor ranks and in this chamber. We are also fortunate to have the Minister for Women and the Minister for Finance, Senator Katy Gallagher, who has made clear the importance of ensuring women's economic security. That is what our government has been doing—working to ensure women have economic security through both our policies and our investments. Our tax cuts will provide greater relief to low- and middle-income taxpayers, who are disproportionally women. From 1 July, women will receive— Senator WONG 00AOU The senator opposite might like to know that the women who perhaps voted for her will receive bigger tax cuts under the tax cuts we proposed. Women will receive an average tax cut of $1,649, nearly $400 more than they would have received under those opposite. Treasury modelling suggests Labor's tax cuts will also boost participation, which is an important thing for women across this country and the economy. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU They don't like that either. We are investing $4.7 billion to make child care cheaper and more accessible— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator McKenzie! The PRESIDENT 112096 And Senator Hughes! Senator WONG 00AOU Again, you don't like that. What it does is it gives more families more choice about how they balance work and care. We are investing $1.9 billion over five years to expand the eligibility— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Hughes! I called you on at least four occasions, and you kept being disorderly. That is incredibly disrespectful to the President. When I call you to order, that is exactly what I expect you to do—to come to order and to cease interjecting. Minister, do you wish to continue? Senator WONG 00AOU I do wish to continue, and I would hope Senator Hughes would be happy at the improved economic position of women as a consequence of the government's policies. I would hope that she would think it is a good thing to increase paid parental leave. I would hope she thinks it is a good thing to make paid parental leave flexible and accessible. I would also hope—it is a good thing—that all of us would support the government's work to tackle gender based violence. The strategy for gender equality which was set out last year had this as one of its key priorities. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, first supplementary? 15:05 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria We know that there is not one simple solution that will deliver women's economic equality. While the gender pay gap in Australia is at its lowest since recording began, at 12 per cent, there is a persistent gender pay gap and much work to do. Can the minister outline how the government is working to close gender pay gaps? 15:05 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia In February the Workplace Gender Equality Agency published employer gender pay gaps for the first time. I know Senator Canavan was not particularly supportive of the fact that the gender pay gap data was released, but it is important for greater transparency. That is in part what helps reduce the gender pay gap. In every industry in Australia, the median of what a woman is paid is less than the median of what a man is paid, both for base salary and for total remuneration. That is why it is so important that we continue to press for greater transparency to help close the gender pay gap. The data and findings released by the WGEA demonstrate that continued action is required to close gender pay gaps and advance gender equality in our workplaces. Key to this is valuing the feminised sectors. That is why we are committed to funding increased wages for aged-care workers, child education workers and early childhood workers. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes, you are seriously out of order. Senator Stewart, second supplementary? 15:07 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria It is clear the Albanese government is working in multiple areas to create real change to improve women's economic equality. We know that safe and secure jobs are the cornerstone of economic security and independence. Can the minister outline how the government's key workplace relations reforms are supporting women at work and driving women's economic equality? 15:07 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia This government has put gender equality at the heart of the workplace relations system through its reforms. This includes adding gender equality and job security into the objectives of the Fair Work Act. It's quite interesting, isn't it, that, after all those years of coalition government, gender equality and job security were never in the objectives of the act. We've prohibited pay secrecy, implemented recommendation 28 of Respect@Work to expressly prohibit sexual harassment in the Fair Work Act and provided appropriate dispute resolution avenues. We're providing greater access to unpaid leave. Senator WONG 00AOU Senator Hughes, why do you have so much difficulty with policies that are about supporting women in this country? Why do you get so angry when we do things on this side, as a government, to improve the position of women? Why would you object to the implementation of the Respect@Work recommendations? We have provided changes in the workplace system to improve the position of women in paid work. That is a good thing for women in this country, and it is a good thing for our daughters. (Time expired) Senator Wong 00AOU I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 33 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Export Finance Australia 33 15:09 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I have an update on the question that Senator Van asked me. Since December 2023, EFA has provided $396.1 million in finance to the defence sector since the release of the Defence Export Strategy. Additionally, $228 million has been provided under the Defence Export Facility to three customers. Finally, $168.1 million has been provided on the commercial account. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 34 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS International Relations: Australia and China, Live Animal Exports 34 15:10 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (Senator Watt) to questions without notice asked by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Birmingham) and the Leader of The Nationals in the Senate (Senator McKenzie) today relating to an incident involving a Chinese military jet and to live sheep exports. In particular, I want to take note of Senator Watt's answer regarding the live export of sheep from my home state of Western Australia. The decision announced on Saturday, with just a few hours notice to the agriculture industry—just a few hours to those farmers who are going to be directly impacted by the ending of this key component of the sheep industry in Western Australia—is a disgrace and a betrayal. It's a betrayal of Western Australian farmers and, in fact, of the state of Western Australia. Minister Watt tried to ignore the fact that the cat was belled by the Animal Justice Party. He tried to put it to one side and say, 'No, it was already our policy, so what the Animal Justice Party said doesn't matter.' But this is what they said—and I'm going to read it again. The Animal Justice Party posted, after Minister Watt's announcement: We are proud that the AJP could deliver the knockout blow by demanding the end of live sheep export as a requirement for our preferences at the Dunkley By-election in March. 'Requirement for our preferences at the Dunkley by-election in March.' And guess what? It's not just the Animal Justice Party's statement after Minister Watt's announcement. There's actually proof. There are actually multiple how-to-vote cards. You can see the how-to-vote card from early in the campaign, which has Labor second last or last. Gee! And then you can see the how-to-vote card from after this deal was done, after the sheep farmers of Western Australia were sold out by this Labor government, and guess where that puts the Labor Party? No. 2. So what the Animal Justice Party have put on their website is the truth, and no matter how Minister Watt obfuscates, no matter how he tries to cover up what this government has done—because the fact is the report was still being considered by government at this time. In fact, the report, which implements a four-year phase-out, was informed by a work commissioned by this government—by Minister Watt's own department—and by a serious consultant in the industry, Episode 3, and what did that serious, analytical look at the industry recommend? It recommended an eight- to 12-year transition because that's what you would need to rebalance a flock on a farm, if you were going to go down this horrendous path. You'd need eight years for those farms—those farming families, some of which have been there five or six generations. You'd need eight to 12 years to transition the flock on those farms—to change their business model. When Minister Watt was doing this dirty deal with the Animal Justice Party behind the scenes for a Melbourne city electorate, what did he come up with? A four-year ban, not enough time to transition flocks, a ridiculous amount of money—a pittance for what this is going to cost the Western Australian agricultural sector. These are real people's lives. These are real people's businesses. These are multigenerational farming families that have been in this industry for decades. This is not just some abstract change in policy; this is human life. I've spoken to those farmers out on the farm—something that Murray Watt didn't have the guts to do, on Saturday, when he made the announcement. He came to Western Australia, sure. He flew in on a jet, waltzed in to the CPO in the middle of Perth and did a Zoom call, including some of the industry groups, but did he go out into the bush? Did he talk to actual farmers whose livelihoods are directly threatened? This is not some hypothetical. This is real peoples' lives. 15:15 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania This must be the first time that I've heard anyone from the coalition accept the position of the Animal Justice Party. Honestly! The Labor Party went to the last two elections, as Senator Watt said, with a strong commitment to phase out live sheep exports by sea. That's what we said in 2019 and 2022. Those were our commitments. I know it's hard for those on that side to accept that we follow through with our commitments. When we make a commitment, on we go with it. We work through a process and we deliver our commitments. That's what we do. We tell the Australian people—as hard as some things are to tell people, we tell them what we're going to do and then we follow through, and we talk to people; we do a lot of discussions. We are now delivering on that commitment to the Australian people, and we're providing certainty to farmers and to communities that rely on the trade. We know that the export of live sheep by sea will end on 1 May 2028, with legislation enacting the phase-out to be introduced in this term of parliament. In this term of parliament, we will introduce that. We've committed, as those opposite know, $107 million to assist the sheep industry with that transition. We recognise that people need help, with transition from live export, to take advantage of the increased demand for Australian sheepmeat right around the world. We have world renowned sheepmeat that can be better delivered by having local jobs here. That's what this means. This means that we will deliver local jobs here. Isn't that what we all are here for? I would have hoped so but, clearly, not on that side. We've always promised a considered and orderly transition. This announcement and the government's package strikes the right balance. It's based on extensive industry and community consultation, and we heard Minister Watt talk about the level of consultation that he has had. Irrespective of what they say on the other side, he is a minister that gets out there and gets his feet dirty, gets dirt on his boots and gets out there and talks to people. He talks to farmers, he talks to the lobby groups, he talks to everyone. He is a very good minister, and that's what he's done. He told us that, and I believe him because that's the way that he works. We're providing early support to affected sheep farmers, supply chain businesses and communities, particularly in WA. We want to ensure that those affected by the phase-out can build resilience and establish a strong position in advance of the trade ending. That's part of the commitment, to make sure that we assist those people. We are delivering on that. We also need to think about better sheep welfare outcomes. Phasing out live sheep exports by sea makes another step forward for sheep welfare, and it reflects our nation's values of compassion and the ethical treatment of animals. The package includes $2.6 million to continue to improve sheep welfare standards, to meet community expectations, and for Australia to enhance its engagement in the World Organisation for Animal Health. So this is not just one focus, which is what those on the other side would like you to think about. This is a multifaceted approach that we are taking to phase out an industry that we went to an election on in 2019. We went to the election with that commitment. We went to the election in 2022, which was the election that we won—I know it's hard for those opposite to accept that, but we did—and we are now following through with those commitments. There is every reason to feel optimistic about the future of Australia's sheep industry and those associated with the sector. The sheepmeat industry is booming, and it has a bright future ahead. Our package will help it to continue to grow. It will create more local jobs. That is what we're about—creating local jobs right here in Australia and particularly in the regions; that's where a lot of these jobs will be created and Aussie sheep products will be grown. But it is not only about growing; it's about value-adding. That's what we want to do here. We want to bring back all those industries that those opposite pushed off our shores and value-add right here in Australia, and provide good, well-paid jobs for Australians to provide security for them and their families into the future. 15:20 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland There are two major issues here in regard to the government's policy to phase out live sheep exports. One is: is that a good decision for our country, and for the people of Western Australia in particular? The other is: why has the Labor Party decided this, and what are the motives behind its decision? I will deal with them in a separate order. I will deal with the motives first. As we've just heard from Senator Brockman, there is strong circumstantial evidence that the Labor Party has adopted this specific policy in a dirty deal, in exchange for preferences in a by-election that occurred in Melbourne, in Victoria—far from the impact of the Western Australian epicentre of the live sheep industry. The Animal Justice Party have put out a statement saying this was a direct result of the discussions they had with the Labor Party on preferences—in particular the shutdown date, against the advice of the government, of a four-year period rather than a 12-year period. The government has provided no justification here, none that I've heard so far—maybe other speakers can, but the minister couldn't. Why has the government chosen a four-year shutdown period, against the advice it was provided, to help and assist those farmers in WA affected by this? What's the rationale for it? We've got one rationale—the statement of the Animal Justice Party saying, 'This was in exchange for our preferences to help the Labor Party get another member of parliament in the House of Representatives.' All we've got from the Labor Party is, 'We didn't do it; trust us.' That's literally what Senator Urquhart just told us all: 'Trust us. You can trust politicians. They're saying the right thing.' Does anybody buy this? Does anybody believe the bland, basic statements of this minister? Why don't they have a proper rationale for four years rather than 12? It seems the only rationale is they needed preferences, and they decided they would be willing to sell out the jobs of many people in Western Australia to get those votes and preferences for one job over there in the other place. It's an absolute disgrace! That brings me to the other question. There are thousands of people that will be impacted by this decision. There are the graziers and farmers directly involved in the industry that are already feeling the impacts, with their sheep prices being low. Markets are already moving to other countries because this ban has been announced; that's already having a devastating impact on farm in Western Australia. It's flowing on to eastern Australia as well and it will go to sheep prices through the country, as we saw during the live cattle ban. But there is another group of people that sometimes gets forgotten: the truck drivers, the fencing contractors, the musterers and the helicopter pilots. What happens to them? They lose their jobs, the jobs that the Labor Party used to represent. The Labor Party was founded in my home state, in Queensland, in response to a shearers' strike in Barcaldine. There's still a tree there, the Tree of Knowledge, that you can drive past, where the modern Labor Party was formed to protect the rights and interests of shearers. They don't represent shearers anymore. They don't represent anybody who works in the sheep industry anymore, because they're willing to sell out the job of a truck driver in Western Australia so they can get a few lousy preferences in Melbourne in a by-election. What an absolute joke! Where are the Western Australian senators on that side standing up for their state? Your Premier doesn't support this policy. The Labor Party in WA are against this policy because they know it'll be a hammer blow to the agricultural sector in Western Australia. They're standing up for their state. Where are the Western Australian senators from the Labor Party? Why are they so mute? Why are they patsies, going along with this policy rather than standing up for their state? This is meant to be the states' house. This is meant to be the place where we represent our states. I want to represent farmers around the country, so I'm happy to fight alongside Western Australian farmers, truck drivers and fencing contractors—but where are the Western Australian Labor senators doing the same thing? They are selling out their state. They are selling out the jobs in their state for some preferences in a by-election on the other side of the country. I don't think the people of Western Australia will forgive this. There are a few similarities between Queenslanders and those in WA, but Western Australians feel more separate from the rest of the country. They will not take kindly, I think, to a government that is seeking to sell out their jobs because of the views and preferences of people on the east coast. That is what is happening. The reason the whole WA industry is being shut down is the particular preferences—uninformed preferences, I should say—of people in our major cities on the east coast. This should be objected to, because we should have decision-making in this country that looks after people in our regions. 15:25 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria It feels like we have found ourselves in a Finding Nemo movie, with those opposite acting like a bunch of Dories with short-term memory loss that have somehow forgotten we went to the last two elections with a commitment to end live sheep export by sea. It is an odd position that we find ourselves in—that in 2024, just because of a by-election in Melbourne, they are saying we have come up with a new policy, forgetting in their short-term memories that we committed to it at the last two elections. It's odd. But we are now delivering on that commitment to the Australian people and providing certainty for farmers and communities that rely on the trade. The export of live sheep by sea from Australia will end on 1 May in 2028, with legislation enacting the phase-out to be introduced in this term of parliament. We have committed $107 million to assist the sheep industry with the transition away from live export and take advantage of the increased demand for sheepmeat around the world. While Senator Brockman is talking about that being a pittance, do you know what I don't think farmers think is a pittance? The $144 million that the sheep export industry decreased by during their term of government. That's $144 million or 1.5 million head. That is not a pittance. I am sure the sheep farmers will think that is a significant amount. That happened under their watch. While they are getting up and carrying on now, with their short-term memory loss, about the banning of live sheep export by sea, that is a significant amount for sheep farmers in this country. The Albanese government has committed $107 million for the very orderly transition of the phase-out of the live sheep export by sea and to take advantage of the increased demand for Australian sheepmeat around the world. What that means in real terms is more jobs right here. Those opposite seem to be allergic to thinking about more jobs here. We have always promised an orderly, considered transition. Our process and way forward strikes the right balance, based on extensive industry and community consultation. This comprehensive package will assist farmers to plan and take advantage of existing and emerging opportunities in the value chain, support communities to respond to the change and ensure animal welfare is prioritised throughout the transition. We are providing early support for affected sheep farmers, supply chain businesses and communities, particularly those in WA. We want to ensure those affected by the phase-out can build resilience and establish a strong position in advance of the trade ending. The Albanese government will work with a range of delivery partners to stand up the transition funding support. There is every reason to feel optimistic about the future of Australia's sheep industry and those associated with the sector. The Australian sheep meat industry is booming and has a bright future ahead. Our package will help it continue to grow, creating more local jobs and Aussie sheep products grown and value-added to right here in Australia. The Albanese government's policy of phasing out live sheep export by sea from Australia marks an important step forward for sheep welfare, reflecting what I would think are our nation's shared values of compassion and ethical treatment of animals. When I say 'we', I would hope that those opposite would share those values too. There are a couple of important things to draw out, in my remaining time, about the phasing out of live sheep exports. The first is that this is delivering on the government's commitment. That's something that we do, on this side of the chamber—we deliver on our commitments. I don't think those opposite are familiar with that. The other really important fact in all of this conversation is that live sheep exports by sea are a small proportion of our sheep exports. Australia is one of the largest exporters of sheepmeat and wool, yet live sheep exports are only around one per cent. It means more Australian sheepmeat processing and better sheep welfare outcomes. It's supporting industry and individuals to adjust. And government will continue to support the live cattle industry. 15:30 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales I rise to take note of the answer to the first question in question time, concerning the dangerous interception of an Australian Seahawk helicopter by a Chinese J-10 fighter which took place on 4 May. For those not familiar with the circumstances, this Seahawk helicopter, deployed from HMAS Hobart, was patrolling international waterways and airspace in the Yellow Sea, in the enforcement of UN Security Council sanctions against North Korea—an authorised operation. What happened was: a PLA J-10 fighter dropped flares in the pathway of this helicopter, endangering the crew and forcing this crew to take evasive action. When this incident came to light on 7 May, the Prime Minister was asked about it and he said, on a number of occasions, that Australia had raised the incident or would raise the incident at all levels with the Chinese government and, importantly, that Australia would be making the strongest representations possible. We here in the coalition support this, because endangering the lives of our service personnel is incredibly serious—especially and particularly when they are operating in, enforcing, a UN Security Council sanctioned operation in clear international waters. When something like this happens, the playbook is pretty clear: you would call in the ambassador of the foreign country; you would expect the Prime Minister to contact his counterpart; you would expect the foreign minister and the defence minister to contact their counterparts. If you want to see an example of this, just look at how the Australian government reacted—quite appropriately, I'd add—to the tragic death of World Central Kitchen aid worker Zomi Frankcom in Israel a few weeks ago. When that incident came to light, Prime Minister Albanese spoke to the Israeli Prime Minister, Netanyahu, by phone. Penny Wong, the foreign minister, spoke to her Israeli counterpart by phone. The Israeli ambassador in Canberra was called in by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and asked to give an explanation. And the defence minister and the foreign minister wrote a joint letter to their counterparts. In fact, Australia went further and appointed a former chief of the defence staff, Mark Binskin, as a special adviser to investigate it. Now, though there was no loss of life with this incident involving the Seahawk helicopter, that is really more by good fortune than by design. And, whereas Israel apologised, quite rightly, for the tragic killing of Zomi Frankcom, China has been unapologetic about this incident and has refused to account for its behaviour. So, in these circumstances, you would think that Australia would be doing what the Prime Minister said—making representations at all levels and not being shy to make the strongest representation possible. But, as we heard in the response to the question from Senator Birmingham, it is not clear which Australian ministers have sought calls with their counterparts and whether any such calls have taken place. We understand that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has made contact with China's ambassador, but it doesn't appear that he was called in, and I think we are also led to assume, by the answer given by Senator Wong, that in fact no contact has been made between the Australian Prime Minister and either the Premier or China's President, and no contact has been had between the foreign minister and the defence minister and their counterparts in China. And the question that that poses is: 'Have these calls been sought, or is Australia in fact not making representations at all levels and not taking this incident seriously?' or, 'Have these calls been sought and has China been refusing to take them?' in which case the Australian public deserve to know whether that is in fact the case, because this government has put an inordinate amount of emphasis on 'stabilisation of the relationship with China'. Stabilisation in and of itself is not a bad thing, but stabilisation must be there to serve the national interest. If our national interests are being subordinated, if our punches are being pulled and if we are hesitant to raise issues at the highest level because of our concern about the balance in the relationship, then all we are doing in this relationship is giving all the leverage to the other side. That is the risk with this sort of approach from this government. We saw this before, of course, when there was a dangerous incident at sea involving Australian naval divers who were injured by a sonic blast deployed by a nearby Chinese destroyer. Again, these naval divers were in international waters, and, at the time, the Prime Minister failed to raise the issue directly with China's president, despite being in San Francisco at the time. We need clear answers from the government about how they are protecting Australian service personnel in these dangerous times. Question agreed to. Domestic and Family Violence 37 15:35 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Women (Senator Wong) to a question without notice I asked today relating to violence against women. We know that at least 28 women have been killed by violence this year already. In my opinion, that is a national emergency. This government hasn't called it that as such and it hasn't funded it as such. I note that for many years the women's safety sector, who help people trying to flee violence and stay alive, have said they need about $1 billion every year just to meet demand and be able to help everyone who reaches out for help to stay free of violence and remain alive. So I asked the government: 'You said you'd be a government for women. Where's the $1 billion that the frontline services sector that deal with women escaping family, domestic and sexual violence needs? Where is that money? Will you make that commitment tonight in the budget?' Unfortunately, I didn't get any such commitment. I was accused of partisanship, which is always fun. The minister acknowledged that we're in a crisis but wouldn't say the words 'national emergency' and didn't make any financial commitments. What a disappointment. When we look at the figures that I've analysed in estimates over many years now, the total funding commitment under the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children—it's a good plan, but it's underfunded—is less than half of what those frontline organisations say they need to help everyone who seeks their help. The women's legal service says that they're turning away 52,000 women a year—so 1,000 women a week—because they don't have the funding to keep up with demand. I'm sure they want to help those people, but they don't have the funding to do so. There are so many other things at this government should be doing as well. We still don't have a national death toll of women killed by violence. We've got a road toll, and it helps raise awareness to try to keep people safe on the roads, but this government won't even put the work in to have a national toll of women killed by violence. That toll is left up to two volunteer organisations, who use different criteria, so we get different numbers. This government couldn't even tell you how many women have been killed by violence, because it's not tracking that. That leaves me incredulous. I've been asking for them to do that for at least five years now, and I remain floored that they still haven't done it. Stopping violence against women will take systemic action to tackle the root causes and to transform those harmful social norms, but it also requires adequate funding of the organisations that do that frontline work. Prevention has to be prioritised, as well, to stop women being killed by men's violence and to dismantle what is a persistent rape culture in so many of our institutions and pervading society. While we've now got consent and respectful relationships education in the national curriculum, which is good, the delivery is really lumpy, and we need more funding to make sure that public schools in particular are properly resourced and that specialist education providers can deliver and implement that education in partnership with the teachers. We also know that an alarming number of people still disbelieve and victim-blame survivors of assault, so we desperately need to overhaul the criminal justice system so that trauma-informed training guides police and judges; otherwise we will still see 95 per cent of complaints go unreported, because women don't trust that they will get justice through the so-called justice system. So I was very disappointed that the minister wouldn't make any further commitments today. I asked about National Cabinet, which happened a week or so ago. National Cabinet's announcement was to extend a Scott Morrison era payment that doesn't even kick in for another year, that has been plagued by delays and maladministration and for which women are being knocked back from eligibility because they ticked the wrong box or didn't use the right colour pen. It's absolutely ridiculous, and, for that to be seen as an adequate response out of National Cabinet, it shows a real lack of understanding of the seriousness of this issue and of the community sentiment about the need for action on this issue. We welcome that extra money, but that extra money will help women reach out for help. Who are they reaching out for help from? From those same frontline services that this government is continuing to underfund. So they are going to add more pressure and more demand to a system that is already stretched, and I fear that will do even more harm. My last question was about the so-called housing announcement from the weekend—none of which was new money, even though the government tried to pretend it was. We've looked at the figures, and even the minister yesterday, on Radio National, admitted it wasn't new money. It was already announced in MYEFO. They're recycling former prime minister Scott Morrison's policies. They're re-announcing old budget announcements. When are we going to get some serious action from this government about stopping violence against women and their children? We need to fund prevention. We need to fund frontline services. Get it done. Question agreed to. NOTICES 39 NOTICES Presentation 39 BUSINESS 43 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 43 15:41 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That general business order of the day No. 66, Airline Passenger Protections (Pay on Delay) Bill 2024, be considered on Wednesday, 15 May 2024 at the time for private senators' bills. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 43 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 43 Law Enforcement Joint Committee 43 Meeting 43 15:41 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—On behalf of the chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, I move: That the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement be authorised to hold a private meeting otherwise and in accordance with standing order 33(1) during the sitting of the Senate today, from 4.30 pm. Question agreed to. NOTICES 43 NOTICES Presentation 43 15:42 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I seek leave to present a notice of motion. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted, but people are saying they haven't seen it. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U Thank you. It's a notice of motion for an order for the production of documents, and I'll hand it up to the Clerk. Withdrawal 43 15:43 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland On general business notice of motion No. 513, an order for the production of documents, the government has actually provided documents just recently, and so we won't be proceeding with this motion. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 43 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Schools 43 15:43 The PRESIDENT 112096 A letter has been received from Senator Tyrrell: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: The failure of state governments around the country to honour their commitments and maintain a pathway for funding for public schools to reach 75 per cent of the Schooling Resource Standard, all the while demanding the Federal Government pay more. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The PRESIDENT 112096 With the concurrence of the Senate, the Clerk will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by whips. 15:44 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania Think about this. You're out for dinner with some mates, the wine is flowing and the food is amazing. You all agree to split the bill down the middle, but, when you go to pay, it turns out that someone didn't pay their full share of the bill. So now you're left to pick up part of their tab too. You'd be pretty miffed about that, wouldn't you? This is exactly what state and territory governments are doing on education funding. They have failed to stump up the cash to honour the agreement they made in the first place. Now they're crying poor and putting their hand out to the federal government for more money. It's like a bad Oliver Twist joke. Ten years ago, state and territory governments agreed for public schools to be funded to 100 per cent of the schooling resource standard, or SRS. This is an estimate of how much total public funding a school needs to meet its students' educational needs, recommended in the Gonski review. The states and territories would fund 75 per cent, and the federal government would top up the 20 per cent that was left. We're 10 years down the track, and several state governments have failed to hold up their end of the bargain. Now, to be fair, some states have reached their targets or are close—Tassie is one of them—but others are way off. So they've decided to band together to demand more cash from the federal government. They say schools are underfunded, so, naturally, the federal government must be the ones to chip in. The states say they just don't have the cash to put in anymore. But I'm sure if they looked at their coffers a little closer they'd find areas to cut back. Take the Tasmanian Liberal government. It's a bit rich that they say they don't have money for education when they've found a spare $375 million for a brand-new stadium plus the AFL training centre plus the hundreds of millions for the sewerage system. Do you catch my drift? The Tasmanian education minister said that anything less than 100 per cent funding for Tasmania's public schools is unacceptable. But, when the state government has signed up to fund the lion's share of public education, how is it that the fault suddenly lies with the federal government? Let's not forget that every single state and territory except for Tasmania has a Labor government at the helm. So it's Labor state governments calling out federal Labor and not sticking to an agreement signed under a federal Labor government. But here's the kicker: of the money each state and territory spends on SRS funding, a percentage of it goes to non-school spending. It's claimed for capital depreciation and administrative costs. In Tasmania, this non-school spending is about four per cent of their SRS funding, so that's money that the state government says it's spending on education but that isn't being spent directly in schools. While states continue to demand more from the federal government, this money could be going directly to schools right now and helping the kids who need it the most. I have family and friends working in public schools in Tasmania. They've told me how they're buying stationery for their classrooms out of their own pocket because there's no budget for it. Someone told me a kindergarten in Devonport is in desperate need of money to upgrade its playground. It's at the point where it's becoming dangerous for the kids to play on it—it's that bad. I don't think a single person here would say this is okay. Nobody wants our public schools to be underresourced and underfunded. Public schools are safe places for kids who don't come from a lot. My kids went to the same primary school and high school that I did. That was the same high school my mum went to. There's something special in that—that they can learn and dream in the same place that I did and even learn from some of the same teachers I did. Kids at public schools should receive the same standard of education as kids at private schools. They deserve to have every single opportunity available to them. They shouldn't be denied that. Kids shouldn't be denied essential resources because state and federal governments are having a spat about who has to pay. For me, there's no arguing that public schools should get all the funding they deserve. I don't think it's too much to ask that the state governments chip in what they agreed to, and they should chip in that full amount without nonsense excuses about why some of the money isn't actually spent directly on schools at all. Aussie kids deserve more than to be a football kicked around the play yard at recess. They're assets for the future, and we should treat them with the respect that an asset deserves. 15:49 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales First of all, I think we should just cast our minds back to the reason why we're in this situation: the opposition's National School Reform Agreement, in which government schools will never get the schooling resource standard that they require. Of course, when you look at the fact that it is 10 years since the Liberal Party ripped more than $20 billion out of our public schools in this country, it stands as an absolute disgrace of those opposite. The coalition left public schools without a pathway to 100 per cent of the SRS. Senator Henderson ZN4 Ridiculous. Senator SHELDON 168275 Those opposite say it's ridiculous; $20 billion is not ridiculous to those families that lost the opportunity to have their kids properly educated. The most disadvantaged areas were the ones left hanging the most by those opposite. But Middle Australians were also disadvantaged because that $20 billion came out of their pockets and they lost opportunities for hardworking students across our school systems and our country. When those opposite took those billions of dollars out of schooling, what were the consequences? We saw high school completion rates decline over those 10 years. Attendance rates declined over those 10 years. We saw teacher shortages grow over those 10 years, and, of course, the gap between the rich and the poor got even bigger. Middle Australia and those already disadvantaged were the ones disadvantaged by those opposite. The proposal that's been put forward, the arrangements that have been suggested and the discussions that have taken place across the country are to make sure that we get to 100 per cent of a fair system for everybody. The Commonwealth has offered to contribute additional school resource standard funding, but it's not a blank cheque. The Commonwealth will contribute, and the states should contribute too. We know that. That's a practical thing. That's how state and national negotiations take place, to make sure there is fully funded reform. Great strides have been made in the endeavour to reach agreements. Western Australia, to its credit, has reached an in-principle agreement and developed a series of standards which have been agreed to by the Commonwealth. It can be done, and it is being done. It's incredibly important that we get this right across the Australian continent. After $20 billion being taken out, it will take some time to get this back on track, but it will also take an absolute commitment to not rip money out, to not disadvantage kids, to not widen the gap between the rich and poor, to not allow a lower completion rate of high school and to not see the rate of attendance decline. We need to make sure we have meaningful education in this country which can be shared by all Australians, regardless of their financial circumstances and regardless of the personal situation they find themselves in. Part of that endeavour has been to look at the practical challenges in the Northern Territory. The government unveiled a $1 billion package to fully fund public schools by 2029 in the Northern Territory. Of course, that is critically important because it recognises the disproportionate disadvantages which there are in the Northern Territory. That deal doubled the federal government's investment. That's not what those opposite did. They left the Northern Territory hanging, just as they left Western Australia hanging and the rest of the country hanging. When it comes to reality, not just politics, the reality is that, through 10 years of their mismanagement of education, we saw decline after decline after decline. Whatever they have to say now will just be crocodile tears. The reality is, when they had the ability to make a difference, they did nothing. When we've been in this situation in these negotiations, we've made some very important steps forward and we will continue to make strides forward to get agreement between all territories and all states. Currently, as many would know, no public school outside the ACT is at the full and fair funding level. I say again: the Albanese government remains committed to working with states and territories to get every school to 100 per cent of its fair funding level in the next National School Reform Agreement, which is being negotiated this year. 15:54 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I want to thank Senator Tyrrell for bringing on this very important matter. I want to start by saying that it is very clear that Senator Sheldon does not understand anything about school funding, because he has just profoundly misled the Senate. The fact of the matter is that, under the Gonski school funding model, the Commonwealth is meeting its share of public school funding, which is 20 per cent of the schooling resource standard. Senator Tyrrell is quite right, as she spells out in this motion, that the shortfall is the responsibility of the states. In fact, only the ACT is meeting 80 per cent, the full share—20 plus 80, of course, is 100 per cent—of the SRS. I am just going to go through the table of contributions to demonstrate where the shortfall is. New South Wales is at 72.2 per cent. Victoria is at 70.43 per cent. Queensland is at 69.26 per cent. South Australia is at 75 per cent. WA is at 75 per cent. Tasmania is at almost 75 per cent, at 74.08 per cent. The Northern Territory is at a very dismal 59 per cent. So the failure is occurring at the state level. I want to place on record the ridiculous and pathetic misrepresentation of Senator Sheldon in relation to Commonwealth funding under the former coalition government. The fact is that, under the former coalition government, school funding nearly doubled, from $13 billion to $25.3 billion. The shortfall in funding for public schools, which absolutely deserve full funding, is courtesy of the states. But what is extraordinary about this school funding war which Labor has now created is that it's misled Australians. Labor went to the election promising full and fair funding. While the states are delivering a serious shortfall in relation to what they should be contributing to public schools under the Gonski funding model, the fact of the matter is that Labor misled Australians and, I think it is fair to say, misled the states. When it talked about 'full and fair funding', the states took that to mean that the Commonwealth contribution to public schools was going to increase from 20 per cent to 25 per cent. So now, with the exception of WA and the Northern Territory, which have reached in-principle deals with the federal government, we have a full-scale funding war courtesy of this incompetent Labor education minister, who is offering only 2.5 per cent more. The states are saying, 'No deal.' Even worse than that, the National School Reform Agreement has been delayed for more than a year because this incompetent minister cannot deliver the reforms that Australian students and parents deserve. We know that we have a dire situation in this country, with one in three children failing NAPLAN. Despite what Senator Sheldon has said, after the last couple of years under Labor, we now have a full-blown teacher shortage crisis, attendance levels have got worse, our international PISA results are stagnating but showing long-term decline and the average year 10 student is a full year behind in their learning compared to 20 years ago. So it is a dire situation. This incompetent government has not bothered to deliver the reforms that we know will lift school standards and allow each and every child to reach his or her best potential. So I say: shame on this government. Stop misleading the parliament. Don't mislead the Australian people. Get on with the job. Resolve the school funding war that you have created. Frankly, what we have seen from this government is an absolute shambles—declining school standards, a school funding war, no action on indoctrination in schools, the shocking attack on non-government schools, including the potential loss of DGR status for school library funds and scholarship funds, the teacher shortage crisis, the failure to do anything on classroom disruption, which is also driving very poor results, and the failure of this government to stand up to antisemitism and all of the activity in schools— (Time expired) 15:59 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland Is it any wonder that we find ourselves in the mess that we're in? From both Labor and the coalition we've just heard all the excuses as to why our schools aren't fully funded. We've been talking about this for over a decade, and this has meant that we've stopped talking about what it actually is that means we can do good things in our schools. We've been talking about money for 12 years, and where do we find ourselves? We find ourselves with teachers leaving en masse; classrooms in disrepair; more and more kids unable to go to school, with 40 per cent of kids having experienced some sort of 'school can't' in the last 12 months; and completion rates falling. And this has happened under both the government's and the coalition's watch. Senator Sheldon said to cast your mind back. Well, let's cast our minds back to when the Gonski report was handed down. That review said we need sector-blind, needs based funding. And the first words that came out of the education minister's mouth were, 'Julia Gillard said no private school will be worse off,' effectively undoing Gonski from the get-go. Senator Henderson says that the Commonwealth is meeting its share. Why do we keep insisting on trying to convince the Australian public that there is some immutable law that the 20-80 split in both directions is something that can't be changed? It's an arbitrary number that John Howard came up with which enabled the federal government, the arm of government that has the most cash, to fund the sector with the least number of students in it and with the least amount of need, while the states are left to fund the public schools, which have the majority of students and around 80 to 85 per cent of kids with the highest need. It's a magic number. They pulled it out of the air. And it's not even a cap. Go and ask the drafters in the Table Office. It's an arbitrary default number; if they can't agree, it defaults to that. Year upon year we've had both Labor and coalition ministers telling us that we've got this issue of a cap, when the cap is not even real. I'll tell you what's real. We have an education system in this country that has bought into the global education reform movement. Pasi Sahlberg calls it the germ, and it is a germ. We are focused on data and numbers, and we've forgotten about what school is about. It's about young people. How many of you have gone out lately and asked a young person what they think about school? A report in the UK a couple of years ago said that most young people, particularly those in high school, said that it's something they had to endure. People in this chamber laugh. Well, you keep laughing. I've been a teacher for 30 years and I have never seen the public education system like it is now. We are on the edge of having a system that crumbles under the weight of successive governments' inaction. And, yes, the extra funding that has been given to the NT is welcome, and the agreement that WA has made is welcome. But the minister still refuses to rule out getting rid of Morrison's loophole. You want to bang on and accuse a coalition of underfunding schools, but why are you hanging onto a loophole that he instigated? Yes, I'm angry! I've worked in a system that successive governments have not funded properly. Senator Tyrrell is right: teachers and parents and kids are sick of you arguing. Time is running out. Stop arguing over arbitrary numbers, get the deals done and fund our schools. (Time expired) 16:04 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Thank you, Senator Tyrrell. I know that you are a keen advocate for public schools in Tasmania, and I'm grateful for your perspectives on this. The debate rages. The coalition did indeed leave government in 2022, having failed miserably to ensure that public schools had the pathway to 100 per cent of the SRS. In fact, over those 10 years under the coalition government, school attendance rates declined, high school completion declined, teacher shortages raged out of control and the gap between those who have and those who have not just continued to widen and widen. These are all points of fact, not points of opinion. Today we've seen other stats here: 86,000 students have failed to meet either the basic literacy standard or the basic numeracy standard. That is something we should all be ashamed of for our education system. Today, on top of all that—and we've heard some of the senators in this debate so far reference it—is the anniversary of a shameful act in the budget in 2014. When those opposite were in government, they disgracefully ripped more than $20 billion out of the public school system in this country. Labor is committed to building the skills and qualifications of the children in this country. We believe that every child should have full access to a world-class education system regardless of their family's wealth and regardless of the suburb that they live in. Right now, no public school outside of the ACT is at the full and fair funding level. But we have committed to ensuring that Australia's education system is both better and fairer and that each school will get to 100 per cent of the SRS. Every student should have the opportunity to reach their full potential, and that requires a focus on catching up, keeping up and finishing school. That is the basic premise of what we are doing. The Labor government will contribute to achieving full and fair funding for each school, and that has been proven already by the statements of intent that have been signed by Minister Clare with WA and the Northern Territory. We call on the states to contribute here also. As has been mentioned, the states aren't all coming to the party here. This is a shared-resource model. It's not a blank cheque from the federal government. Where we have states coming to the party who are negotiating in good faith for an outcome for the improvement of education of our students and the achievement of 100 per cent SRS, then we're here, we're willing and we're waiting. Let's get this done. Minister Clare is a serious champion of full and fair funding, and he has invested an awful lot of time and effort in negotiating with all of the states. As I've said, he's managed to sign off on statements of intent with WA and the Northern Territory and will continue on the pathway to full funding for each and every state and territory. Minister Clare is also working on tying that funding to improved outcomes, not just with a blank cheque, as I've said, or by saying, 'We'll just pay for everything.' It's to ensure that children in our country have every opportunity to catch up and to have the supports that they need to help them fulfil their potential. We're looking forward to seeing every single state step up and stump up. We have to close this funding gap. We have to invest in the reforms necessary to lift student outcomes, and 10 years of neglect doesn't get fixed overnight. It doesn't. I appreciate your earlier comments, Senator Allman-Payne, referencing 12 years of neglect. For two of those years, Labor has worked hard to negotiate these outcomes to come up with a better way to get our schools back on track and to ensure our students can take advantage of the bright future that Australia has. We have vast opportunities in this country. Whether students are coming directly out of school into the workforce or going via TAFE, via apprenticeships and traineeships or via university, there are bright opportunities ahead of us, and we have to get this agreement done. (Time expired) 16:10 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The schooling resource standard, or SRS, estimates the amount of public funding that schools need to meet their students' educational needs. As of 2024, the Commonwealth is responsible for providing 20 per cent of public schools funding and, in line with this arrangement, states are required to take on 75 per cent, leaving a five per cent gap. The Commonwealth wears extra loadings for medium and small schools, which is estimated to cost the federal government $600 million in 2024 alone, as well as other student based loadings. This scheme was agreed upon between the federal, state and territory governments under the National School Reform Agreement. Australia is a federation of states, and education is a state responsibility. Not only are the states failing to meet their 75 per cent target; they're demanding that the federal government tip in more money for an additional five per cent. It is hypocrisy for the Victorian education minister, Ben Carroll, to suggest that the federal government should cut its funding to non-government schools to make up for it. The Commonwealth is already paying its fair share and meeting its target as outlined in the schooling resource standard, and the states are not paying their fair share—their agreed share. The states have even declined the offer of the federal government taking on an additional 2.5 per cent to help in closing the gap. They are asking for the full five per cent. How can the states ask for anything when they're not even meeting their own target? It's worth noting that, in Australia, states and territories are responsible for the majority of public school funding, to which in 2024 alone the Commonwealth government is contributing $11.2 billion. Contrary to union bosses' claims, the federal government over the past decade has taken on a greater share of the responsibility of funding schools. In fact, in 2013-14, states were responsible for 87 per cent of public school funding. Today that share is 12 per cent lower. It's not the Commonwealth's job to make up for the states' fiscal illiteracy and mismanagement or the states' pursuit of woke agenda. Look at Steven Miles, the Premier of Queensland. He is driving an agenda that includes gender bending and kiddies talk. Senator ROBERTS 266524 Senator Allman-Payne was talking about human relations. This is bending our children. That's what we're paying for. We should not be paying for that. Reading kids drag queens' story times in schools—ridiculous! It's left to the parent to defend their children and come in and stop it. One Nation stands on the fundamental idea that education is a state responsibility. We support Senator Tyrrell's matter of public importance, and we thank her for it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB The time for the discussion has expired. Budget 48 16:13 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB The President has received a letter from Senator Dean Smith: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: Australians are poorer under Labor's cost of living crisis, and Labor's third Budget will again fail unless it restores our standard of living by taming inflation, takes pressure off the prices of essentials and delivers affordable energy; creates opportunity so small businesses are rewarded for their effort, and young Australians have the chance to own a home; and restores Budget discipline by re-introducing a tax-to-GDP cap and deliver a structural surplus not a windfall surplus. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 16:13 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia The test for Labor in tonight's federal budget is a simple one, and it's also a familiar one. Will the budget tonight hurt or help Australian families? Will the budget tonight hurt or help Australian businesses? The harsh reality at the moment is that Australian families and Australian businesses are already reeling under the pain and the hurt of Labor's two previous budgets. These budgets have made Australians poorer and they've made Australia weaker. After a commitment to wage a war on inflation, inflation remains perilously high. After promises to make Australian families better off, families are struggling under the weight of having to find an extra $24,000 a year on an average home loan in order to meet escalating interest rate costs. Families are struggling to keep their heads above water. The data points in the economy make it very clear: things have got worse for Australian families under Labor; they've not got better. But Australian families don't need to look at the data, because they feel it and they see it for themselves when they go to fill up their car with petrol and when they're shopping, walking through the supermarket aisles. So when Anthony Albanese says, as he has over the last few days, that this will be a traditional Labor budget, Australian families and Australian businesses should be alert and they should be alarmed, because we know what a traditional Labor budget means. It means higher taxes and it means higher spending. Higher taxes and higher spending budgets are bad for Australian families, and higher spending budgets will do nothing to tame the war that we need to wage on inflation. Yesterday there emerged a very important matter—indeed, a credibility gap in regard to what the Treasurer, Dr Chalmers, has been saying and what the Reserve Bank has been saying. Yesterday Dr Chalmers said that, under the government's predictions, it expects inflation to return to the RBA range of two to three per cent by the end of this year. The government believes that inflation will fall to 2.75 per cent by December this year. In contrast, the Reserve Bank of Australia is saying that it expects inflation to stay at 3.8 per cent until the end of this year and not fall to three per cent until December next year. This is a serious credibility issue for Dr Chalmers when he stands up in the House of Representatives tonight and presents this Labor government's third budget. Dr Chalmers is not just the Treasurer of this country; Dr Chalmers is now the king of wishful thinking. So tonight, when the Treasurer gets to his feet, he has some very important explaining to do. We should be very mindful that inflation, which is ruining household incomes, which is ruining household savings and which is making life very difficult for small businesses in our country, will not be mitigated, will not fall, unless the government has the courage to show some constraint—not just some constraint but real, genuine constraint—when it comes to government spending, because the reality now is that inflation is still perilously high, the government is losing the war on inflation and the commentators are telling us that inflation is now home grown, meaning it's the government's responsibility, and it's sticky, meaning it's not going away in a hurry. Labor's third budget, I fear, will hurt Australian families and hurt Australian businesses more. 16:18 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Talk about a reality gap, Senator Smith! Tonight's budget will be a budget for the times. It will be a budget that provides a historic package of cost-of-living relief for Australians. It will be a budget that charts a path forward for a strong economic future for our country. And it will do all of this, despite what Senator Smith just said, while putting downward pressure on inflation—inflation that has already halved on our watch. It will do that while returning additional revenue to the budget bottom line and generating a second budget surplus. In this budget, like the last budget and the one before it, we will show what the opposition hates us to show—that we are the better economic managers for this nation. We will provide the relief for the challenges that Australians face today, we will provide a path to the jobs of tomorrow and we will show the fiscal discipline that is needed to put downward pressure on inflation right now. Those opposite couldn't produce one budget surplus in their nine years in office, let alone two. We know they had the 'back in black' mugs printed. We know they enjoyed puffing on their cigars while cutting programs that Australians rely on. But what they couldn't do was produce a budget surplus; they never delivered one, let alone two. We will do that at the same time we're providing the cost-of-living relief that Australians need—cost-of-living relief that those opposite have relentlessly opposed from the benches opposite. The centrepiece of our cost-of-living relief will be the tax cut that every single Australian will receive on 1 July. Again, on 1 July every single Australian taxpayer will receive a tax cut. Every single person: every single nurse, every single truckie, every single low-income worker and every single middle-income worker will receive a tax cut under our plan. We want to see Australians earning more and keeping more of what they earn. Wages are already growing on our watch, at the fastest rate in over a decade. That's because we've proudly supported a boost to the minimum wage—a significant boost. We've proudly supported a boost to the pay of our essential but undervalued aged-care workers. I'm proud that there's going to be more to come in tonight's budget to support our essential and undervalued care economy workers even further. We want to see strong wages in this country. We want to see real wages growth returning, and that is exactly what we're seeing. We have already delivered substantial support to the Australian people, and we will deliver more tonight; we know they need that. In Medicare we've made historic investments in bulk-billing, urgent care clinics and cheaper medicines, and there will be more tonight. We want a country where all that Australians need to turn up and get the health care that they need is their Medicare card, not their credit card. There will be more fee-free TAFE in the budget tonight as well. We'll be training more Australians for the jobs of the future. And there will be $3 billion in student debt wiped for over three million Australians. We want Australians to get the education they want for the jobs they want too. That's why we'll also be addressing placement poverty for students in nursing, social work and teaching. Fee-free TAFE, HECS-HELP debt reform and placement payments are all going to help Australians get ready for the jobs of the future today. Our budget will have a lot more to say about a future made right here in Australia as well, and a lot more about those jobs of the future. We want to seize those opportunities for Australia to become a renewable energy superpower and to make more of what we need right here in Australia. Tonight we will be delivering more of the cost-of-living relief that people need right now today, starting with a tax cut for every single Australian. We will deliver the investment for the country that we need to build for tomorrow as well, with more jobs, more of what we need made right here in Australia and more homes that people need as well. And we will return more revenue to the bottom line, and a second surplus. 16:23 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As Treasurer Jim Chalmers hands down his third budget tonight, many Australians simply don't care. All the talk about surpluses, deficits, subsidies and balance of payments is very low in the average Australian's priorities today. The biggest budget concern across dinner tables is skyrocketing mortgage costs, rents, grocery bills, insurance premiums and power bills. Australians don't need Treasurer Chalmers to tell them times are tough; they're living through tough times. Unfortunately, this budget shows the government isn't coming to help; in fact, to compensate for its poor decisions it's going to have to have its hand deeper in your pocket, taxing more of your salary for years to come. Let's step through the budget and what it means for Australians. Firstly, the big headline: Labor wants everyone to know the budget is in surplus—$9.8 billion. It sounds good, doesn't it? Anyone who's ever had their bills laid out on the dining room table knows a good budget needs more money coming in than going out. Unfortunately, this budget surplus is terrifyingly small, given that fairies have kissed Treasurer Chalmers with good luck. The government has won the biggest lottery prize we could ever have hoped for, yet it has just a tiny surplus. It would be like a family winning division 1 of Powerball and having $100 left over at the end of the year—and calling it a win! There should be rivers of gold flowing into the budget. Instead we have a miserable trickle because Labor doesn't resist spending every bit of its lottery winnings. Commodity prices for our exports like oil, gas, coal, metal minerals and agricultural produce have all been near or at record highs over the previous few years. That means huge amounts of extra money flowed into Treasurer Chalmers's budget. 'Oil', 'gas' and 'coal' are all dirty words to this Labor government and the Greens, and they're too embarrassed to admit they have, in large part, saved the budget. The second lottery win is the Australian workers. They're working more jobs, longer hours and harder than ever. All of the extra work is reflected by the record-low unemployment rate. That means more taxes from hardworking Australians are going into the budget coffers than ever before—a record. That's the story of this budget: three years of some of the largest tax intakes government has ever recorded, yet Labor can only squeak out the tiniest of surpluses. Despite Australians working multiple jobs for more hours, they're still going backwards because of inflation. Inflation is the secret debilitating stealth tax on all Australians. It's the reason Australia had the largest collapse of disposable income in the OECD. If you feel like you're going backwards, it's because you are. The only way to get ourselves out of this infrastructure mess is by spending on productive assets that allow Australia to make more here. We need to raise our productive capacity. We need more dams so that Australians can have more food and exports. But don't expect to see any dams in Labor's budget. We need cheaper electricity so that small businesses can thrive and hire people in their local communities. Instead, Labor will continue to throw us down the path of the net zero pipedream, which is guaranteed to bring higher energy prices, whether Australians pay for it on their power bill or with more taxes. Unfortunately, the Liberals, the Nationals and the Labor-Greens are a uniparty on net zero—all united in their commitment to kill our electricity grid. We need nation-building projects like the Iron Boomerang project to make millions of tonnes of the world's best quality steel right here in our country. One thing I can guarantee is that there won't be enough action on immigration in this budget. The Prime Minister has leaked that they expect net overseas migration to come in at 300,000 next year—300,000! This is a horrifyingly large number. It's excessive. Prior to COVID there were 1.9 million visa holders likely to require housing in the country. There are now 2.3 million plus 400,000 tourists. That's causing the terrible rental and housing crisis. Now the government wants to make that 300,000 people worse again. Where will these people sleep, Prime Minister? That sums up what we can expect from this Labor budget: more Australians sleeping in cars, under bridges, in tents and in caravans; first home buyers destroyed by their mortgage repayments, while inflation runs out of control; small businesses being strangled by power prices. Does this sound good? This is hopeless. There are many more shocking stories of how the Australian dream has been ruined by decades of the Liberals-Nationals-Labor-Greens uniparty, acting together to implement the agenda of the World Economic Forum and the United Nations. A better way is possible. A much better way is possible, and One Nation will reveal how in our response to the budget this week. 16:28 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I commend Senator Smith for putting forward this matter of public importance, because it touches on the two failures of this government. Firstly, the government has reverted to the traditional Labor approach of spending too much money and therefore needing to tax the Australian people too heavily. Secondly, Labor has failed on housing—failed to house young Australians and failed to provide pathways for people to own their own houses. I don't think I need to sit here and give the Senate an address on how the government has failed on these issues, because people know; people don't need to be convinced. But, on the issue of taxation, it is the case that the government has been forced to raise a series of new taxes to pay for its new spending. It has had to increase income taxes. You see the hilarious presentation of the stage 3 recalibration as a tax cut, when what you see is the reinsertion of the 37c tax bracket and, therefore, the reemergence of bracket creep as a permanent feature of our tax system. Who would have thought, when we came into this parliament when it started almost two years ago, that we would see the parliament reintroduce a tax bracket which was abolished because it was killing aspiration? The 37c threshold is an aspiration killer. If you do an extra shift or do longer hours or do a second job, you are now going to pay higher taxes because of the reinsertion of this tax bracket. You will see higher personal income taxes under Labor. You will see higher taxes on superannuation. But we don't know how these new taxes will apply to the Prime Minister or to his cabinet colleagues. And then you will see new taxes on franking credits. You see higher taxes across the board to pay for this new spending. This comes from a Labor Party which laughably promised no new taxes. The issue of housing is perhaps more personal and more acute for many Australians, because I think a lot of Australians expected that the government would have done better here. What you've seen is a flatlining of construction, fewer houses being built and a large increase in immigration. That has meant that fewer Australians are able to access a home. What you've seen from the government are callous schemes. Help to Buy, which was the centrepiece of their housing policy from the election, is based on a state scheme that no-one wants to use. Very few Australians use the state based shared-equity schemes. So federal Labor goes to the election saying, 'This is the centrepiece of our housing plan.' Bearing in mind that the government itself is promising 1.2 million houses over the next five years—targets it will never meet—the centrepiece of its plan is Help to Buy, which provides 10,000 places. It is a pimple on the elephant's backside, at best. That is their offering on housing: Help to Buy and a failure on the housing targets. Premier Minns in New South Wales laughs and laughs at Mr Albanese and Dr Chalmers and says, 'We will never meet these housing targets in Sydney; we will never meet the New South Wales housing targets.' You've got wall-to-wall Labor governments, and you can't build the houses. The government programs here are absolutely ridiculous. What you don't see from this government is an interest in trying to tilt the scales in favour of first home buyers. You don't see any Treasury minister discussing whether there is a high cost of regulation that's impacting the banks' ability to make a loan. It's pretty hard to get a house if you can't get a mortgage, I would have thought. There are cobwebs there; there is nothing there. Then, of course, what you never ever hear them discuss is what role super could play in helping first home buyers get into a house. The reason is that they are the party of vested interests. As Alfred Deakin said a hundred years ago, the problem with Labor is that it is beholden to vested interests, to the people that run the preselections, support the Labor party and write the policy. The policy they never want to see is opening up super for first home buyers, because they want the donations into the Labor Party. It's disgusting. 16:33 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Who remembers 'Back in black' and the mugs? We all remember that. We remember all the promises to deliver a surplus that those opposite made when they were in government. But what did they do? They failed on every occasion. And the good senator's contribution there once again—'Let everyone raid their superannuation; we don't want to have a secure retirement'—is a wrong, wrong approach. We're not a government that makes promises that we're not prepared to deliver on, because we have delivered on every single election promise that we've made to date. Tonight, Treasurer Jim Chalmers will deliver a surplus—a second surplus under the Albanese Labor government—of some $9.3 billion for this financial year. Tonight's budget will focus on easing the cost-of-living pressure felt by Australians, combating inflation and laying the foundations for future growth in our economy and our labour force. The three biggest factors shaping this budget are global uncertainty, persistent cost-of-living pressures and slowing growth. Those opposite would have you believe that the government has been sitting idle, but, in fact, we haven't. We have stopped inflation; we have turned the corner on that. When we came into government it was six-plus per cent inflation—it now has a three in front of it. We are actually taking steps to ease the cost of living—we have already, and we have announced some of them. But there are already better wages, and so the tax cuts which will come into effect for Australian taxpayers on 1 July will mean even more for Australians. We have delivered cheaper child care, cheaper medicines and 60-day dispensing of medication. We've invested in free-free TAFE. We've given energy bill relief. Medicare urgent care clinics are already up and running, and in my home state of Tasmania we have four of them, and they are going along very well—in fact, they have been extremely popular. We have tripled the bulk-bill incentive to GPs so it makes it cheaper to see your doctor. We have been more generous with the paid parental leave and leave entitlements to close the gender pay gap, and plan to get more people into housing across this country. We have done all of this in two years. Senator POLLEY e5x You had 10 years, and what did you do but leave $1 trillion in debt? You left us with a huge debt. You had not invested in housing at all. You had done nothing but have a policy of keeping wages low. That's what your plan was. That was your policy—to keep wages low. We've got them moving again. We're easing the cost-of-living pressures in a real and meaningful way for all Australians. Like the government's first two budgets, tonight's budget will be responsible, and it suits the times. Helping people with the cost of living is our government's No. 1 priority, and the centrepiece of our new assistance will be a tax cut for every one of the nation's 13.6 million taxpayers. That is everyone, and most of those will get more than they would have got under the Morrison government's planned tax cuts. In fact, people are not only going to get more; they are going to actually get a tax cut, which your previous government failed to acknowledge. For a family on an average household income of around $130,000, with one partner earning $80,000 and the other earning $50,000, their combined tax cut will be over $2,600, which is about $50 a week and $1,600 more than they would have got under the old Liberal Morrison government's plan. For those opposite and for Mr Dutton, who want Australians to work longer for less, their policy was all about keeping wages low, whereas our policy is to ensure that people get paid for their work and that for what they get paid they keep more of that in their pocket. That's what our policy is, and that's what will be reflected when Dr Chalmers delivers his third budget tonight. I believe this will be a good Labor budget which will yet again prove that we are responsible economic managers. We are very mindful of any pressure on inflation, but we will deliver a surplus and we won't leave any Australian behind. 16:38 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales I rise to speak in support of the matter of public importance put forward by my colleague Senator Dean Smith. I also acknowledge the work that he has done on the Cost of Living Select Committee, which has revealed that things have gone from bad to very bad to even worse under this Labor government. 'Homegrown Jimflation', as described by the Daily Telegraph, has been eating away at the standard of living in our country, with Australians enduring a per capita recession that nobody in this government wants to admit or talk about. Disposable income in this country is down by 7½ per cent. This is a huge loss of income at a time when fuel, energy, housing, groceries, insurance and everything—including, literally, the kitchen sink—costs more. In the Sydney Morning Herald today there was an article referencing the Commonwealth Bank insights from April. This article says that, just in the last 12 months, April to April—a year-on-year change—education has gone up 10.8 per cent, utilities have gone up nine per cent, motor vehicle costs are up 3½ per cent and insurance is up 9.6 per cent. These are increases in the last year. Health is up 6.1 per cent, household services are up 4.5 per cent, communication and digital services are up two per cent, transport is up 4.7 per cent and recreation is up 2.7 per cent. This is extraordinary. Australians are struggling under this government and its inflationary policies which currently see inflation sitting at 3.6 per cent, almost double the RBA's target band of one to two per cent. It is tipped to stay higher for longer. What does that mean? That means that interest rates are not coming down any time soon. Australians are suffering under these decades-high interest rates. There have been 12 rate rises since Labor came into power in this country. This has meant that many Australian families and small businesses haven't been able to put food on the table or keep a roof over their heads or it has meant that they have had to close their family business. What has this government done about it? This government has delegated the responsibility of managing inflation to the Reserve Bank. What is the lever that the Reserve Bank has to use in order to manage inflation? Increasing interest rates. That's placing the entire burden of managing inflation in this country on the shoulders of Australians with a mortgage. That's who's carrying the burden. It's not large corporations, not large institutions and not this government but Australians with a mortgage. That is entirely unacceptable. Think for a moment about young Australians who believe that no matter how hard they work they will never be able to own their own home. That is entirely unacceptable. Think for a moment about young Australians who scrimped and saved in order to get a deposit together, going back 18 months or two years, and finally believed that they had succeeded in achieving the Australian dream of owning their own home. Those 12 successive interest rate rises have now turned that dream into a living nightmare as they attempt to cut costs to be able to continue to keep their home. Do you know what the primary cost that Australians are cutting in this cost-of-living crisis? It's food. They are reducing the amount of food that they buy. It is a complete and utter shame that Australians are putting less in their shopping trolley and buying less food because their electricity, petrol, mortgage, rent and all of their other costs have gone through the roof. That is a shame on this government. What makes the situation even more egregious is that this government stands here and pretends that it is offering some kind of cost-of-living relief to Australians. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 The time for the discussion has expired. DOCUMENTS 52 DOCUMENTS Consideration 52 COMMITTEES 52 COMMITTEES Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee 52 Additional Information 52 16:44 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia On behalf of the Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, I present additional information received by the committee on its inquiry into the provisions of the Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023. 16:44 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the documents. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Intelligence and Security Joint Committee 53 Report 53 16:44 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee's report on its review of the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018. 16:44 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Public Works Joint Committee 53 Report 53 16:44 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present two reports: the 87th annual report and the third report of 2024, entitled Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation—Nuclear Medicine Facility project. BILLS 53 BILLS Migration Amendment (Overseas Organ Transplant Disclosure and Other Measures) Bill 2023 53

Migration Amendment (Overseas Organ Transplant Disclosure and Other Measures) Bill 2023

Report from Committee 53 16:44 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia On behalf of the Chair of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, I present the report of the committee on the Migration Amendment (Overseas Organ Transplant Disclosure and Other Measures) Bill 2023, together with accompanying documents. COMMITTEES 53 COMMITTEES Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee 53 Report 53 16:45 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present a statement on the draft estimates for the Australian National Audit Office and the Parliamentary Budget Office for 2024-25. I seek leave to incorporate the statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows— On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present this statement on the draft budget estimates of the Australian National Audit Office—the ANAO—and the Parliamentary Budget Office—the PBO. The Committee is required, under the Public Accounts and Audit Committee Act 1951 and the Parliamentary Service Act 1999, to consider the draft budget estimates of the ANAO and the PBO, respectively, and to make recommendations to both Houses of Parliament regarding these estimates. This required statement on behalf of the Committee in advance of the Budget being handed down is an important transparency measure that informs the Parliament and the public on the adequacy of the ANAO's and the PBO's resourcing. The Committee considers both offices vital in supporting the work of this Parliament and in strengthening integrity and transparency in public administration. The Committee has carefully scrutinised the ANAO's and the PBO's draft Budget estimates and has resolved to endorse them, subject to further review of the costings and final estimates which may be agreed with the Department of Finance. The ANAO received supplementations in both the 2021-22 and 2023-24 budgets to deal with acute cost pressures, but it is not requesting any additional funding in this budget. As outlined in its Budget Submission to the Committee, however, the ANAO will require additional funding in future years if it is to meet both its legislative requirements and other outputs under the present framework. This is due primarily to the cumulative impact of the efficiency dividend which currently applies to the ANAO. For many years over successive Parliamentary terms, the Committee has been grappling with the unsustainability of ANAO's long term financial position and the risk arising to its operational independence and ability to perform its vital statutory roles at an appropriate level of output. For the coming financial year, the ANAO can draw on accumulated reserves to meet its resourcing requirements. It has become clear to the Committee, however, in discussions over many months regarding the ANAO's funding models and projections that its current financing model is not sustainable over the long-term. The ANAO is a relatively small agency with a legislative mandate to undertake financial statements auditing, alongside a set of other agreed outputs, notably performance audits and more recently performance statements auditing. Financial audit work must meet strict standards and can involve unavoidable unforeseen costs. Although the ANAO has invested in technology and in-house capability to improve efficiency and reduce costs, it has been demonstrated over multiple terms of Parliament that it is simply not possible for the ANAO to bear the cumulative impact of the efficiency dividend without reducing outputs which can only occur in the performance audit program. Indeed, the impact of the efficiency dividend has been the key driver of its prior supplementary funding requests. Conceptually, the Committee considers that the efficiency dividend need not and should not apply to the ANAO. The efficiency dividend is a reasonable tool of Executive Government, both to free up resources in Departments of State and similar entities for other priorities and to send a management signal of fiscal discipline. Evidence gleaned over multiple terms of Parliament, however, demonstrates that it is simply not possible for the ANAO to accommodate the cumulative impact of the efficiency dividend without reducing its performance audit program below the number agreed on a bipartisan basis to be optimal—48 performance audit per annum. Hence for some decades now, an inevitable ritual dance has developed, where every few years the ANAO moves into a Budget deficit and properly indicates it has no choice by to start cutting the performance audit program. In response the Government of the day eventually provides supplementary funding, sometimes with and sometimes without political drama. The application of the efficiency dividend is predicted by ANAO to have a cumulative budgetary impact of $10.9 million between 2014-15 and 2027-28. This is not a new issue. Back in 2008, the JCPAA commented in Report 413 The Efficiency Dividend: Size does matter that 'the ANAO saves the Australian taxpayer significant sums of money each year through reduced opportunity for fraud, better accountability and improved agency performance. Saving small sums on the ANAO's budget only costs the Government larger sums later on…' The value to the Australian Government of a robust audit function is significant, as it fosters and drives efficiency, effectiveness and accountability throughout the public sector. The Committee notes with interest also that the New South Wales Government has permanently excluded integrity agencies from an efficiency dividend since 2022-23 to safeguard their future independence, and that it did so in response to recommendations by the Public Accountability Committee of the NSW Parliament. It has been the presumption in different quarters for many years that the efficiency dividend drives efficiency in a sustainable manner as applied to ANAO, but this is simply not borne out by the analysis and the facts. The strong and considered recommendation of the Committee is that ANAO should simply be excluded from any future efficiency dividend. Doing so will maintain the performance audit program at the level broadly agreed to be necessary and thereby enhance efficiency and effectiveness across Commonwealth entities. This approach will also avoid the periodic circus and political drama about 'cutting the audit program' before additional funding is inevitably provided by the Government of the day. In addition to enabling ANAO to better absorb market-based cost increases in the conduct of its mandatory audit functions, removal of the efficiency dividend will help it to reach the target of 48 discretionary performance audits per financial year, a number that the JCPAA had recommended be funded in its 2022 review of the Auditor-General Act. The JCPAA recognised at that time that resourcing of the ANAO was not adequate but did not have sufficient evidence to justify a recommendation to remove the efficiency dividend. The Committee now takes a different view on this however following the additional considerations and analyses that have been conducted and regards it as the simplest and most effective first step in ensuring ANAO's financial sustainability. It avoids the periodic wasted effort of justifying the obvious with analysis and business cases, and the political circus of accusations that the government of the day is 'cutting' the audit office budget before it is inevitably 'restored'. Parliamentary Budget Office The PBO's estimated expenses for 2024-25 amount to $10.371 million. The Committee notes from the PBO's portfolio budget statement, under the strategic direction section, that its expected resourcing for 2024-25 will make it challenging for PBO to maintain its service levels for parliamentarian requests as well as meet its publication and election related responsibilities. The Committee has understood for some time that the principal continuing budgetary issue facing the PBO has been sustained increases in demand for its work across the Parliament, coupled with the depletion of its special appropriation fund from $6 million, allocated at its inception, to now around $1.8 million. Although the PBO should continue to meet most of its fiscal requirements from its departmental appropriation, this special appropriation has represented a crucial buffer for it to manage risks to its operational independence and in meeting unexpected costs, including the heightened demands for its services in recent years. The Committee has supported the replenishment of this fund in previous budgets but acknowledges and accepts the recent advice from the Department of Finance that as it was created to assist PBO through its establishment phase only, a new policy proposal (NPP) is required to obtain additional funding. The Committee supports the PBO's request for additional funding of $1.1 million per year over 4 years from 2024-25, and ongoing, and the establishment a $3 million special account to provide a reasonable measure of ongoing fiscal independence from Executive Government and resources to call upon if needed, subject to appropriate rules regarding access to the special account. The JCPAA confirms its continuing support for the PBO and its role in providing valuable information and analysis to all Parliamentarians to better inform public debate. I thank the Acting Auditor-General and the Parliamentary Budget Officer for their work in support of the Parliament and the JCPAA and Committee members for their thoughtful and detailed consideration of these budget requests. Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee 55 Report 55 16:46 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the report. On behalf of One Nation, I thank the committee and the secretariat for their marvellous work during this inquiry into a COVID-19 royal commission, work that resulted from a One Nation motion. Many submissions were received and witness testimonies taken. The report that Senator Scarr has just tabled is a faithful representation of their evidence and reflects some amazing work by the secretariat, him and the committee. Australia now has the recommendation that a royal commission into Australia's response to the COVID pandemic be called, and it has appropriate terms of reference. So what happens now? To this point, the process has been one of which I'm proud. This Senate has held true to its fundamental function as the house of review. The Australian Parliament House website says of the powers of the Senate: Democratically elected, and with full legislative power, it is generally considered to be, apart from the Senate of the United States of America, the most powerful legislative upper chamber in the world. It's time to use that power. Indeed, it's our duty to use that power. It's time to remind health care, the military and the bureaucracy: they do not run this country; the Australian people do. It's long overdue to remind the crony communist establishment: they do not run this country, the Australian people do. And it's time to restore trust in government and confidence in our healthcare practitioners, hospitals and medications. A royal commission is the only way to get to the truth, punish wrongdoing, praise the noble and set a future direction for pandemic preparedness in which the public can have complete confidence. Support for a royal commission came from every witness at the inquiry—a rare and overwhelming display of consensus and unity in what has been until now a highly contentious debate. The inquiry submission from Professor Scott Prasser was most helpful in guiding debate around a royal commission. He said: As then Justice Holmes, who chaired the 2011 Queensland Flood Commission of Inquiry observed there is an expectation in Australia for such inquiries following disasters: … contemporary society does not countenance a fatalistic approach to such inevitabilities, even if their occurrence is unpredictable. There is an expectation that government will act to protect its citizens from disaster, and that all available science should be applied so that nature and extent of risk is known, and appropriate action taken to ameliorate it— to protect people. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Remember these facts on Australia's COVID response: half a trillion dollars was spent, economy and family livelihoods were smashed, freedom and human rights were stolen, and there were tens of thousands of deaths from injections approved yet not tested in Australia, with approval based only on Pfizer's trial that was cut short after thousands of deaths and without the TGA seeing the patient-level data. The AstraZeneca vaccine was withdrawn last week. How the hell do the injected withdraw it from their bodies? The department of health still approves AstraZeneca now. Overnight, a peer reviewed journal published proof that the Pfizer vaccine was contaminated with mutant DNA at levels that are hundreds of times higher than safe levels. The Pfizer vaccine must be withdrawn on safety grounds immediately. This is all for a virus which the Chief Medical Officer advised me in writing in March 2021 was of low to moderate severity, less than some past flus, and had transmissibility similar to that of flu. That was in writing. Australia will not stand for repeating our COVID mistakes and COVID deceit. As I travel through Queensland and listen to everyday Australians, I continue to hear of COVID harms. It's clear that COVID may be over, yet the harm from our response continues. Businesses weakened during COVID and kept alive with JobKeeper payments are now failing in the recession that inevitably followed the big spend. Victorians have been hit with a COVID tax to pay for the state's response, a tax making it harder for homeowners to keep their homes in the face of rising interest rates. In turn, rising interest rates are a function of the inflation caused when the Reserve Bank printed $508 billion to fund COVID measures. Our COVID response affected every life in this country and every corner of our economy. A quickie cover-up whitewash pseudo-inquiry into bureaucratic performance during COVID will not get to the truth of matters into which it's not even looking. issues like unexplained deaths, which have started to increase again and are currently sitting at around 13 per cent, or 25,000 deaths a year. These are people who should not be dying—young people. In part, these people are dying of the side effects of the AstraZeneca vaccine that Craig Kelly specifically called out in 2021. Our health authorities claimed it was safe and effective until court cases caused AstraZeneca to withdraw the product worldwide, citing a fatality rate of 3.8 per 100,000 cases. Australia bought 56 million doses. The official death figures from COVID injections are a fiction. Evidence of this is the TGA's refusal to provide independent verification of their case analysis. Reports of deaths and serious injuries from COVID jabs stopped being made in full early in the rollout. Medical practitioners who reported adverse events were inevitably harassed and threatened with punitive action from the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, who acted as the pharma police. Their actions in suppressing the truth of vaccine harm must be of special interest to the royal commission. Pfizer conducted aborted safety testing on a version of the vaccine they never used. The shots they did use were never safety tested, and this was the big lie: that the vaccines were tested and proven safe—a lie. 'Safe and effective' was not one lie; it was two. Pfizer are currently settling their lawsuits out of court, but for how much longer, as one successful lawsuit leads to another? Australia offered taxpayer funded immunity on these products. Remember: if criminal behaviour is detected from Pfizer, the immunity can be voided—behaviour like baiting and switching the test vaccines, covering up adverse events in the testing phase and erasing anyone with a serious adverse event from the trials as though they were never a participant. Ghost test sites were used, along with ghost participants who, miraculously, never had an adverse event. Window shifting was employed. Adverse events in person that was single dosed were counted against the unvaccinated, because one is not classified as fully vaccinated until after the second dose. How's that for deceit? Likewise, even a person who was double dosed had their adverse event counted against the unvaccinated if it occurred within the first seven days for Pfizer and within 14 days for Moderna. Behaviour like this is why we have royal commissions with powers to compel witnesses and obtain documents that have been hidden behind redactions. There have been 54 royal commissions since the Menzies era. The Hawke-Keating government called eight and the Whitlam government called 13. The Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government called eight. After so long in opposition, the Albanese Labor government has only found cause to call one. What a compliment to the quality of the last government! In all of that time, only one thing was done badly enough to call a royal commission. You on this side must be so proud! Prime Minister Albanese has turned his back on Labor Party history and seeks now to cover up for bureaucrats, multinational pharmaceutical companies and crony capitalist companies like Woolies and Coles. These companies implemented onerous staff vaccine mandates, required customers to behave like they were diseased and blasted out pro-vaccine anti-human propaganda over their PA non-stop for three years. It's no surprise that their share register includes names like BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street. These same names appear in the share register of the pharmaceutical companies that profited from killing people in this country. These foreign predatory wealth funds appear on the share register of Australian media that contributed unending fear to drive the pharmaceutical response to COVID. The media also policed public opinion, destroying the careers of presenters, medical professionals and politicians, despite those opinions now being proven correct. Even worse, their opinions were known to be correct at the time these brave people were speaking out against the official narrative during COVID. Was COVID an evil exercise in crony capitalism, in racketeering for the benefit of foreign predatory wealth funds, or crony communism? Yes, it was. Those funds have ripped $5 trillion—trillion—from the pockets of everyday citizens around the world in the name of keeping us safe. What an eye-watering transfer of wealth, unprecedented even in wartime. Thanks to COVID, the rich are richer, while everyday citizens struggle with reduced wealth, unprofitable businesses and poor health. And yet the Labor government refuses to call a royal commission. You don't care! Is this who the Labor Party has become—protectors of racketeering wealth funds and their parasitic, predatory billionaire owners? Is that it? One benefit of misinformation laws is that they may stop you calling yourselves the party of the worker when you are clearly the party of predatory billionaires—parasites. Prime Minister Whitlam called 13 royal commissions, Prime Minister Hawke called eight and this Labor government has called one. Talk about not being able to handle the truth. Your position defies history, it defies the will of the Senate and it defies the will of the people. Talk to anyone in the street; they'll tell you they want this. Your position defies history. I urge the Senate to send a clear instruction to the Prime Minister that his quickie cover-up inquiry has fooled nobody—nobody. It's time to begin the royal commission; it's time to care about people, not corporate profits; and it's time for this Labor Party to remember who they should be. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Community Affairs References Committee, Electoral Matters Joint Committee, Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Environment and Communications References Committee, Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, Intelligence and Security Joint Committee, Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Political Influence of Donations Select Committee, Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee 57 Government Response to Report 57 16:57 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I present 26 government responses as set out in the document available in the chamber and listed on the Dynamic Red, and I seek leave to have the documents incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The documents read as follows— Australian Government response to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs: The worsening rental crisis in Australia—Interim and Final Reports May 2024 Introduction On 7 December 2023, the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs (the Committee) released its final report for the Inquiry into the worsening rental crisis in Australia (the Inquiry). The Australian Government welcomes the final report and thanks the Committee for its work. The Government also acknowledges the interim report released as part of the Inquiry. Committee Proceedings On 22 June 2023 the Senate referred an inquiry into the worsening rental crisis in Australia to the Community Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report. The Inquiry received 410 written submissions, with over 16,000 simplified submissions from members of the public. The Departments of Treasury and Social Services (DSS) provided a joint submission. The Committee held four public hearings. Treasury, DSS and the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation (now Housing Australia) gave evidence at the public hearing held on 27 September 2023. The Committee published its interim report on 21 September 2023, and its final report on 7 December 2023. Recommendations A total of 43 recommendations were made across the final and interim reports. The final report makes 38 recommendations, and 5 recommendations were made as part of the interim report. This response is to the 43 recommendations made across the interim and final reports. The Australian Government acknowledges the challenging experience that many renters are facing, and thanks the thousands of Australians who shared their lived experiences with the Committee. The current environment has created pressures for the growing number of Australians who rent. Renters tend to be younger, have lower incomes, less wealth and live in lower-quality housing than owner-occupiers. In recent times, some have been left worse-off with advertised rent growth exceeding inflation and average wage increases. This is likely to be causing hardship for more vulnerable renters and may be pushing some into insecure housing arrangements. Moderating price pressures in the short term is challenging. The most effective way to sustainably improve rental affordability is to increase housing supply. The Government is pursuing a number of policies to boost supply, address the cost of housing for buyers and renters and make it easier for renters to transition into home ownership. These policies are part of a plan to deliver 1.2 million new homes over five years from 1 July, including 50,000 new rental homes. They also form part of the more than $25 billion in new investments in housing over the next decade the Government has announced since its election. Further details on these measures are at Appendix A. In response to the 43 recommendations, the Australian Government supports 12 recommendations, supports in principle 3 recommendations, partially supports 3 recommendations, notes 21 recommendations, and does not support 4 recommendations. Response to the interim recommendations Recommendation 1 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government take a coordinating role to implement stronger rental rights. Australian Government response The Australian Government supports this recommendation. The Australian Government is working collaboratively with states and territories through National Cabinet to strengthen renters' rights. This includes rental reforms agreed by National Cabinet on 16 August 2023 under A Better Deal for Renters. States and territories are responsible for implementing tenancy reforms. Recommendation 2 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government continue to invest in public, social, community and genuinely affordable housing. Australian Government response The Australian Government supports this recommendation. The Australian Government understands access to secure and affordable housing has social, economic, and personal benefits for all Australians. The Australian Government is working constructively with state, territory, and local governments to continue to invest in social and affordable housing. Significant measures include: The National Housing Accord, a landmark agreement that aligns for the first time the efforts of all levels of government, institutional investors, and the construction sector, to unlock quality, affordable housing supply over the medium term. As part of the Accord, the Australian Government will invest $350 million to deliver 10,000 affordable rental homes over five years from 2024—matched by the states and territories. This enables delivery of a combined total of up to 20,000 affordable homes under the Accord. $2 billion through the Social Housing Accelerator to permanently increase the stock of social housing across Australia. State implementation plans indicate this investment will deliver around 4,000 new and refurbished dwellings. $3 billion through the New Homes Bonus to help incentivise states and territories to build 1.2 million homes, where people need them, over five years from 1 July 2024. $500 million through the Housing Support Program for initiatives to accelerate housing supply including connecting essential services or building planning capability. This is in addition to other Australian Government initiatives, including: The $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF), which was established on 1 November 2023. Returns from the HAFF will be used to support the delivery of 30,000 new social and affordable rental homes over its first five years, as well as to fund a range of acute housing needs. Expanding the National Housing Infrastructure Facility (NHIF), unlocking up to $575 million available to invest in social and affordable rental homes. The NHIF will also receive an additional $1 billion in federal funding to support more social housing. Increasing the liability cap of Housing Australiaby $2 billion to provide lower cost and longer-term finance to community housing providers through the Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator. Work on the development of a National Housing and Homelessness Plan is also underway. The Plan will be a 10-year strategy, which will set out a shared vision to inform future housing and homelessness policy in Australia. Further details on the more than $25 billion in new investments in housing over the next decade the Government has announced since its election are at Appendix A. Recommendation 3 The Australian Greens recommend the Australian Government take a coordinating role to guarantee stronger rental rights, including: a presumed right to longer leases; minimum standards covering ventilation, heating, cooling and insulation, sufficient for a changing climate; genuine end to no ground evictions, including at the end of a fixed term lease; grounds for eviction to be clearly defined, with a requirement for a landlord to prove to the tribunal that the ground can be established. Grounds should be limited to: sale of the property; landlord or immediate family member moving into the property; demolition of the property; or reconstruction, renovation or repair of the property only where the work cannot be carried out unless the property is vacated, and only after relevant permits have been obtained. Australian Government response The Australian Government partially supports this recommendation. On 16 August 2023, all states and territories agreed to a range of reforms under National Cabinet's A Better Deal for Renters, including to: Phase in minimum quality standards for rental properties (e.g. stovetop in good working order, hot and cold running water); and Develop a nationally consistent policy to implement a requirement for genuine reasonable grounds for eviction, having consideration to the current actions of some jurisdictions. States and territories are responsible for implementing these reforms. Recommendation 4 The Australian Greens recommend the Australian Government urgently commit investment in public, social, community and genuinely affordable housing commensurate with the shortfall. Australian Government response The Australian Government supports in principle this recommendation. The Australian Government understands access to secure and affordable housing has social, economic, and personal benefits for all Australians. The Australian Government is working constructively with state, territory, and local governments to continue to invest in social and affordable housing. Significant measures to address the shortfall of housing include: The National Housing Accord, a landmark agreement that aligns for the first time the efforts of all levels of government, institutional investors, and the construction sector, to unlock quality, affordable housing supply over the medium term. As part of the Accord, the Australian Government will invest $350 million in additional federal funding to deliver 10,000 affordable rental homes over five years from 2024—matched by the states and territories. This enables the delivery of a combined total of up to 20,000 affordable homes under the Accord. $2 billion through the Social Housing Accelerator to permanently increase the stock of social housing across Australia. State implementation plans indicate this investment will deliver around 4,000 new and refurbished dwellings. $3 billion through the New Homes Bonus to help incentivise states and territories to build 1.2 million homes where people need them over five years from 1 July 2024. $500 million through the Housing Support Program for initiatives to accelerate housing supply including connecting essential services or building planning capability. This is in addition to other Australian Government initiatives, including: The $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF), which was established on 1 November 2023. Returns from the HAFF will be used to support the delivery of 30,000 new social and affordable rental homes over its first five years, as well as to fund a range of acute housing needs. Expanding the National Housing Infrastructure Facility (NHIF), unlocking up to $575 million available to invest in social and affordable rental homes. The NHIF will also receive an additional $1 billion in federal funding to support more social housing. Increasing the liability cap of Housing Australiaby $2 billion to provide lower cost and longer-term finance to community housing providers through the Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator. Work on the development of a National Housing and Homelessness Plan is also underway. The Plan will be a 10-year strategy, which will set out a shared vision to inform future housing and homelessness policy in Australia. Further details on the more than $25 billion in new investments in housing over the next decade the Government has announced since its election are at Appendix A. Recommendation 5 The Australian Greens recommend the Australian Government coordinate with the states and territories to freeze rental increases for two years, followed by a limit on rental increases of 2 per cent every 2 years. Both the freeze and the ongoing limits should be attached to the property, not the specific tenancy or lease. The reference date for the freeze on rental increases should be backdated to avoid rents being increased in anticipation of the restrictions. The freeze and ongoing cap should apply to new properties where starting rents are set at the median rent for the area and property type. Australian Government response The Australian Government does not support this recommendation. The Australian Government acknowledges that renters are facing significant challenges. The regulation of residential tenancies, including rental agreements and pricing, is the responsibility of state and territory governments. On 16 August 2023, National Cabinet agreed to A Better Deal for Renters, which includes developing a nationally consistent policy to require genuine reasonable grounds for eviction, moving towards limiting rental increases to once a year and phasing in minimum rental standards. There is strong consensus in academic literature on the negative impacts of rent freezes as they reduce both the quantity and quality of housing available in the market, making it harder for tenants to secure housing that meets their needs. In a similar vein, evidence from academic literature on rent caps suggests unintended consequences for renters. Achieving the policy objectives of rental price intervention is difficult as it limits labour market mobility, is inequitable, imposes negative externalities, negatively affects the quality of rental stock, imposes costs on future renters and leads to a reduction in rental supply and increases in rental costs, leaving many renters worse off in the long term. For example, San Francisco's rent caps were found to have resulted in a number of landlords either moving into the properties themselves or selling them. This reduced the supply of available rental stock by 15 per cent and led to a 5.1 per cent increase in overall rent prices over the next twenty years—creating an overall rise in rents of $2.9 billion that was paid for by current and future tenants. The most effective way to sustainably improve rental affordability is to increase housing supply and the Australian Government has committed to several measures aimed at boosting supply as part of its housing reform agenda. Further information is at Appendix A. Response to the final recommendations Chair recommendations Recommendation 1 The Chair recommends the Australian Government commit to substantial further investment in public, social and genuinely affordable housing in the 2024-25 Federal Budget, including specific funding for youth and First Nations housing. Australian Government response The Australian Government notes this recommendation. The Australian Government understands access to secure and affordable housing has social, economic, and personal benefits for all Australians. The Australian Government is working constructively with state, territory, and local governments to continue to invest in social and affordable housing. Significant measures include: The National Housing Accord, a landmark agreement that aligns for the first time the efforts of all levels of government, institutional investors, and the construction sector, to unlock quality, affordable housing supply over the medium term. As part of the Accord, the Australian Government will invest $350 million in additional federal funding to deliver 10,000 affordable rental homes over five years from 2024—matched by the state and territories. This enables the delivery of a combined total of up to 20,000 affordable homes under the Accord. $2 billion through the Social Housing Accelerator to permanently increase the stock of social housing across Australia. State implementation plans indicate this investment will deliver around 4,000 new and refurbished dwellings. $3 billion through the New Homes Bonus to help incentivise states and territories to build 1.2 million homes where people need them over five years from 1 July 2024. $500 million through the Housing Support Program for initiatives to accelerate housing supply including connecting essential services or building planning capability. This is in addition to other Australian Government initiatives, including: The $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF), which was established on 1 November 2023. Returns from the HAFF will be used to support the delivery of 30,000 new social and affordable rental homes over its first five years, as well as to fund a range of acute housing needs. Expanding the National Housing Infrastructure Facility (NHIF), making up to $575 million available to invest in social and affordable rental homes. The NHIF will also receive an additional $1 billion in federal funding to support more social housing. Increasing the liability cap of Housing Australiaby $2 billion to provide lower cost and longer-term finance to community housing providers through the Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator. The National Housing and Homelessness Plan, which is being developed and is expected to be released in 2024, will set out a vision for housing and homelessness policy in Australia, and consider public, social, and affordable housing. Future funding arrangements between the Commonwealth and states and territories are also under negotiation. The Australian Government has agreed to a one-year extension to the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement (NHHA) which will provide approximately $1.7 billion in 2023-24 to the states and territories. The extension provides further time to work with states to develop and negotiate new funding arrangements to replace the NHHA. The Government has increased the maximum rates of Commonwealth Rent Assistance (CRA) by 15 per cent at a cost of around $0.7 billion per year. This is the largest increase to CRA maximum rates in more than 30 years. The Government is also providing $4 billion over ten years, through a joint investment with the Northern Territory Government to improve housing outcomes and reduce overcrowding in remote NT communities. This investment builds on the one-year Northern Territory Remote Housing Agreement which accelerated housing delivery in 2023-24. The Government has invested $111.7 million through the agreement, which is matched by the Northern Territory Government to deliver a minimum of 157 houses. In addition, the Government has committed $120 million over three years to extend funding for repairs and maintenance on housing and essential infrastructure on Northern Territory Homelands. This investment matches the NT Government's existing program of $40 million per annum and builds on progress made through the Government's $100 million election commitment to restore funding for homelands. Further information on the more than $25 billion in new investments in housing over the next decade the Government has announced since its election is at Appendix A. Recommendation 2 The Chair recommends the Australian Government quantify the yearly investment that will be required from the Federal Government to meet the shortfall in public and community housing. Australian Government response The Australian Government notes this recommendation. The Australian Government understands safe and affordable housing is central to the security and dignity of all Australians. That is why the Australian Government is working with state and territory governments and industry to deliver 50,000 new social and affordable homes in the five years from July 2024. This is part of the more than $25 billion in new investments in housing over the next decade the Government has announced since its election. Further information on this is at Appendix A. The Australian Government has established the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council (the Council) to provide expert advice and an evidence base on how Government can improve housing supply and affordability. The Council is developing a model on housing supply and demand, to provide a comprehensive view of how construction activity, housing stock, rental prices and housing prices are influenced by economic factors. The Council will also produce a State of the Nation's Housing Report each year that will, among other things, outline the number of households in housing need. Recommendation 3 The Chair recommends the Australian Government redirect foregone revenue from negative gearing and capital gains tax discounts to increase supply of public and community housing. Australian Government response The Australian Government does not support this recommendation. The Australian Government notes that negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount apply more broadly than housing and have been long standing. The Australian Government recognises the need for more social and affordable housing. That is why it is working with state and territory governments and industry to deliver 50,000 social and affordable homes in the 5 years from July 2024. This is part of the more than $25 billion in new investments in housing over the next decade announced since its election. Further information on this is at Appendix A. Recommendation 4 The Chair recommends the Australian Government coordinate with state and territory governments to implement mandatory inclusionary zoning for all new developments. Australian Government response The Australian Government notes this recommendation. The Government is working closely with states and territories to implement planning and zoning reforms, including those outlined the National Planning Reform Blueprint (the Blueprint) as agreed to at National Cabinet. As part of the Blueprint, First Ministers agreed to consider the phased introduction of inclusionary zoning and planning to support permanent affordable, social and specialist housing in ways that do not add to construction costs. States and territories are responsible for the implementation of these reforms. Recommendation 5 The Chair recommends the Australian Government coordinate with state, territory, and local governments to improve its data collection regarding short-term rental accommodation, including advancing the development of registers for monitoring and compliance purposes. Australian Government response The Australian Government notes this recommendation. State and territory governments are responsible for the regulation of short-term rental accommodation, with some states providing local government with some decision-making powers in this area. As such, states and territories are best placed to undertake any data collection work for short-term rental accommodation. On 16 August 2023, as part of reforms agreed under National Cabinet's A Better Deal for Renters, all states and territories agreed to consider options for better regulation of short-stay residential accommodation. Recommendation 6 The Chair recommends the Australian Government coordinate with state, territory, and local governments to make it easier for local governments to implement policies and compliance mechanisms regarding short-term rental accommodation, including applying local caps on the number of days a short-term rental property can be rented. Australian Government response The Australian Government notes this recommendation. State and territory governments are responsible for the regulation of short-term rental accommodation, with some states providing local government with some decision-making powers in this area. On 16 August 2023, as part of reforms agreed under National Cabinet's A Better Deal for Renters, all states and territories agreed to consider options for better regulation of short-stay residential accommodation. Recommendation 7 The Chair recommends the Australian Government immediately review the adequacy of all income support payments, including whether eligibility rules for these payments effectively target those most in need. Australian Government response The Australian Government notes this recommendation. The Government has committed to consider the rates of income support payments at every Budget update and has established the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee to provide advice ahead of every Federal Budget on economic inclusion, including policy settings, systems and structures, and the adequacy, effectiveness, and sustainability of income support payments. Since 20 September 2023, around 1.1 million recipients of JobSeeker Payment and other working age and student payments have been receiving at least a $40 increase a fortnight as a result of the Australian Government's 2023-24 Budget measures. Regular indexation of certain payment rates, such as JobSeeker Payment and Commonwealth Rent Assistance (CRA), also occurred on this date, meaning eligible recipients received both increases at the same time. This means that from 20 September 2023, the JobSeeker Payment rate for single recipients without a dependent child increased by $69.60 to $762.70 a fortnight (inclusive of indexation increases on 20 September 2023 and 20 March 2024). This is part of a broader social security package including an additional $2.7 billion over five years from 2022-23 to increase CRA maximum rates and $1.9 billion over five years from 2022-23 to extend eligibility to Parenting Payment (Single) to single principal carers with a youngest child under 14 years of age. Recommendation 8 The Chair recommends the Australian Government undertake a review of the Commonwealth Rent Assistance program, including eligibility criteria to determine whether it is the most effective mechanism to improve rental affordability or whether across-the-board increases in income support may be more appropriate. Australian Government response The Australian Government notes this recommendation. The Australian Government increased the maximum rates of Commonwealth Rent Assistance (CRA) by 15 per cent at a cost of around $0.7 billion per year. This is the largest increase to CRA maximum rates in more than 30 years. From September 2023, maximum rates for CRA recipients have increased by up to $41.16 per fortnight, depending on the household type (including both the 15 per cent increase and indexation on 20 September 2023 and 20 March 2024). CRA is a non-taxable income supplement payable with income support payments, Family Tax Benefit Part A, and veteran's service pensions or income support supplements to eligible Australian individuals and families liable to pay private rent for their principal home. The Government has committed to consider the rates of income support payments at every Budget update and has established the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee to provide advice ahead of every Federal Budget on economic inclusion, including policy settings, systems and structures, and the adequacy, effectiveness, and sustainability of income support payments. An across-the board increase to income support payments would not provide a targeted way of increasing rental affordability. CRA is targeted to income recipients in the private rental market. As at September 2023 the majority of income support recipients (60.5 per cent) do not pay rent, with a further 7 per cent supported with public housing. Recommendation 9 The Chair recommends the Australian Government immediately increase all income support to ensure no income support recipient lives in poverty. Australian Government response The Australian Government notes this recommendation. The Government has committed to consider the rates of income support payments at every Budget update and has established the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee to provide advice ahead of every Federal Budget on economic inclusion, including policy settings, systems and structures, and the adequacy, effectiveness, and sustainability of income support payments. In the 2023-24 Budget, the Australian Government announced a range of measures to help with cost-of-living pressures for around 2 million Australians, through increases to working-age and student payments and Commonwealth Rent Assistance (CRA). These measures, which came into effect on 20 September 2023, included: $4.9 billion over 5 years from 2022-23 and $1.3 billion per year ongoing to increase the base rate of working age and student payments by $40 per fortnight and reduce the qualifying age to 55 years (down from 60 years) for the higher rate of JobSeeker Payment for single recipients who have been on payment for nine continuous months. $2.7 billion over 5 years from 2022-23 to increase the maximum rates of CRA by 15 per cent. $1.9 billion over 5 years from 2022-23 and $0.5 billion per year ongoing to extend Parenting Payment (Single) to single parents until their youngest child is 14 years. Between May 2022 and March 2024, including indexation increases and the 2023-24 Budget measures, the base rate of: JobSeeker Payment for a single recipient without a dependent child has increased by 18.7 per cent in nominal terms. Youth Allowance for a single recipient living away from home has had a nominal increase of 20.5 per cent. Recommendation 10 The Chair recommends the Australian Government coordinate with the states and territories to freeze rental increases for two years, followed by a limit on rental increases of two per cent every two years. Both freeze and the ongoing limits should be attached to the property, not the specific tenancy or lease. The reference date for the freeze on rental increases should be backdated to avoid rents being increased in anticipation of the restrictions. The freeze and ongoing cap should apply to new properties where starting rents are set at the median rent for the area and property type. Australian Government response The Australian Government does not support this recommendation. The Australian Government acknowledges that renters are facing significant challenges. The regulation of residential tenancies, including rental agreements and pricing, is the responsibility of state and territory governments. On 16 August 2023, National Cabinet agreed to A Better Deal for Renters, which includes developing a nationally consistent policy to require genuine reasonable grounds for eviction, moving towards limiting rental increases to once a year and phasing in minimum rental standards. There is strong consensus in academic literature on the negative impacts of rent freezes as they reduce both the quantity and quality of housing available in the market, making it harder for tenants to secure housing that meets their needs. In a similar vein, evidence from academic literature on rent caps suggests unintended consequences for renters. Achieving the policy objectives of rental price intervention is difficult as it limits labour market mobility, is inequitable, imposes negative externalities, negatively affects the quality of rental stock, imposes costs on future renters and leads to a reduction in rental supply and increases in rental costs, leaving many renters worse off in the long term. For example, San Francisco's rent caps were found to have resulted in a number of landlords either moving into the properties themselves or selling them. This reduced the supply of available rental stock by 15 per cent and led to a 5.1 per cent increase in overall rent prices over the next twenty years—creating an overall rise in rents of $2.9 billion that was paid for by current and future tenants. The most effective way to sustainably increase rental affordability is to increase housing supply and the Australian Government has committed to several measures aimed at boosting supply as part of its housing reform agenda. Further information is at Appendix A. Recommendation 11 The Chair recommends the Australian Government work with state and territory governments to amend tenancy laws to strengthen the prohibition on rent bidding, including ensuring that the advertised rent for a property matches the actual rent agreed in the lease. Australian Government response The Australian Government partially supports this recommendation. On 16 August 2023, all states and territories agreed to implement a ban on soliciting rent bidding as part of reforms agreed under National Cabinet's A Better Deal for Renters. States and territories are responsible for implementing this reform. Recommendation 12 The Chair recommends the Australian Government work with state and territory governments to develop standardised rental application forms that contain clear and specific limits on the types of information that can be requested of renters. Australian Government response The Australian Government supports this recommendation. On 16 August 2023, as part of reforms agreed under National Cabinet's A Better Deal for Renters, all states and territories agreed to prescribe a rental application form in each jurisdiction and specify information not allowed to be collected from a tenant or more generally. States and territories are responsible for implementing these reforms. Recommendation 13 The Chair recommends the Australian Government expand the application of the Privacy Act to all real estate agencies and RentTech businesses as part of the Government's ongoing Privacy Act reforms. Australian Government response The Australian Government supports in principle this recommendation. The Australian Government is committed to uplifting Australia's privacy protections, and ensuring the Privacy Act is fit-for-purpose for the digital age. Currently, the Privacy Act applies to all organisations with an annual turnover of over $3 million, including real estate agencies and RentTech businesses. In its response to the Privacy Act Review Report, the Australian Government agreed-in-principle to remove the small business exemption, subject to further consultation with small businesses and their representatives on the impact of removing the small business exemption. This would inform consideration of what privacy obligations should be modified for small businesses to ease regulatory burden and what supports small businesses will need to comply with new privacy obligations. The Australian Government also agreed in-principle that in the shorter term, small businesses which engage in activities that pose a significant privacy risk should no longer be able to rely on the small business exemption. The Australian Government is committed to developing privacy reform legislation in this term of government. Separate to the Australian Government's ongoing Privacy Act Reforms, on 16 August 2023, as part of reforms agreed under National Cabinet's A Better Deal for Renters, all states and territories agreed to make rental applications easier and protect renters' personal information, including to: Prescribe a rental application form in each jurisdiction, with required documents limited to two in each of the following categories: identity, financial ability to pay rent, suitability; Require the destruction of renters' personal information three years after a tenancy ends and three months after a tenancy begins for an unsuccessful applicant; Require tenants' personal information to be provided and corrected within 30 days of a request by a tenant or prospective tenant; and Specify information not allowed to be collected from a tenant or more generally (e.g. disputes with landlords). States and territories are responsible for implementing these reforms. Recommendation 14 The Chair recommends the Australian Government coordinate with state and territory governments to strengthen regulation of RentTech to ensure that renters' rights are adequately protected. Australian Government response The Australian Government notes this recommendation. On 16 August 2023, as part of reforms agreed under National Cabinet's A Better Deal for Renters, all states and territories agreed to prescribe a rental application form in each jurisdiction and specify information not allowed to be collected from a tenant or more generally. States and territories are responsible for implementing these reforms. Recommendation 15 The Chair recommends the Australian Government coordinate with state and territory governments to remove no-grounds evictions, including at the end of a fixed term agreement. Grounds should be limited to: sale of the property; landlord or immediate family member moving into the property; demolition of the property; or reconstruction, renovation, or repair of the property only where the work cannot be carried out unless the property is vacated, and only after relevant permits have been obtained. Australian Government response The Australian Government partially supports this recommendation. On 16 August 2023, as part of reforms agreed under National Cabinet's A Better Deal for Renters, all states and territories agreed to develop a nationally consistent policy to implement a requirement for genuine reasonable grounds for eviction, having consideration to the current actions of some jurisdictions. States and territories are responsible for implementing this reform. Recommendation 16 The Chair recommends the Australian Government work with state and territory governments to develop and legislate a set of minimum standards for energy efficiency, thermal comfort, and accessibility in all rental homes, including social housing. Australian Government response The Government notes this recommendation. On 16 August 2023, all states and territories agreed to phase in minimum quality standards for rental properties (e.g. stovetop in good working order, hot and cold running water) as part of reforms agreed under National Cabinet's A Better Deal for Renters. States and territories are responsible for implementing this reform. Victoria is leading development of a National Framework for Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards in Rented Homes to provide guidance for Australian state and territory governments which are considering developing their own minimum energy efficiency standards in rented homes, including for renters in social housing. Development has involved contributions from stakeholders including tenant advocacy groups, rental provider representatives and property managers as well as environmental and social advocacy groups. The National Construction Code (NCC) applies to the design and construction of new buildings or larger scale renovations in existing buildings. The liveable (accessible) housing provisions in the NCC helps to increase the overall supply of accessible homes and apartments in Australia. Should state and territories wish to pursue legislation as per the recommendation, the NCC's liveable housing provisions may be a helpful resource to draw upon. To help drive down household energy bills, the Australian Government announced a Household Energy Upgrades Fund (HEUF) in the 2023-24 budget. This includes $300 million to support energy upgrades to social housing, co-funded and designed in partnership with states and territories. Co-funding will target a range of high value energy upgrades to deliver energy and cost saving benefits for up to 60,000 households in both public and community social housing. It is expected to deliver a range of upgrades targeted to the needs of social housing stock in each jurisdiction, including solar PV, appliances, and insulation. This will benefit tenants through sustained savings on their energy bills, and improvements to their comfort and health. The Initiative will roll out during 2024 with funding available over 4 years. Recommendation 17 The Chair recommends the Australian Government work with state and territory governments to increase substantially investment in repairing and maintaining existing social housing stock. Australian Government response The Australian Government supports this recommendation. The Australian Government is working collaboratively with states and territories to improve housing stock. This includes, the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement (NHHA), which is a national funding agreement between the Australian Government and the states and territories. NHHA general funding can be used to maintain existing social housing stock noting states have the responsibility and flexibility of determining how funding is allocated. The Australian Government has agreed a one-year extension of the NHHA which will provide approximately $1.7 billion in 2023-24 to the states and territories for social housing and homelessness services. The one-year extension of the NHHA provides further time to work with states and key stakeholders to develop a new housing and homelessness funding arrangement, the details of which are subject to ongoing negotiations. The Australian Government also paid $2 billion to state and territory governments in June 2023 through the Social Housing Accelerator to deliver thousands of new and refurbished social homes across Australia. States and territories have some flexibility in how they spend their share of the Social Housing Accelerator payment, including refurbishing currently uninhabitable social housing stock. The Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF) can also support projects that renovate existing residential dwellings that would otherwise be uninhabitable to support an increase of available social and affordable housing stock. Recommendation 18 The Chair recommends the Australian Government coordinate with state and territory governments to require the disclosure of properties' compliance with minimum standards in rental advertisements. Australian Government response The Australian Government notes this recommendation. Rental regulation and tenancy matters are the responsibility of state and territory governments. The Australian Government is working with state and territory governments through the Energy and Climate Change Ministerial Council (ECMC), and with key industry stakeholders, to establish a Home Energy Ratings Disclosure Framework (the Disclosure Framework). The Disclosure Framework sets out the overarching parameters for home energy rating disclosure schemes, for state and territory governments to implement their own disclosure schemes of energy ratings for existing homes at the point of sale and lease. The Framework also supports a market environment that encourages disclosure and energy performance upgrades in the residential sector, including for rental properties. Recommendation 19 The Chair recommends the Australian Government coordinate with state and territory governments to implement measures to make it easier for renters to make minor modifications that would improve the safety, liveability, and energy efficiency of the property. Australian Government response The Australian Government notes this recommendation. On 16 August 2023, as part of reforms agreed under National Cabinet's A Better Deal for Renters, all states and territories agreed to allow tenants experiencing domestic or family violence to change the locks and make security improvements without the landlord's permission. States and territories are responsible for implementing this reform. Rental regulation and tenancy matters are the responsibility of state and territory governments. Recommendation 20 The Chair recommends the Australian Government coordinate with state and territory governments to develop clear and nationally consistent definitions and timeframes for urgent and non-urgent repairs to rental properties. Australian Government response The Australian Government notes this recommendation. Rental regulation and tenancy matters are the responsibility of state and territory governments. Recommendation 21 The Chair recommends the Australian Government coordinate with state and territory governments to ensure appropriate funding allocation for crisis support services and crisis accommodation. Australian Government response The Australian Government notes this recommendation. The National Housing and Homelessness Agreement (NHHA) is a national funding agreement between the Australian Government and the states and territories. NHHA funds can be used for crisis support services and crisis accommodation, noting states have the responsibility and flexibility of determining how funding is allocated. The Australian Government has agreed a one-year extension of the NHHA which will provide approximately $1.7 billion in 2023-24 to the states and territories for housing and homelessness services. The one-year extension of the NHHA provides further time to work with states and key stakeholders to develop a new housing and homelessness funding arrangement, the details of which are subject to ongoing negotiations. The Australian Government invested $72.6 million over 2020-21 to 2024-25 in the .Safe Places Emergency Accommodation Program (Safe Places) which provides capital grants to fund the building, renovation, or purchase of new emergency accommodation for women and children experiencing violence. Safe Places is funding 40 projects to deliver up to 779 new safe places, assisting up to 6,047 women and children experiencing family and domestic violence each year. As part of the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032, the Australian Government committed $100 million over 5 years from 2022-23 to continue funding under Safe Places through the Safe Places Inclusion Round (Inclusion Round). The Inclusion Round will focus on increasing access to appropriate emergency accommodation for First Nations women and children, women and children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and women and children with disability. The Inclusion Round will deliver around 720 new safe places for women and children across Australia. Once completed, this will bring the total number of safe places to around 1,500 (including the first round of projects). The Inclusion Round grant opportunity closed on 14 November 2023 with successful projects expected to be announced early-mid 2024. The Australian Government has also committed to provide $100 million of Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF) disbursements over 5 years for crisis and transitional housing options for women and children experiencing family and domestic violence, and older women at risk of homelessness. Recommendation 22 The Chair recommends the Australian Government coordinate with state and territory governments to improve temporary visa holders' access to domestic violence provisions, services. and accommodation. Australian Government response The Australian Government notes this recommendation. The Australian Government has zero tolerance for domestic and family violence against anyone, including permanent and temporary visa holders. The Government acknowledges the specific challenges facing migrants experiencing domestic and family violence, including those on temporary visas, as highlighted in the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022-2032. The specialised visa support service within the Department of Home Affairs provides a centralised point of contact for domestic and family violence victim support services. It also assists temporary visa holders who are domestic and family violence victim-survivors to regularise their visa status under the migration law framework, including through provision of tailored case management support. The Family Violence Provisions in migration legislation allow certain, mainly Partner, visa applicants to be granted a permanent visa if their relationship has broken down and they have suffered domestic and family violence perpetrated by the sponsoring partner or primary applicant. As part of the 2023-24 Budget, the Australian Government agreed to expand the Family Violence Provisions to most permanent visas and additional cohorts of Partner visa applicants. Work on implementing these amendments has commenced. In response to the particular needs of temporary visa holders experiencing family and domestic violence, the Australian Government committed $42.1 million over five years from 2020-21 to 2024-25 to deliver the Temporary Visa Holders Experiencing Violence Pilot (TVP). The TVP provides eligible temporary visa holders experiencing family and domestic violence with financial assistance packages of up to $5,000 for goods and services through the Australian Red Cross, and access to legal support for migration and family law through nine Women's and Community Legal Centres across Australia. The amount available through the financial assistance packages was increased from $3,000 to $5,000 as part of the 2023-24 MYEFO to align with the amount available under the Escaping Violence Payment trial for eligible Australian citizens. From April 2021 to August 2023, 3,395 temporary visa holders experiencing family and domestic violence were supported with over $9.6 million in financial assistance, and 2,284 victim-survivors on temporary visas were supported with legal advice and support. Recommendation 23 The Chair recommends the Australian Government coordinate with state and territory governments to establish rental commissioners in every jurisdiction and facilitate their national cooperation on rental matters. Australian Government response The Australian Government notes this recommendation. Rental regulation and tenancy matters are the responsibility of state and territory governments. Recommendation 24 The Chair recommends the Australian Government coordinate with state and territory governments to ensure that tenancy support services are fully funded, including to help tenants navigate the appeals system. Australian Government response The Australian Government notes this recommendation. While rental regulation and tenancy matters are the responsibility of state and territory governments, the National Legal Assistance Partnership (NLAP) between the Commonwealth and all states and territories is a five-year agreement to fund vital legal assistance services for the most vulnerable Australians. The current NLAP expires on 30 June 2025, and an independent review of the NLAP has been conducted by Dr Warren Mundy. The terms of reference for the review required Dr Mundy undertake a holistic assessment of legal need and all Commonwealth legal assistance funding, including the quantum, prioritisation and allocation of funding provided under the NLAP and outside the NLAP. The report's recommendations, along with ongoing dialogue and consultation with states, territories and the legal assistance sector will form the basis for developing future funding arrangements for the sector. Recommendation 25 The Chair recommends the Australian Government coordinate with state and territory governments to review legislation governing the rights and protections for occupants of marginal and less common housing types, including but not limited to: caravan and manufactured home parks; boarding houses; and student accommodation, to ensure residents are adequately protected from exploitation and have sufficient recourse to dispute resolution. Australian Government response The Australian Government notes this recommendation. Rental regulation and tenancy matters are the responsibility of state and territory governments. Recommendation 26 The Chair recommends the Australian Government coordinate with state and territory governments to consider implementing legislation to protect co-renters and landlords in situations where there is a dispute between co-renters, as is currently in place in the ACT. Australian Government response The Government notes this recommendation. Rental regulation and tenancy matters are the responsibility of state and territory governments. Coalition Senators' recommendations Recommendation 1 Australian Governments work constructively to increase housing supply as a matter of urgency. Australian Government response The Australian Government supports this recommendation. The Australian Government understands safe and affordable housing is central to the security and dignity of all Australians. The Australian Government is working constructively with state, territory, and local governments to increase housing supply. Significant measures include: The National Housing Accord, a landmark agreement that aligns for the first time the efforts of all levels of government, institutional investors, and the construction sector, to unlock quality, affordable housing supply over the medium term. As part of the Accord the Australian Government will invest $350 million to deliver 10,000 affordable rental homes over five years from 2024—matched by the state and territories. This enables the delivery of a combined total of up to 20,000 affordable homes under the Accord. $2 billion through the Social Housing Accelerator to permanently increase the stock of social housing across Australia. State implementation plans indicate this investment will deliver around 4,000 new and refurbished dwellings. $3 billion through the New Homes Bonus to help incentivise states and territories to build 1.2 million homes, where people need them, over five years from 1 July 2024. $500 million through the Housing Support Program for initiatives to accelerate housing supply including connecting essential services or building planning capability. This in addition to other Government initiatives, including: The $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF), which was established on .1 November 2023. Returns from the HAFF will be used to support the delivery of 30,000 new social and affordable rental homes over its first five years, as well as to fund a range of acute housing needs. Expanding the National Housing Infrastructure Facility (NHIF), making up to $575 million available to invest in social and affordable rental homes. The NHIF will also receive an additional $1 billion in federal funding to support more social housing. Increasing the liability cap of Housing Australiaby $2 billion to provide lower cost and longer-term finance to community housing providers through the Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator. Work on the development of a National Housing and Homelessness Plan is also underway. The Plan will be a 10-year strategy, which will set out a shared vision to inform future housing and homelessness policy in Australia. Further details on the more than $25 billion in new investments in housing over the next decade the Government has announced since its election are at Appendix A. Recommendation 2 Rent caps and freezes should not be considered. Australian Government response The Australian Government supports this recommendation. The Australian Government acknowledges that renters are facing significant challenges. The regulation of residential tenancies, including rental agreements and pricing, is a matter for state and territory governments. On 16 August 2023, National Cabinet agreed to A Better Deal for Renters, which includes developing a nationally consistent policy to require genuine reasonable grounds for eviction, moving towards limiting rental increases to once a year and phasing in minimum rental standards. There is strong consensus in academic literature on the negative impacts of rent freezes as they reduce both the quantity and quality of housing available in the market, making it harder for tenants to secure housing that meets their needs. In a similar vein, evidence from academic literature on rent caps suggests unintended consequences for renters. Achieving the policy objectives of rental price intervention is difficult as it limits labour market mobility, is inequitable, imposes negative externalities, negatively affects the quality of rental stock, imposes costs on future renters and leads to a reduction in rental supply and increase to rental costs, making many renters worse off in the long term. The most effective way to sustainably increase rental affordability is to increase housing supply and the Australian Government has committed to several measures aimed at boosting supply as part of its housing reform agenda. Further information is at Appendix A. Recommendation 3 Work with state and territory governments to implement stamp duty reform. Australian Government response The Australian Government supports in principle this recommendation. While the Australian Government cannot take the lead on stamp duty on conveyancing reforms, the Australian Government encourages state and territory governments to examine opportunities for more efficient tax bases and can work with them on reform efforts. Recommendation 4 The Federal Government should implement the Coalition's super home buyer scheme. Australian Government response The Australian Government does not support this recommendation. The most effective way of sustainably increasing rental affordability is to increase housing supply and the Australian Government has committed to several measures aimed at boosting supply as part of its housing reform agenda. The Australian Government is committed to providing greater stability and confidence in the superannuation system, to ensure Australians can enjoy a dignified retirement. The Australian Government has introduced legislation that would establish the objective of superannuation as follows: to preserve savings to deliver income for a dignified retirement, alongside government support, in an equitable and sustainable way. Labor Senators' recommendations Recommendation 1 Labor Senators recommend the Australian Government continue to support investment in social and affordable housing. Australian Government response The Australian Government supports this recommendation. The Australian Government understands access to secure and affordable housing has social, economic, and personal benefits for all Australians. The Australian Government is investing significantly in social and affordable housing. The Australian Government is working constructively with state, territory, and local governments to continue to invest in social and affordable housing. Significant measures include: The National Housing Accord, a landmark agreement that aligns for the first time the efforts of all levels of government, institutional investors, and the construction sector, to unlock quality, affordable housing supply over the medium term. As part of the Accord, the Australian Government will invest $350 million in additional federal funding to deliver 10,000 affordable rental homes over five years from 2024—matched by the state and territories. This enables delivery of a combined total of up to 20,000 affordable homes under the Accord. $2 billion through the Social Housing Accelerator to permanently increase the stock of social housing across Australia. State implementation plans indicate this investment will deliver around 4,000 new and refurbished dwellings. $3 billion through the New Homes Bonus to help incentivise states and territories to build 1.2 million homes where people need them over five years from 1 July 2024. $500 million through the Housing Support Program for initiatives to accelerate housing supply including connecting essential services or building planning capability. This in addition to other Australian Government initiatives, including: The $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF), which was established on .1 November 2023. Returns from the HAFF Fund will be used to support the delivery of 30,000 new social and affordable rental homes over its first five years, as well as to fund a range of acute housing needs. Expanding the National Housing Infrastructure Facility (NHIF), making up to $575 million available to invest in social and affordable rental homes. The NHIF will also receive an additional $1 billion in federal funding to support more social housing. Increasing the liability cap of Housing Australiaby $2 billion to provide lower cost and longer-term finance to community housing providers through the Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator. Work on the development of a National Housing and Homelessness Plan is also underway. The Plan will be a 10-year strategy, which will set out a shared vision to inform future housing and homelessness policy in Australia. Further details on the more than $25 billion in new investments in housing over the next decade the Government has announced since its election are at Appendix A. Recommendation 2 Labor Senators recommend the Australian Government continue to work with the state and territory governments to implement planning and zoning reforms, including those outlined in the National Planning Reform Blueprint. Australian Government response The Australian Government supports this recommendation. The Australian Government is working closely with states and territories to implement planning and zoning reforms, including those outlined the National Planning Reform Blueprint (the Blueprint) as agreed to at National Cabinet. The Blueprint includes, updating state, regional, and local strategic plans to reflect housing supply targets; promoting medium and high-density housing in well-located areas close to existing public transport connections, amenities and employment; and streamlining approval pathways. Work on the Blueprint will progress throughout 2024. Recommendation 3 Labor Senators recommend the Australian Government continue to work with the state and territory governments for them to implement a ban on soliciting rent bidding. Australian Government response The Australian Government supports this recommendation. On 16 August 2023, as part of reforms agreed under National Cabinet's A Better Deal for Renters, all states and territories agreed to implement a ban on soliciting rent bidding. States and territories are responsible for implementing this reform. Recommendation 4 Labor Senators recommend the Australian Government continue to work with the state and territory governments on implementing the agreement to make rental applications easier and protect renters' personal information. Australian Government response The Australian Government supports this recommendation. On 16 August 2023, as part of reforms agreed under National Cabinet's A Better Deal for Renters, all states and territories agreed to make rental applications easier and protect renters' personal information, including to: Prescribe a rental application form in each jurisdiction, with required documents limited to two in each of the following categories: identity, financial ability to pay rent, suitability; Require the destruction of renters' personal information three years after a tenancy ends and three months after tenancy begins for an unsuccessful applicant; Require tenants' personal information to be provided and corrected within 30 days of a request by a tenant or prospective tenant; and Specify information not allowed to be collected from a tenant or more generally .(e.g. disputes with landlords). States and territories are responsible for implementing these reforms. Recommendation 5 Labor Senators recommend the Australian Government continue to work with the state and territory governments to develop a nationally consistent policy to implement a requirement for genuine reasonable grounds for eviction, having consideration to the current actions of some jurisdictions. Australian Government response The Australian Government supports this recommendation. On 16 August 2023, as part of reforms agreed under National Cabinet's A Better Deal for Renters, all states and territories agreed to develop a nationally consistent policy to implement a requirement for genuine reasonable grounds for eviction, having consideration to the current actions of some jurisdictions. States and territories are responsible for implementing this reform. Recommendation 6 Labor Senators recommend the Australian Government continue to work with the state and territory governments on phasing in minimum quality standards for rental properties. Australian Government response The Australian Government supports this recommendation. On 16 August 2023, as part of reforms agreed under National Cabinet's A Better Deal for Renters, all states and territories agreed to phase in minimum quality standards for rental properties (e.g. stovetop in good working order, hot and cold running water). States and territories are responsible for implementing this reform. Recommendation 7 Labor Senators recommend the Australian Government continue to work with the state and territory governments on considering options for better regulation of short-stay residential accommodation, which may include better data collection. Australian Government response The Australian Government notes this recommendation. State and territory governments are responsible for the regulation of short-term rental accommodation, with some states providing local government with some decision-making powers in this area. On 16 August 2023, as part of reforms agreed under National Cabinet's A Better Deal for Renters, all states and territories agreed to consider options for better regulation of short-stay residential accommodation. Recommendation 8 Labor Senators recommend the Australian Government continue to work with the state and territory governments following the implementation of A Better Deal for Renters to identify further reforms to strengthen renters' rights and provide greater national consistency for renters. Australian Government response The Australian Government notes this recommendation. The Australian Government acknowledges the growing number of renters in Australia, and their experiences in the rental market. While rental regulation and tenancy matters are the responsibility of state and territory governments, the Government will continue to work to deliver better outcomes for housing, including for those who rent. Appendix A: New housing initiatives since the Government's election National Housing Accord 10,000 affordable homes over five years from 2024—states and territories will support the delivery of up to an additional 10,000 affordable homes. New Homes Bonus A performance-based payment for states and territories that exceed their share of the original one million well-located homes target agreed under the National Housing Accord Housing Support Program Competitive funding program for local and state governments for initiatives such as connecting essential services, amenities to support new housing development, or building planning capability. National Housing Infrastructure Facility (NHIF) Through the NHIF, Housing Australia provides support in the form of concessional loans and grants to help housing-enabling critical infrastructure needed to unlock and accelerate new supply. Since November 2022, support has been available to directly support new social or affordable housing projects. In September 2023, the Government announced the NHIF would receive an additional $1 billion in federal funding to support more social housing. Social Housing Accelerator A one-off payment to states and territories to permanently increase the stock of social housing across the country. Housing Australia Future Fund Support to build 30,000 new social and affordable rental homes over 5 years through an ongoing funding stream to increase social and affordable housing, as well as address other acute housing needs. Help to Buy Help to Buy will assist people on low to moderate incomes to purchase a home with an equity contribution from the Government of up to 40% for new homes and 30% for existing homes. 40,000 places will be available over four years with 10,000 places available per year. Home Guarantee Scheme As part of the Home Guarantee Scheme, the Government has introduced the Regional First Home Buyer Guarantee to support eligible citizens and permanent residents to purchase their first home, or their first property in Australia for at least 10 years, in an eligible regional area. The Government also expanded eligibility for the Home Guarantee Scheme as part of the 2023-24 Budget. Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator The cap on the Government guarantee of Housing Australia's liabilities has been increased by $2 billion to provide lower cost and longer-term finance to community housing providers through the Affordable Housing Bond Aggregator (AHBA). AHBA loans can be used to acquire, construct, or maintain social and affordable housing, as well as to refinance existing debt. Commonwealth Rent Assistance The Government has increased the maximum rates of Commonwealth Rent Assistance by 15 per cent. NT Remote Housing A one-year partnership over 2023-24 with the Northern Territory Government to accelerate building of new remote housing to reduce overcrowding Restoring funding for Homelands A two-year investment for housing and essential infrastructure in the Northern Territory Homelands, delivered through a new federal financial agreement with the Northern Territory Government. Multiyear Funding for Northern Territory Remote Housing A ten-year partnership with the Northern Territory Government from 2024-25, to support delivery of housing to remote NT communities to reduce overcrowding and improve housing outcomes. The investment is matched by the NT Government and will also deliver repairs and maintenance. Northern Territory Homelands A three-year investment to extend funding for repairs and maintenance on housing and essential infrastructure on NT homelands. Development of a Sustainable Community-Controlled Housing Model Will support Aboriginal Housing NT to develop a sustainable community-controlled housing organisation to enable an increase in housing supply. National Housing and Homelessness Agreement Transitional Funding The one-year extension to the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement provides around $1.7 billion to states and territories to 30 June 2024. This includes additional funding of $67.5 million in 2023-24 to support the provision of homelessness services. The extension provides time for negotiations currently underway with states and territories. National Housing and Homelessness Plan The Government has committed funding for the development, monitoring and evaluation of a National Housing and Homelessness Plan. The National Housing and Homelessness Plan is being developed in association with states and territories, industry bodies and not-for-profit organisations to identify short, medium, and long-term reforms to improve housing and homelessness outcomes. National Housing Supply and Affordability Council The National Housing Supply and Affordability Council (the Council) has been established to provide independent, evidence-based expert advice to the Government on housing supply and affordability matters. Build-to-rent tax incentives Tax incentives to encourage more build to-rent developments. Includes halving the managed investment trust withholding tax rate from 30 per cent to 15 per cent and increasing the capital works tax deduction (depreciation) rate from 2.5 to 4 per cent per year for newly constructed build-to-rent properties. National Planning Reform Blueprint National Cabinet agreed to a National Planning Reform Blueprint with planning, zoning, land release and other measures to improve housing supply and affordability. A Better Deal for Renters National Cabinet agreed to A Better Deal for Renters to harmonise and strengthen renters' rights across Australia __________ Australian Government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report: Interim report on all aspects of the conduct of the 2019 Federal election and matters related thereto: Delegation to the International Grand Committee, Dublin, Ireland MAY 2024 Introduction On 15 May 2020, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters tabled a report entitled Interim report on all aspects of the conduct of the 2019 Federal Election and matters related thereto: Delegation to the International Grand Committee, Dublin, Ireland (the Report). The Government's response to the recommendations of the Report follows below. Government Response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report: Interim report on all aspects of the conduct of the 2019 Federal Election and matters related thereto: Delegation to the International Grand Committee, Dublin, Ireland __________ Australian Government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report: Report on the Candidate Qualification Checklist MAY 2024 Introduction On 31 March 2022, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) tabled a report titled Report on the Candidate Qualification Checklist (the Report). The Government's response to the recommendations of the Report follows below. Government Response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report: Report on the Candidate Qualification Checklist. Dissenting report by Australian Greens __________ Australian Government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report: Advisory report on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Ensuring Fair Representation of the Northern Territory) Bill 2020 MAY 2024 Introduction On 16 October 2020, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) tabled a report entitled Advisory report on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Ensuring Fair Representation of the Northern Territory) Bill 2020. The Government's response to the recommendations of the Report follows below. Government Response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report: Advisory report on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Ensuring Fair Representation of the Northern Territory) Bill 2020. # Recommendation Government Response 1 The Committee recommends that instead of the Senate proceeding with the Bill, the Government introduce a Bill to provide for a consistent floor of two seats for both the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory. As a consequence, the 2004 margin of error rule for the Territories should be repealed to provide consistency with the formula applying to the States. It further recommends that as part of a new Bill, the two Territories should also be subject to the same rules as each other in the process of redistributing boundaries between electorates, under Part IV of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. Noted The Government notes the recommendation. Given the passage of time, a substantive government response is no longer appropriate. 2 The Committee recommends that the Government review the existing provision of additional resourcing to MPs with large electorates, and consider whether further targeted resourcing would assist with representation by MPs of their constituents in these large electorates. Refer to recommendation 1. 3 The Committee recommends that if the Parliament does not enact a two seat floor for the Territories, it considers instead either: enacting a harmonic mean for allocating seats between States and Territories, with appropriate public explanation to build understanding for the reform, or developing options for JSCEM to consider for additional Senate representation for the Northern Territory. Refer to recommendation 1. __________ Australian Government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report: Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Lowering the Donation Disclosure Threshold) Bill 2019 MAY 2024 Introduction On 28 May 2020, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters tabled a report titled Inquiry into the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Lowering the Donation Disclosure Threshold) Bill 2019 (the Report). On 2 December 2019, the Member for Mayo, Ms Rebekha Sharkie MP introduced to the House of Representatives the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Lowering the Donation Disclosure Threshold) Bill 2019 (the Bill). The Bill sought to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, to decrease the political donation disclosure threshold from $13,800 to $1,000, and to remove ongoing indexation of that disclosure threshold. The Government's response to the recommendations of the Report follows below. Government Response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters Report: Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Lowering the Donation Disclosure Threshold) Bill 2019. Dissenting report by Australian Greens __________ Australian Government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report: Advisory report on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Real Time Disclosure of Political Donations) Bill 2019 MAY 2024 Introduction On 17 December 2019, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters tabled a report titled Advisory Report on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Real Time Disclosure of Political Donations) Bill 2019 (the Report). On 16 September 2019, the Member for Mayo, Ms Rebekha Sharkie MP introduced to the House of Representatives the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Real Time Disclosure of Political Donations) Bill 2019 (the Bill). The Bill sought to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, to "require the agent or financial controller of the party, branch or campaigner to advise the electoral commission of any donation received by the party, branch or campaigner that meets or exceeds the disclosure threshold". The Government's response to the recommendation of the Report follows below. Government Response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters: Advisory Report on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Real Time Disclosure of Political Donations) Bill 2019. Dissenting Report by Australian Greens __________ Australian Government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report: Second interim report on the inquiry into the conduct of the 2013 federal election: An assessment of electronic voting options MAY 2024 Introduction On 20 November 2014, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) tabled a report titled Second interim report on the inquiry into the conduct of the 2013 federal election: An assessment of electronic voting options. .The Government's response to the recommendations of the Report follows below. Second interim report on the inquiry into the conduct of the 2013 federal election: An assessment of electronic voting options The Government notes that there are no dissenting reports or recommendation. __________ Australian Government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report: The 2013 Federal Election: Report on all aspects of the conduct of the 2013 election and matters related thereto MAY 2024 Introduction On 15 April 2015, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) tabled a report titled The 2013 Federal Election: Report on the conduct of the 2013 election and matters related thereto. The Government's response to the recommendations of the Report follows below. Government Response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report: The 2013 Federal Election: Report on the conduct of the 2013 election and matters related thereto Dissenting Report by Australian Greens __________ Australian Government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report: Interim report on the inquiry into the conduct of the 2013 Federal Election: Senate voting practices MAY 2024 Introduction On 9 May 2014, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) tabled a report titled Interim report on the inquiry into the conduct of the 2013 Federal Election: Senate voting practices. The Government's response to the recommendations of the Report follows below. Government Response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters reports: Interim report on the inquiry into the conduct of the 2013 Federal Election: Senate voting practices __________ Australian Government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report: Report on the conduct of the 2016 federal election and matters related thereto MAY 2024 Introduction On 5 December 2018, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) tabled a report titled Report on the conduct of the 2016 federal election and matters related thereto. The Government's response to the recommendations of the Report follows below. Government Response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report: Report on the conduct of the 2016 federal election and matters related thereto The Government notes that there are no dissenting recommendations. __________ Australian Government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report: Report on the conduct of the 2019 federal election and matters related thereto MAY 2024 Introduction On 10 December 2020, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JCSEM) tabled a report titled Report on the conduct of the 2019 federal election and matters related thereto (the Report). The Government's response to the recommendations of the Report follows below. Government Response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report: Report on the conduct of the 2019 federal election and matters related thereto Dissenting report by Australian Greens Dissenting Report by Labor members Refer to recommendation 1 of the Majority report. __________ Australian Government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report: Excluded: The impact of section 44 on Australian democracy MAY 2024 Introduction On 17 May 2018, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) tabled a report titled Excluded: The impact of section 44 on Australian democracy. On 28 November 2017, the Prime Minister referred matters relating to section 44 of the Constitution for inquiry and report to the JSCEM, after a number of serving Senators and Members of Parliament were disqualified under section 44. The Government's response to the recommendations of the Report follows below. Government Response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report: Excluded: The impact of section 44 on Australian democracy Minority report by the Member for Tangney The Government notes the recommendations made by the Member for Tangney in the Minority report. __________ Australian Government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report: Third interim report on the inquiry into the conduct of the 2016 federal election: AEC modernisation MAY 2024 Introduction On 21 June 2017, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) tabled a report titled Third interim report on the inquiry into the conduct of the 2016 federal election: AEC modernisation. The Government's response to the recommendations of the Report follows below. Government Response to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters reports: Third interim report on the inquiry into the conduct of the 2016 federal election: AEC modernisation The Government notes that there are no dissenting reports or recommendations. __________ Australian Government response to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee report: Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 May 2024 Overview The Australian Government thanks the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee (the Committee) for its work in producing the report into the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021. The Australian Government notes that the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 passed both Houses on 23 June 2021 and received Royal Assent (Act no. 62) on 29 June 2021. The Australian Government's responses to the recommendations have been superseded by the release of Revive: a place for every story, a story for every place—Australia's cultural policy for the next five years, on 30 January 2023. Revive was developed through extensive consultation across the arts, entertainment and cultural sector. Revive is available at https://www.arts.gov.au/what-we-do/new-national-cultural-policy. Printed copies are available to the Committee on request. Australian Government response The Australian Government's response to Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (2021 Measures No. 1) Bill 2021 is set out in detail below. Recommendation 1: The committee recommends that Schedule 1 of the bill be withdrawn and that the Government expedites a response to the recent Media Reform Green Paper consultations and introduces measures to harmonise the regulatory framework for Australian content obligations. The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 2: The committee recommends that the Government considers mechanisms through which Australia can capture a greater share of post-production work for film and television projects produced in Australia. The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 3: The committee recommends that future iterations of the Regional and Small Publishers Innovation Fund, or similar funds established in the future, include a framework for an outcomes or effects test enabling the decision-maker to exercise discretion to award funding consistent with the intended outcome(s) of the program, despite an unintended technical non-compliance where the applicant would in all other regards be compliant and competitive. The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 4: The committee recommends that the amended bill be passed. The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. __________ Australian Government response to the Environment and Communications References Committee report: Participation of Australians in online poker May 2024 Overview The Australian Government notes the Environment and Communications References Committee (the committee) report into the Participation of Australians in online poker, which was tabled on 18 October 2017. Australian Government response The Australian Government's response to the committee's report is set out below. Recommendation 1: The committee commends the Australian Government's efforts to implement strong consumer protection measures, and harm minimisation strategies. The committee recommends that any future consideration of the legalisation of online poker should only occur following the complete implementation of the National Consumer Protection Framework. The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 2: The committee recommends that the Department of Social Services support research into the impact of regulatory approaches on online poker, including the relative benefits and harms associated with prohibition and legalisation. The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. __________ Australian Government response to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee Report: Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Banning Dirty Donations) Bill 2020 MAY 2024 Introduction On 16 March 2021, the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee) tabled a report titled Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Banning Dirty Donations Bill 2020 (2021). The Government's Response to the recommendations of the Report follows below. Government Response to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee report: Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Banning Dirty Donations Bill 2020 (2021). Dissenting Report by Australian Greens __________ Australian Government response to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee report: Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Donation Reform and Other Measures) Bill 2020 MAY 2024 Introduction On 3 December 2020, the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee tabled a report titled Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Donation Reform and Other Measures) Bill 2020. The Government's response to the recommendations of the Report follows below. Government Response to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee report: Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Donation Reform and Other Measures) Bill 2020. Dissenting report by Australian Greens Dissenting report by Jacqui Lambie Network __________ Australian Government response to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee report: Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Integrity of Elections) Bill 2021 MAY 2024 On 14 October 2021, the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee tabled a report titled Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Integrity of Elections) Bill 2021. The Government's response to the recommendations of the Report follows below. Dissenting report by Senator Malcolm Roberts __________ Australian Government Response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security Report: Advisory Report on the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2023 MAY 2024 The Government thanks the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security ('Committee') for its review of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation ('ASIO') Amendment Bill 2023 ('the Bill'). The Government provides the following responses to the Committee's recommendations Recommendation 1 The Committee recommends that the Explanatory Memorandum for the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2023 be amended or a supplementary Explanatory Memorandum presented specifying that notwithstanding the Bill's authority to delegate functions and powers to ASIO affiliates, human sources or agents will not be used to undertake security vetting. The Government accepts the Committee's recommendation. Amendment to the Bill's Explanatory Memorandum The Government prepared and presented to the House a replacement Explanatory Memorandum for the Bill that implemented Recommendation 1. The replacement Explanatory Memorandum specified that notwithstanding the Bill's authority to delegate functions and powers to ASIO affiliates, ASIO's human sources or agents will not be involved in the undertaking of security vetting. A copy of the replacement Explanatory Memorandum is attached. Recommendation 2 The Committee recommends that following implementation of the recommendation in this report, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2023 be passed by Parliament. The Government accepts the Committee's recommendation. The Bill passed both Houses of Parliament on 22 June 2023 and received royal assent on 28 June 2023. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Act 2023 commenced on 1 July 2023. __________ Australian Government response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security Report: National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 3) Bill 2023 MAY 2024 Australian Government Response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security Report Advisory Report on the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 3) Bill 2023 The Government thanks the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security ('Committee') for its Advisory Report on the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 3) Bill 2023. The Government provides the following responses to the Committee's recommendations Recommendations Recommendation 1: The Committee recommends that, following the entry into effect of the new notification provisions in Part 3 of Schedule 1 and Part 2 of Schedule 4 of the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 3) Bill 2023, ASIO include in its Annual Report all instances where it has notified the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security about delayed security assessments, delayed security clearance decisions or delayed security clearance suitability assessments. Response: The Government agrees to this recommendation. The Government notes that reporting will remain consistent with ASIO's approach to releasing information about its activities through their annual report. This approach balances the need for transparency against the risk of compromising national security through the inclusion of classified appendices, which are provided to the Minister for Home Affairs, the Leader of the Opposition, the Committee, the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security the and the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (INSLM). Recommendation 2: The Committee recommends that the Government review all forms, guidance materials and other relevant documentation and advice made available to individuals about security assessment and security clearance processes, to ensure that all applicants are made aware of their right to make a complaint to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security in relation to same. Response: The Government agrees to this recommendation. Recommendation 3: The Committee recommends that, in respect of the inclusion of the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD) in the proposed new cover employment provisions in the Intelligence Services Act 2001 in Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 3) Bill 2023: the Explanatory Memorandum be amended to include information as to ASD's inclusion and remove reference to Recommendation 70 of the Comprehensive Review; and ASD report to the Committee, as part of the Committee's 2023-24 annual review of ASD's administration and expenditure, on its development, implementation and use of cover arrangements, including justification for their use by staff or particular subsets of staff, and safeguards to ensure that use of cover is necessary and proportionate. Response: The Government agrees to this recommendation. Recommendation 4: The Committee recommends that the Government consider aligning the proposed amendments to the Intelligence Services Act 2001 and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 secrecy offences contained in Parts 2 and 4 of Schedule 2 with recommendations that may be relevant from the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor's review into secrecy offence legislation, pending the timing of completion of that review and passage of this legislation. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. The Government will consider any recommendations made by the INSLM's review of the secrecy offences in Part 5.6 of the Criminal Code when that review is completed. Recommendation 5: The Committee recommends that, following implementation of the recommendations in this report, the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 3) Bill 2023 be passed by the Parliament. Response: The Government agrees to this recommendation. __________ Australian Government response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security report: Review of Part 14 of the Telecommunications Act 1997—Telecommunications Sector Security Reforms APRIL 2024 Recommendations Recommendation 1: The Committee recommends that the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications and the Cyber and Infrastructure Security Centre within the Department of Home Affairs, conduct a joint environmental analysis of current national and international telecommunications markets and networks. This information can then be used to guide future security of critical infrastructure legislative reform related to telecommunications, as well as Telecommunications Sector Security Reform resources. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 2: The Committee recommends that section 3 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 be amended to add an object of the act ensuring the security of telecommunications networks and their architecture from cyber and other security threats. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 3: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government give consideration to the establishment of a telecommunications security working group comprised of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, and Communications, the Department of Home Affairs, major telecommunications carriers and carriage service providers, and the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and the Australian Signals Directorate (when appropriate). Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 4: The Committee recommends that the working group established as a result of Recommendation 3 be tasked with scoping agreed carrier licence conditions, service provider rules, and codes and standards for security of networks and systems. These can then be used to guide the resources to be produced by that group and inform directions or information gathering powers exercisable by the Minister for Home Affairs under the existing provisions of Part 14 of the Telecommunications Act 1997. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 5: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government give consideration to establishing a dedicated telecommunications security threat sharing forum, to enable the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and Australian Signal Directorate to brief telecommunications stakeholders about ongoing and emerging threats to the maximum classified level possible. This forum could be a new group established under the Trusted Information Sharing Network or could be an adjunct group to the existing Communications Sector Group already established under that network, or the working group created as a result of Recommendation 3 of this report. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 6: The Committee recommends that the working group established as a result of Recommendation 3 of this report be consulted to reach an agreed position regarding any duplicated security obligations that may be activated under an amended Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 before they are activated. If agreed, and once activated, the duplicated obligations or other mechanisms in Part 14 of the Telecommunications Act 1997 should be repealed, or deactivated by relevant mechanisms, so as to avoid regulatory duplication on telecommunications entities. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. __________ Australian Government response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security Advisory report on the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure) Bill 2020 and Statutory Review of the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 APRIL 2024 Recommendations Recommendation 1: The Committee recommends that the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure) Bill 2020 be split in two, so that the urgent elements of the reforms contained within the government assistance measures in proposed Part 3A, with the definitions and meanings of expanded critical infrastructure sectors and assets, and other enabling provisions contained within proposed amendments to Part 1, Part 2B, Part 4, Part 5 and Schedule 2 of the current Bill, be retained, amended in line with the principles outlined in paragraph 3.18 of this report, and legislated in the shortest time possible (Bill One). Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 2: The Committee recommends that proposed Part 2B of the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure) Bill 2020 be retained in Bill One, and that Part be amended to extend the requirement under proposed section 30BC for formal written notification to be made by an affected entity within 84 hours if an initial oral notification is given when a critical cyber security incident is having a significant impact on the availability of the critical infrastructure asset the entity is responsible for; and that proposed sections 30BC and 30BD be amended to allow for an entity and the relevant Commonwealth body to agree that a written notification is not required for an incident, if upon investigation it is agreed that the incident does not meet the requirement of an incident or does not have the defined impact outcome. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 3: The Committee recommends that the rules to be designed for the purposes of amended Part 2B of the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure) Bill 2020 be developed in consultation with relevant entities and incorporated into explanatory material to Bill One. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 4: The Committee recommends that Bill One include a provision that as soon as practicably after a government assistance measure is directed or requested the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security be notified in writing about the circumstances, actions, status and parties involved in each measure used relative to any cyber security incident. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 5: The Committee recommends that, subject to the amendments outlined above, the resultant Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure) Bill (Bill One) be passed. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 6: The Committee recommends that the Cyber and Infrastructure Security Centre within the Department of Home Affairs, be reformed to additionally provide technical support and advice regarding the functions of Bill One. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 7: The Committee recommends that the remaining non-urgent elements of the current Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure) Bill 2020 not recommended for inclusion in Bill One, be deferred and amended into a separate Bill (Bill Two) in line with the principles outlined in paragraph 3.49. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 8: The Committee recommends that Bill Two be amended in consultation with key stakeholders, released for feedback and with further consultation on incorporated amendments based on that feedback, prior to being reintroduced to Parliament. Once reintroduced, Bill Two should be referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security for review, with a concurrent review of the operation to date of the amendments to the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 resulting from Bill One. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 9: The Committee recommends that any rules to be designed under Bill Two be co-designed, agreed and finalised to the extent possible before the introduction of that Bill and made available as part of the explanatory material for the Bill. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 10: The Committee recommends that proposed Schedule 2 of the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure) Bill 2020 be amended in accordance with the principles outlined in paragraph 3.62 and included as part of Bill One. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 11: The Committee recommends that subsection 13A(2) of the Intelligence Services Act 2001 be amended to restrict cooperation or assistance provided by an agency under that Act to agencies or other bodies by regulation outlined in subsection 13A(1) only to the functions and extent authorised by other Commonwealth legislation. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 12: The Committee recommends the Government review the risks to democratic institutions, particularly from foreign originated cyber-threats, with a view to developing the most appropriate mechanism to protect them at Federal, State and local levels. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 13: The Committee recommends the Government review the processes and protocols for classified briefings for the Opposition during caretaker periods in response to serious cyber-incidents, and consider the best practice principles for any public announcement about those incidents. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 14: The Committee recommends that the Bill One include a provision that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security may conduct a review of the operation, effectiveness and implications of the reformed security of critical infrastructure legislative framework contained within the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 not less than three years from when that Bill receives Royal Assent. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. __________ Australian Government response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security Advisory report on the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure Protection) Bill 2022 APRIL 2024 Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure Protection) Bill 2022 Recommendations Recommendation 1: The Committee recommends that the Department of Home Affairs and the Cyber and Infrastructure Security Centre establish a fresh round of consultation with critical infrastructure industry representatives, relevant employee representative bodies, and trade unions to enable further feedback to be incorporated into the draft Rules for risk management programs under the proposed amendments. This consultation can ensure that the timeframes established in the Rules for implementation and commencement of said Rules is agreed and may vary for specific assets. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 2: The Committee recommends that the Department of Home Affairs and the Cyber and Infrastructure Security Centre continue industry roundtables for review and improvement of the Rules and guidance materials in alignment with the undertakings identified in its submission, in public hearing evidence, and in accordance with Recommendation 6 of the Advisory report on the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure) Bill 2020 and Statutory Review of the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 . These roundtables can also be used for continued review of the 'fit for purpose' nature of sector and asset definitions to inform further potential legislative amendment or Ministerial declarations. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 3: The Committee recommends that section 60 of the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 be amended to require the Minister to provide a written periodic report to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security regarding the conduct, progress and outcomes of ongoing consultations undertaken by the Department of Home Affairs or Cyber and Infrastructure Security Centre in relation to the expanded provisions included in the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure Protection) Bill 2022 as well as those enabled by the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure) Act 2021 . These reports should include detail regarding the participants involved and how stakeholder feedback has been incorporated into resultant rules, resources or proposed regulation or legislative change. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 4: The Committee recommends that the Explanatory Memorandum to the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure Protection) Bill 2022 be updated to confirm that the Bill does not negate responsibilities of employers under the Fair Work Act 2009 , Work Health and Safety legislation, or any other currently legally mandated or protected action. This should include the detail that an employee who is subject to action as a result of an employer's background check, AusCheck or otherwise, is protected by all existing rights at work, such as the right to appeal a decision with the Fair Work Tribunal. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 5: The Committee recommends that the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure Protection) Bill 2022 be amended so that section 5 of the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 include the definitions of critical worker and critical component as currently proposed in the Security of Critical Infrastructure (Critical infrastructure risk management program) Rules (LIN 22/018) 2022. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 6: The Committee recommends that the Explanatory Memorandum for the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure Protection) Bill 2022 be amended at current paragraphs 461 to 540, as per the undertaking from representatives of the Department of Home Affairs at the Public Hearing of 16 March 2022, to clarify the circumstances and scope of the intended operation of Part 2C, Division 5 of the Bill, and outlining that the Department and the Australian Signals Directorate will work proactively with a proposed Part 6 systems of national significance declared entity to avoid the imposition of section 30DJ notices wherever possible. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 7: The Committee recommends that proposed subsection 52B(3) of the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure Protection) Bill 2022 be amended to include a provision that after a critical infrastructure asset is declared as a system of national significance by the Minister, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security be notified in writing within 30 days, in the appropriately classified manner, identifying the asset sector and entity details, to the extent negotiated with the entity in regard to capability sensitivities. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 8: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government consider establishing a legislative basis for merits review for some or all of the decisions exercised by the Minister or Department of Home Affairs officials under the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 and the proposed amendments contained in the Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure Protection) Bill 2022, noting the economic and operational implications of such decisions on Australian businesses. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 9: The Committee recommends that, subject to the amendments outlined above, the resultant Security Legislation Amendment (Critical Infrastructure Protection) Bill 2022 be passed. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 10: The Committee recommends that the government commission an independent review of the operation of the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 after one year of operation after the Bill receives Royal Assent. This review must report within one year of its commencement to the Minister for Home Affairs, who must then present the report to Parliament within 30 days and cause it to be made publicly available. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 11: The Committee recommends that section 60A of the Security of Critical Infrastructure Act 2018 be repealed, to remove any confusion regarding the status of pending statutory reviews of the Act. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. __________ Australian Government response to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee report: Migration (Validation of Port Appointments) Bill 2018 APRIL 2024 Recommendations Recommendation 1: 2.52 The committee recommends that the bill be passed. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Labor Party Senators' Dissenting Report Recommendation 1: Labor Senators recommend that anyone who is affected by this bill, in a manner set out in paragraph 1.10 above, should be protected in the transitional provisions of the Bill and allowed to exercise their rights without interference from this bill. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 2: Labor Senators recommend that any amendment should allow for a further period of time in which people can pursue their claim for protection. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Recommendation 3: Labor Senators recommend that the Minister for Home Affairs and his Department urgently contact all affected individuals. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. Australian Greens Dissenting Report Recommendation 1: 1.12 The Australian Greens recommend that the bill not be passed. Response: The Government notes this recommendation. However, given the passage of time since the report was tabled, a substantive Government response is no longer appropriate. __________ Australian Government response to the Select Committee into the Political Influence of Donations report: Political Influence of Donations MAY 2024 On 6 June 2018, the Select Committee into the Political Influence of Donations tabled a report titled Political Influence of Donations. The Government's response to the recommendations of the Report follows below. Government Response to the Select Committee into the Political Influence of Donations report: Political Influence of Donations __________ Australian Government response to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee report: Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023 March 2024 Introduction The Australian Government welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee report: Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023, tabled on 30 August 2023. Animal welfare is important to the Australian community, which expects robust oversight, accountability and transparency of animal welfare in livestock exports. The Inspector- General of Live Animal Exports Amendment (Animal Welfare) Bill 2023 reinforces the government's commitment to strengthening animal welfare by expanding the current office of the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports to provide enhanced focus on animal welfare. This Bill, together with the funding that we have already committed through the October 2022-23 Budget to expand this office, delivers on our 2022 election commitment. The additional objects and functions proposed in this Bill will help to increase oversight, accountability and transparency for animal welfare in exported livestock, and delivers on the government's commitment to strengthening animal welfare. The Australian Government's response to the report is set out below. The response addresses the recommendation of the Committee and the additional comments provided by the Australian Greens Senators. Recommendation 1 The committee recommends that the Senate pass the bill. Response The Australian Government supports this recommendation. Australian Greens Senators additional comments Recommendation 1 The bill should be amended to provide that the Inspector-General has oversight of all Commonwealth Government regulation of animal welfare. Response The Australian Government does not support this recommendation. The Bill already provides for the oversight of animal welfare regulation by the Commonwealth where it has clear responsibilities regarding the export of live animals. Expanding its scope risks duplicating existing requirements detailed in various other legislation and policies at the state, territory and Commonwealth level with the attendant risks of obsolescence, inconsistency or unintended legislative consequences. It is noted that the Australian Greens additional comments reference the domestic harvesting of kangaroos for commercial purposes, which is a clear state and territory responsibility. The government has been careful to ensure that this Bill clearly relates to Commonwealth statutory responsibilities and functions under the Export Control Act 2020. Recommendation 2 The bill should be amended to recognise animal sentience in law. Response The Australian Government does not support this recommendation. Promoting or recognising animal sentience within Commonwealth law and practice is not appropriate for this Bill or a suitable role for an Inspector-General. The core role of the Inspector-General will be to monitor, investigate and report on the development of animal welfare standards and the implementation of live animal export legislation. The role is one of assuring the Commonwealth's livestock exports systems. Recommendation 3 The bill should be amended to require that the Inspector-General have expertise in animal welfare science, animal welfare law, or animal welfare policy. Response The Australian Government does not support this recommendation. The role of the Inspector-General is to oversee the regulator. The key responsibility of the Inspector-General is to monitor, investigate and report on the development of animal welfare standards and the implementation of live animal export legislation. In doing so, the Inspector-General plays a critical function in promoting continual improvements in the regulatory practice, performance and culture of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in its role as the regulator of animal welfare and export legislation and standards in relation to the export of livestock. This is entirely consistent with how other Inspector-General legislation operates. It is not considered appropriate for primary legislation to place prescriptive constraints on the qualification of the Inspector-General, because it may unnecessarily hinder the selection process for the most suitable candidate. A full selection process will be undertaken to appoint the new Inspector-General. This process is intended to find a person who has suitable qualifications, experience and expertise in both animal welfare and live animal export regulation. Public consultation indicated that post-graduate veterinary or animal welfare science qualifications, in addition to relevant industry experience and professional memberships, are desirable. If, however, the Inspector-General judged it necessary or appropriate, specialist expertise may be engaged to provide any additional expertise required. The Bill explicitly provides that the Inspector-General may consult relevant experts to assist in the performance of the Inspector-General's duties. This ensures that the Inspector- General has the means to seek expertise where it is judged necessary. Recommendation 4 The bill should be amended to require the Inspector-General to disclose any conflicts of interest that conflict or could conflict with the proper performance of their functions. Response The Australian Government does not support this recommendation. Under the arrangements already in place in legislation, officials of a Commonwealth entity—who have a material personal interest in the affairs of an entity—must positively disclose details of the interest. This applies to the occupant of the Inspector-General role. In addition, section 22 of the Inspector-General of Live Animal Exports Act 2019, provides the Minister with the ability to terminate the Inspector-General if they do not comply with the accountability requirements of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013. Recommendation 5 A national Independent Office of Animal Welfare should be established to develop, implement and oversee Commonwealth regulation of animal welfare in Australia. Response The Australian Government does not support this recommendation. The establishment of an Independent Office of Animal Welfare is not a matter relevant to this Bill or a suitable role for an Inspector-General. Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee 113 Report 113 16:58 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the report. As Deputy Chair of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I rise to speak on the draft budget statement for the ANAO and the PBO, which was tabled earlier on my behalf. The committee is required under the Public Accounts and Audit Committee Act and the Parliamentary Services Act to consider the draft budget estimates of the ANAO and the PBO respectively, and to make recommendations to both houses of parliament regarding these estimates. This statement, required of the committee in advance of the budget being handed down, is an important transparency measure that informs the parliament and the public on the adequacy of the ANAO's and the PBO's resourcing. The committee considers both offices vital in supporting the work of this parliament and in strengthening integrity and transparency in public administration. The committee has very carefully scrutinised the ANAO's and the PBO's draft budget estimates and has resolved to endorse them, subject to further review of the costings and final estimates which may be agreed with the Department of Finance. The ANAO has previously received additional funding in both the 2021-22 and 2023-24 budgets to address the immediate cost pressures. However, for the current budget cycle, there are no requests for further future funding. Yet, according to its budget submission to the committee, the ANAO anticipates the need for additional funding in the future to fulfil its legislative obligations and other outputs under the present framework, primarily due to the cumulative impact of the efficiency dividend. Over successive parliamentary terms, the committee has grappled with the ANAO's long-term financial sustainability as well as the associated risk to its operational independence and its ability to fulfil its statutory roles adequately. While the ANAO can rely on accumulated reserves for the upcoming financial year, ongoing discussions have revealed that the unsustainability of its current financial model needs to be addressed. Despite their investments in technology and internal capabilities to enhance efficiency and reduce costs, the ANAO faces challenges in accommodating the cumulative impact of the efficiency dividend, particularly in its performance audit program. The committee believes that the efficiency dividend should not be applied to the ANAO. While it is a reasonable tool for executive government to allocate resources elsewhere, evidence indicates that the ANAO cannot handle its cumulative impact without compromising its performance and audit program into the future. Its output should not fall below the number of audits that we've agreed on a bipartisan basis to be optimal, which is 48 performance audits per annum. For decades, this cycle has ensured that the ANAO faces budget deficits every few years, leading to cuts in the performance audit program. Eventually the government of the day provides supplementary funding, sometimes amid political tension. The ANAO itself estimates that the cumulative impact of the efficiency dividend from 2014-15 to 2027-28 will be $10.9 million. This issue is not new. As far back as 2008, the JCPAA highlighted the ANAO's critical role in saving billions of dollars of taxpayer money and improving agency performance. The committee strongly recommends that the ANAO be excluded from any future efficiency dividends to maintain the performance audit program at its agreed upon level. The Parliament Budget Office estimates its expenses for 2024-25 to be $10.37 million. The committee observes from the PBO's portfolio budget statement, particularly in the 'Strategic direction' section, that the expected resourcing for 2024-25 will pose challenges for the PBO in maintaining service levels for parliamentarians' requests and fulfilling its publication and election related duties. I think all in this chamber and in the other place would agree that the Parliamentary Budget Office now provides an essential tool to all parliamentarians. The committee has also long recognised that the primary ongoing budgetary challenges for the PBO stem from sustained increases in demand for its work across the parliament, particularly requested by those in this and the other place. The increased demand for their work, alongside the depletion of their special appropriations fund, from an initial $6 million to $1.8 million, indicates that the PBO will be required to have more parliamentary supplementation. While the PBO should continue meeting most of its financial needs from its departmental appropriation, the special fund serves as a crucial buffer for managing risks to its operational independence and covering unforeseen costs, especially given the heightened demand for its services in recent years. Although the committee has previously supported replenishing this fund in past budgets, it acknowledges recent advice from the Department of Finance indicating that, as it was originally intended to aid the PBO during its establishment phase only, obtaining additional funding would require a new policy proposal from the government. In conclusion, the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit reaffirms its steadfast support for the PBO and its crucial role in furnishing valuable information and analysis to all parliamentarians, enriching public debate. I thank the acting Auditor-General, Ms Rona Mellor PSM, and the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Mr Stein Helgeby, for their work in support of the parliament and the JCPAA. I thank committee members for their thoughtful and detailed consideration of these budget requests. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee 114 Government Response to Report 114 17:04 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland In respect of the government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report Strengthening Australia's relationships in the Pacific, I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I'm pleased to rise to speak on the government's response, and I thank the committee for its report and welcome the parliament's broader focus on Australia's engagement with the Pacific. I thank the government for its consideration of these recommendations in the interests of strengthening Australia's relationship with the Pacific. As the then chair of the committee, Senator Dave Sharma, noted in his foreword: Australia's relationships with the nations of the Pacific are of enduring importance. They are underpinned by a long shared history, common values, strong ties between peoples, and a natural empathy. Since day one of this government, strengthening Australia's relationship with our Pacific family has been one of the highest foreign policy priorities. After only four days in office, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator the Hon. Penny Wong, stood at the heart of the Pacific Islands Forum in Suva, Fiji. Senator Wong had travelled to Fiji to make clear the government's commitment to the Pacific—that this government would be a government that listened, that this government would respect the wisdom, knowledge and experience of Pacific leaders and that this government would act in the best collective interests of the blue Pacific continent. In September 2018, the Pacific Islands Forum issued the Boe declaration. This foundational document reaffirmed Pacific leaders' collective view that climate change remains the single greatest threat to the livelihoods, security and wellbeing of the peoples of the Pacific. Climate change is not an abstract threat to the Pacific; it is an existential one. I thank the committee for recognising the threat climate change poses to livelihoods, security and wellbeing. The committee recommended support for climate change mitigation and adaptation, which continues to be a high priority in Australia's immediate regional assistance program. The government has accepted this recommendation. This is why the Albanese government made tackling climate change at home and in the Pacific a cornerstone of its approach to the Pacific. Within this decade, 82 per cent of Australia's electricity generation will be renewable. The government have committed over $40 billion to transform our economy and deliver our ambition to become a renewable energy superpower, including $18 billion in investment in low-emissions technologies under the government's Technology Investment Roadmap. It's a huge transition, but the government is getting on with the job. In the Pacific, the government have strengthened our commitment to providing much-needed climate finance and has pledged to spend $700 million over five years to strengthen climate change and disaster resilience in the Pacific. The government is set to exceed this commitment. The government has rejoined the Green Climate Fund with a $50 million contribution and pledged $100 million to the Pacific resilience fund, the first ever Pacific led, Pacific owned community resilience finance facility. And, at the 52nd meeting of the Pacific Islands Forum, the government announced a package of climate assistance to the region, including at least $350 million in climate resilience infrastructure, with at least $75 million in off-grid and community-scale renewable energy in remote and rural parts of the Pacific. The government has committed, as part of the International Development Policy, to ensure that 50 per cent of all new bilateral and regional investments, valued at more than $3 million, will have a climate outcome by 2024-25, increasing to 80 per cent by 2028. The government's transformational approach to climate change has been warmly welcomed by the Pacific and is making a huge difference at home and in the region. The committee had the insight and vision to recognise the valuable contribution the Pacific diaspora plays in Australia, enriching our communities and strengthening our already strong people-to-people links with the Pacific. The committee recommended the government consider creating a dedicated Pacific component within Australia's permanent migration intake, similar to the New Zealand model. The government also recognise the importance of growing our Pacific diaspora and deepening our ties with the Pacific family by encouraging migration to Australia. This is why the Australian government has introduced the Pacific engagement visa. The PEV, as it's called, has been designed to grow the Pacific and Timor-Leste diasporas in Australia and encourage greater cultural business and educational exchange. The PEV is a substantial expression of the special relationship Australia has with the Pacific, helping address the underrepresentation of these countries in Australia's permanent migration program. There are up to 3,000 visas, inclusive of partners and dependent children, which will be allocated annually. These are due to commence on 3 June, and the PEV will be a game changer for Australia's relationships with the Pacific. I welcome the bipartisan approach that the committee took in its inquiry on strengthening Australia's relationships in the Pacific. I appreciate the effort that went into providing thoughtful and considered recommendations that were agreed by the full membership of the committee for the government to consider, and I welcome the government's leadership in responding to the committee's call for greater action on climate change and an initiative to grow the Pacific diaspora in Australia. What I cannot understand is why the coalition continues to disrespect the Pacific, ignoring recommendations of its own committee members. The committee recognises the folly of ignoring the threat of climate change, of ignoring the priority the Pacific places on tackling the single greatest threat to its livelihood, security and prosperity. Yet for nine long years the Liberals and Nationals disrespected our Pacific family. It was the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, who made jokes about water lapping at the doors of Pacific countries. Some in the coalition still don't believe climate change is even real. The coalition continues to put forward policies which are detached from reality, seeking to build expensive nuclear reactors in backyards across the country instead of taking real action to embrace renewables and transform Australia's energy market. What's more, despite the support of coalition members on the committee, the coalition has continued to obstruct the government's efforts to build our Pacific diaspora. They know that, as competition in the region intensifies, Australia's natural advantage lies in our people and our community's access to labour markets and stronger cultural business connections. Yet they still refuse to listen to our Pacific family. While the PEV has been warmly welcomed by our Pacific partners, it is very disappointing to see those opposite refusing to support it. But it's really not surprising. We know that those opposite dropped the ball when it came to the Pacific and failed to ensure that Australia remained a partner of choice. What beggars belief is that this visa system with the ballot was originally their idea. The Liberal-chaired committee recommended a dedicated Pacific migration intake modelled on the New Zealand ballot—and Senator Fawcett was on this committee at the time. They recommended a ballot in government, and now they're opposing it in opposition. That tells you all you need to know about the seriousness with which they treat our national interest. They continue to prioritise negativity and division over building a stronger Pacific family, and they're not even trying to be consistent in their relentless negativity. The opposition has ridiculed the idea of a ballot despite the fact that our closest friends in New Zealand and the United States have been using a ballot system for decades. It's argued that our model will lead to a brain drain, despite a ballot being the very best way to ensure equitable access regardless of skill level, directly mitigating this concern. Their approach is not about facts at all. It's about fear. It's not about Australia's national interest. It's about the personal political interests of Mr Peter Dutton and Mr Dan Tehan. If those opposite were serious about ensuring Australia remains the partner of choice in a more contested region, they would listen to members on the committee and get on board with delivering these recommendations. In delivering the government's response to the committee report today, the government has yet again demonstrated its commitment to the Pacific. This is a government that listens. This is a government that values the wisdom, knowledge and experience of our Pacific leaders. And this is a government that will act in the best collective interests of the blue Pacific continent. I recommend the coalition get on board with the vision and the leadership of its members on this committee and start working in the best interests of Australia and of the Pacific. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 Senator Green, do you wish to seek leave to continue your remarks or just to move to take note of the document? Senator GREEN 259819 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee 115 Report 115 17:13 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I'm going to do my best to be very quick, because I know other people want to contribute, so in the spirit of collegiality I'll try and be as quick as I can. I rise to take note of the report from the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee in relation to a terms of reference for a COVID-19 royal commission. I want to make a few quick points following on from Senator Roberts's contribution. Why do we need a royal commission? We need a royal commission for four reasons: first, for the powers of a royal commission. Royal commissions have powers which other Commonwealth inquiries or any other inquiries do not have in terms of requiring witnesses to appear and requiring the production of documents. The Commonwealth inquiry that's been established simply does not have those powers. Second, we need a royal commission, hopefully with the participation of the Commonwealth and the states and territories so we have a royal commission which can consider the interaction between the Commonwealth and the states and territories with respect to the government response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Third, independence. A royal commission is necessarily independent from executive government. One of the concerning things about the Commonwealth inquiry that's currently underway is it's supported by a taskforce out of Prime Minister and Cabinet. I am not for a moment suggesting that the people involved in that taskforce would do anything other than, in good faith, seek to assist that Commonwealth inquiry. However, a royal commission is independent and is also perceived to be independent—and that is absolutely critical. The fourth reason why we need a royal commission is the current Commonwealth inquiry specifically excludes decisions that were unilateral decisions of state governments. We have the farcical situation where the current Commonwealth inquiry can look at mental health support provided for people who suffered from lockdowns et cetera but can't look at the efficacy of those lockdowns in the first place and whether or not they were best practice—so there is a disconnect there. We are only looking at half the story, and that is not best practice. Lastly, I thank all those who gave evidence to the inquiry. In particular I thank Dr Scott Prasser, an expert on royal commissions, for his support to the inquiry. I also thank the witnesses who shared deeply personal experiences. I want to quote, in conclusion, a paragraph from the wonderful representatives of the Redfern Legal Centre, in terms of what they saw during the COVID-19 response: Many of my clients were in tears in trying to keep up with and understand rapidly changing public health orders … These clients ranged from a mother whose son with a diagnosed intellectual disability was issued with three separate COVID fines worth $1,000 each— Just reflect on that. That is what was happening in our society— and an elderly couple, one partner with dementia, fined for being at the supermarket together because one partner could not stay at home by herself. Can you imagine? This elderly gentleman who took his wife to the supermarket because she suffered from dementia was fined because only one person was allowed to go to the supermarket. These people, these Australians, deserve to have the opportunity to tell their stories, and the Australian people deserve the opportunity for our country to learn lessons from how we managed the COVID-19 pandemic. Question agreed to. Supermarket Prices Select Committee 116 Report 116 17:19 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the report. Coles and Woolworths have been making billions in profits by price gouging in a cost-of-living crisis. For far too long, the big supermarkets have taken advantage of the grossly excessive market power they've been allowed to accumulate under successive Labor and Liberal governments. This has allowed them to dictate prices and to set terms, raking in billions in excess profits at the expense of suppliers and consumers. The Greens established the Senate Select Committee on Supermarket Prices because, unlike Labor, we are absolutely focused on bringing food and grocery prices down. The committee heard from people about skipping meals, dumpster diving and eating unhealthy foods just to get by. It heard from farmers who are being screwed over, in some cases being paid what they were 15 years ago. The message was clear: Coles and Woolworths have exploited their massive, unchallenged market power to profiteer at the expense of the health and wellbeing of millions of Australians. The committee has recommended that price gouging be made illegal, which would mean that corporations could no longer arbitrarily increase prices without facing consequences from the courts. The committee has also recommended divestiture powers for the supermarket sector, which would give the Federal Court the power to break up corporations when they abuse their market power or act unconscionably. Without the ability to break up the duopoly, our market will remain skewed toward the interests of a few powerful players, and nothing will change. A responsible government would not allow the accumulation of massive corporate profits to take precedence over the interests of the Australian people, but, as Australians now understand, this is not a responsible government. A responsible government would not brag about banking a $9 billion surplus while three million Australians, including one in six children, live in poverty in this country. A responsible government would not tinker around the edges of the welfare system while income support and pension payments are below the poverty line, ignoring the recommendations of its own committee. A responsible government wouldn't be wasting nearly $400 billion on submarines while public schools and the public health system teeter on the brink. And a responsible government wouldn't spend $30 billion a year on handouts to property speculators while public housing supply dwindles and millions of people continue to remain in housing stress. A responsible government wouldn't be giving CEOs, billionaires and politicians a $4,500-a-year tax cut while 52,000 women facing domestic violence are turned away from legal services every year. If Labor really was a responsible government, it would stop supermarket corporations ruthlessly using their market power to gouge prices while raking in billions of dollars in profits. There is a Greens bill in the parliament right now which would create divestiture powers and sap these rapacious corporations of their unchecked power. The only thing standing in the way of that bill is the Labor Party. 17:24 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia The Greens set up a Senate inquiry into supermarkets to get some concrete steps to stop supermarkets' record profits while so many are living and struggling through a cost-of-living crisis. To quote directly from the inquiry: The inquiry received overwhelming evidence that everyday Australians are increasingly struggling to afford to buy food as the price of groceries have skyrocketed in the last few years. The government needs to break up Coles and Woolworths. These massive corporations are squeezing us for every dollar that they can get and acting in simply unconscionable ways on a mission to make profits while people are crunching numbers and trying to survive in the middle of this cost-of-living crisis. In Western Australia, people are having to choose between rent and food. It has gotten this bad because both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party have taken donations from these corporations and then allowed these same corporations to do whatever they like when it comes to pricing the very food that we need to survive. It is a perverse and unjust system. The cost is measured in the hunger that grows in our communities and in parents having to choose to skip meals to make sure that their kids have fresh food for their lunch boxes at school. We need to talk very clearly about the fact that both sides of politics, for decades, have allowed the shareholders, the billionaires, and the owners and managers of these corporations to aggressively and parasitically monopolise the food creation and distribution market in this country. Farmers have suffered, as they have been squeezed terribly, trying to make ends meet. There is a mental health crisis among farming communities because entire farms are going to the bank and are being sold off because you can't make money if Coles and Woolworths won't pay for what you are producing. The distributors are driven out of business because the corporate competitors that are backed up and owned by Coles and Woolworths are able to bid for the job far lower than it costs to do it to drive their competitors out of business. The small distributors and retailers trying to actually provide fresh nutritious food to their communities are driven out. They can't get any retail space, because, if they go into a space and try to sell some food, Coles and Woolies are already in there and they've scored a deal to be the only one selling food to that community. It results in parents, in students, in disabled people and in people across communities not being able to eat. They're working from 11 o'clock one night through to eight o'clock the next morning, and, when they come home and look at a frozen lasagne in the fridge as the only thing that's there, they wonder: 'What is the point of going to work the next day? What is the point of everything I just did if I can't even put fresh food in the fridge?' Now we need this parliament to take this issue seriously. We need this government to take this issue seriously. If the government wants to actually join with the Greens and the community in taking action right now, if they want to put their money where their mouth is as they wring their hands this evening and trot out their lines about the cost-of-living crisis that so many people are experiencing in this country, then they should get on board with the Greens' bill to give the government the power to break these corporations up and to introduce actual competition into the system. You should actually work with the Greens to drive the corporate donations out of this place that have so successfully bound the hands and gagged the mouths of so many ministers and politicians in this place. And, while you're at it, clamp down on these unfair trading practices. It is not okay that these two companies run this system in this way. It does not meet the expectations of the Australian people. Join us, the Greens, in doing something about it—in actually ensuring that fresh, nutritious food can be delivered to Australian communities. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Economics References Committee 118 Report 118 17:30 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales In respect of the interim report of the inquiry conducted by the Senate Economics References Committee into retirement outcomes, dealing particularly with existing and proposed superannuation for housing policies, I move: That the Senate take note of the report. The reason we commissioned this particular report and are conducting this inquiry is that we are looking at all the options to try and solve the nation's housing crisis. We don't have a closed mind. We're not against any particular solution, because we are not in the business of closing our minds to certain ideas. I believe that the nation is much the poorer for a policy debate where political parties cannot— Senator BRAGG 256063 Sorry, what was that? Were you referring to me? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Senator Bragg, you are required to address your comments through the chair. Senator BRAGG 256063 Sorry. I thought I heard something. The point I was trying to make is that it is very regrettable when a political party is not able to consider a reasonable solution because it is beholden to vested interests. I don't think the parliament needs a lecture from anyone as to the importance of housing for younger people. If you look at any survey of people under the age of 40, they'll nominate housing as a major issue. That does not discriminate between whether you are a renter, you are a mortgage holder or you are a prospective buyer. It doesn't matter what your status is; it is a huge issue. That is why we thought it was important to look at the superannuation issues here. The government has had almost two years in office. It identified housing as a problem when it came in. It has cooked up a housing target of 1.2 million houses, which no-one believes that they will meet. The Premier of New South Wales, Mr Minns, has laughed at these targets. He says that New South Wales will never comply with these targets. Furthermore, the solution that Labor rolled out at their campaign launch in the last federal election was known to us all as the federal Help to Buy scheme. This is a scheme that would provide 10,000 houses. If you're admitting that you need to provide 1.2 million houses, 10,000 houses is barely going to touch the sides. Of course, the problem with Help to Buy is that it is part of a broader theme that Labor has deployed on housing, and that is that it has given up on individual homeownership. Labor has adopted, in this term, a policy of corporate homeownership. Their solution to the housing crisis is to call in their mates—the super funds and the foreign fund managers—and say to them, 'We'll give you a tax subsidy to build the houses of tomorrow.' The catch here is that not only will these major institutions own the houses; in most cases these houses will be build-to-rent houses. So it is locking in a model of housing which many Australians do not want. Many Australians are comfortable renting, but most Australians do not want to rent. This corporate housing policy, where the big super funds and the foreign fund managers are given tax subsidies and taxpayer handouts to construct build-to-rent houses, is the first element where Labor gives up on homeownership. The second element is this Help to Buy scheme. Drawing on a flawed state-based shared equity scheme which very few people want to use, the government has put forward, finally, legislation to create a Commonwealth help-to-buy scheme, and I thank the Greens for their wisdom in joining with us to oppose this bad legislation, which would only lead to a very small number of houses when we are facing a massive crisis. Everyone knows that the major issue here is going to be supply: How do we build more houses? How do we make sure that the children of Australia can look to a future where they can live in a house that they themselves can own? To build those houses, you need to find a way to work constructively and perhaps collaboratively with, or maybe you need to use coercive measures on, local governments and the states. Mr Albanese's attempt to pay the states to build houses has been a failure. It has been one of the greatest failures of this government, because, even though he's offering to pay premiers to build houses, when you have wall-to-wall Labor governments, they still won't build the houses. In fact, we have seen construction figures go backwards under this government. We're building fewer houses than we were just three or four years ago. This is all happening at a time when we're opening the floodgates to more migrants on a per capita basis than we've seen since the 1950s. So we have here a fundamentally broken housing policy from the government. We accept that we have to build more houses and that we have to focus on that supply piece, and that is something that we will continue to look at. But there is also a very strong case to tilt the scales in favour of first home buyers, and this is where I think my great disappointment comes in. What is the reason why the government, or any party for that matter, will not look at allowing people to use their own money to get into the first home market and get their first home? I can't think of any reason, other than that a party or an organisation is beholden to commercial or vested interests. This is why the inquiry we conducted into using super and looking at ways to enhance proposed and existing policies that are on the books is so important. The committee process was, quite simply, one which looked at the deposit side. We looked at how we could help Australians use their own money to get a deposit together. For an older millennial who is close to 40, you're looking at an average super balance of around $80,000 to $90,000. Now, in most cities in Australia that would get you a large part of the way towards a deposit. That is why we already have a policy which allows Australians to take $50,000 of their own superannuation to help get a deposit together. We recognise that the key determinant of your financial success in retirement is not your superannuation balance; it is your homeownership status. So we were very comfortable with the starting point that we announced a couple of years ago, which was that $50,000 of your super could be used for a first home. But what we found during the inquiry is that that would not be sufficient for a number of Australians, particularly those older millennials who do have high balances, so we have recommended in this report that the threshold be lifted from $50,000 to $100,000 or $150,000 and have no maximum withdrawal cap. So we've given some options there. The second recommendation we made which is material concerns the current policy, which works like this: you have to put the money back into super if you sell the first home. But, for a lot of people, their first home is getting them onto the ladder. It might be a small flat, so, if they want to buy a bigger house for their family and they sell their first house, they should be able to transfer that money into that second house. The idea of putting it back into the locked box of the super funds might well suit the vested interests of the financial sector and the trade unions, but it's not going to be in the best interests of those families that want to house their children or themselves. Those are the two principal recommendations. We also looked at recommending models for people who have great anxiety about any money leaving the preservation of superannuation. There may be ways in which, perhaps, APRA could provide some guidance to schemes that want to use money as debt or collateral that is to remain inside the scheme. We've proven that you can deliver a parliamentary report which gives you a range of options, and I think that's what the Australian people are looking for. They're looking for all of the options to be deployed. I think that, despite sensitivities in certain parts of our biggest cities, people understand that we do need to see more density and we do need to see more supply. But equally we want to see the playing field tilted in favour of first home buyers. That's why it's critical that we look at the cost of construction, the cost of lending and, of course, allowing people to use their own money. If people have their own money and they want to use it for a first home, there is no reason they should not be able to do that, because, as I say, the key determinant of your success in retirement is not your superannuation balance; it is your homeownership status. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 119 DOCUMENTS Department of Health and Aged Care 119 Order for the Production of Documents 119 17:40 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I table documents relating to the order for the production of documents concerning the Future Fit program. COMMITTEES 120 COMMITTEES Australia's Disaster Resilience Select Committee, Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Community Affairs References Committee, Cost of Living Select Committee, Economics Legislation Committee, Economics References Committee, Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Education and Employment References Committee, Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Environment and Communications References Committee, Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, Finance and Public Administration References Committee, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, Implementation of the National Redress Scheme—Joint Committee, Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, Perth Mint and Commonwealth Regulatory Compliance Select Committee, Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, Selection of Bills Committee 120 Membership 120 17:40 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of committees. 17:41 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales by leave—I move: That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows: Australia's Disaster Resilience — Select Committee — Appointed—Participating member: Senator Hodgins-May Community Affairs Legislation and References Committees — Appointed—Participating member: Senator Hodgins-May Cost of Living — Select Committee — Appointed—Participating member: Senator Hodgins-May Economics Legislation and References Committees — Appointed—Participating member: Senator Hodgins-May Education and Employment Legislation and References Committees — Appointed—Participating member: Senator Hodgins-May Environment and Communications Legislation Committee — Appointed— Substitute member: Senator Nampijinpa Price to replace Senator Cadell for the committee's inquiry into the Protecting the Spirit of Sea Country Bill 2023 Participating member: Senator Hodgins-May Environment and Communications References Committee — Appointed— Substitute member: Senator McDonald to replace Senator Cadell for the committee's inquiry into the Middle Arm Industrial Precinct Participating member: Senator Hodgins-May Finance and Public Administration Legislation and References Committees — Appointed—Participating member: Senator Hodgins-May Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation and References Committees — Appointed—Participating member: Senator Hodgins-May Implementation of the National Redress Scheme — Joint Standing Committee — Appointed—Participating member: Senator Hodgins-May Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation and References Committees — Appointed—Participating member: Senator Hodgins-May Perth Mint — Select Committee — Appointed—Participating member: Senator Hodgins-May Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee — Appointed—Participating member: Senator Hodgins-May Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee — Appointed— Substitute member: Senator Hodgins-May to replace Senator Whish-Wilson for the committee's inquiry into the impact and mitigation of aircraft noise on residents and business Participating members: Senators Hodgins-May and Whish-Wilson Selection of Bills — Standing Committee — Discharged—Senator Scarr Appointed—Senator Kovacic. Question agreed to. BILLS 121 BILLS Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024, Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024 121

Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024

Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024

First Reading 121 17:41 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales 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 121 17:42 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— EXCISE TARIFF AMENDMENT (TOBACCO) BILL 2024 Tobacco smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death and disability in Australia. It claims the lives of around 20,500 Australians every year. As part of our National Tobacco Strategy, the government is continuing to take action to reduce the consumption of tobacco products. This legislation will increase the tax on tobacco by 5 per cent for three years, in addition to ordinary indexation. We are also aligning the tax treatment of roll your own tobacco with that of stick cigarettes. These changes a build on Labor's proud commitments to decisively tackle tobacco deaths and illness in Australia. We introduced plain packaging over a decade ago. When those reforms were introduced, smoking rates in Australia were around 16 per cent. The latest data has it at around 11 per cent. The equivalent of around 1 million fewer Australians smoking. These changes will drive those rates down further. Because, as the Health Minister has said, a higher priced cigarette is a less attractive cigarette. Increasing tobacco prices is one of the most effective measures to reduce smoking. Our goal is to reduce smoking rates to below 10 per cent by 2025, and to 5 per cent or less by 2030. We know however that simply raising prices is not the only solution to the harms caused by tobacco in Australia. That's why the revenue generated by this legislation will form part of government funds being invested into the healthcare system, helping support the health of current and former smokers and vapers. Our 2023-24 Budget and MYEFO included $832 million to fund measures to protect Australians from the harm caused by tobacco and vaping products. Better support for those wanting to quit. Better support for those who have quit to remain healthy. And a better regulatory framework for vaping in Australia. The measures in the bill were previously moved as Excise Tariff Proposal (No. 1) 2023 on 7 August 2023. Consistent with normal parliamentary practice, the excise tariff proposal now requires incorporation in the Excise Tariff Act. This Bill is complemented by the Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024. Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. CUSTOMS TARIFF AMENDMENT (TOBACCO) BILL 2024 This Bill amends the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to raise the customs duty on excise-equivalent tobacco goods by 5 per cent each year for 3 years and to align the customs duty rate for tobacco goods subject to the 'per kilogram' rate with the customs duty rate applying to the average per stick tobacco content of cigarettes, progressively over 4 years. These amendments support the Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024. As with the Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024, the annual 5 per cent increase in the tax on tobacco will commence from 1 September 2023 and continue for 3 years until 1 September 2025. The customs duty rate alignment for tobacco goods subject to the 'per kilogram' duty rate with the 'per stick' duty rate which applies to cigarettes and other similar tobacco products takes effect from 1 September 2023. These changes will progressively decrease the applied weight conversion factor each year for 4 years until 1 September 2026, ensuring all tobacco products will generally have equivalent tax treatment regardless of their form. The implementation of these two measures will not affect the ordinary biannual indexation of customs duty. These indexations will continue as per the ordinary schedule, in March and September of each year, during and after the implementation of these two measures. The measures in this bill were previously moved as the Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 2) 2023 on 7 August 2023. Consistent with normal parliamentary practice, the customs tariff proposal now requires incorporation in the Customs Tariff Act. Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. Debate adjourned. Health Legislation Amendment (Removal of Requirement for a Collaborative Arrangement) Bill 2024, National Cancer Screening Register Amendment Bill 2024 122

Health Legislation Amendment (Removal of Requirement for a Collaborative Arrangement) Bill 2024

National Cancer Screening Register Amendment Bill 2024

First Reading 122 17:43 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales 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 122 17:43 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— HEALTH LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (REMOVAL OF REQUIREMENT FOR A COLLABORATIVE ARRANGEMENT) BILL 2024 Today I am introducing the Health Legislation Amendment (Removal of Requirement for a Collaborative Arrangement) Bill 2024. This Bill represents more progress on the Government's commitment to strengthen Medicare. This is an historic day for Australia's healthcare workers. This legislation represents a major blow—shattering the glass ceiling that—for too long—has held back our highly educated nurses and midwives. In particular those Australian women and men that have taken on years of extra training and study to become nurse practitioners and endorsed midwives. This Bill is about setting the conditions for those nurse practitioners and endorsed midwives to deliver the care that they are educated and qualified to deliver, allowing them to collaborate in a flexible way when patient needs require it, without limiting their professional scope of practice and autonomy. It's about continuing to put our hardworking nurse practitioners and endorsed midwives at the heart of the Albanese Government's Medicare reforms. And importantly, it's about taking necessary steps to unleash the full potential of our nursing and midwifery workforce. Currently nurse practitioners and endorsed midwives are required to enter into a legislated so called 'collaborative arrangement' with a doctor to be able to prescribe Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme medicines and to provide services under Medicare. This creates a litany of issues, limiting their scope of practice, and creating unnecessary barriers to the delivery of care. In order to demonstrate how significant this legislation is, as a turning point for Australia's nurse practitioners and endorsed midwives, I want to linger on the current situation for a moment, a situation which is not serving workers or the community. Recently I visited a primary health care clinic in regional Victoria. The clinic has an affiliated Nurse Practitioner that delivers primary health care to a town some 80km away. This Nurse Practitioner does all the hard yards. She cares for her community. She treats patients. She prescribes drugs she is trained to prescribe, gives advice on chronic disease management like diabetes, manages wounds, looks after sick kids and so on. However, once a week the GP from the main clinic has to drive to her healthcare centre, to see some patients that are outside the NP's scope of practice, but also to tick a few boxes and sign off on some of her work in order for her and the clinic to attract MBS funding and for her patients to be able to claim the PBS subsidies. The GP who owned the clinic told me that he values the Nurse Practitioner's work and recognises her expertise and crucial role in the community. The nurse practitioner told me that the system disrespected her work, her skills and her time. This system has been one of unnecessary and unhelpful rigmarole, it also actively undermines the nurse practitioner's professionalism and inhibits nurse practitioners and endorsed midwives earning capacity. Instead of our system trusting that nurse practitioners know how to act within their scope of practice and training, just like the system trusts and presumes all doctors do, we have a system that treats her with suspicion and in need of a patronising rubber stamping, wasting everybody's time and precious resources. In an environment when Australia's health system is groaning at the seams and people—particularly in rural and regional areas—struggle to access healthcare, we need to have every single nurse practitioner and endorsed midwife running at their full capacity. Because you see, if a GP in a rural town refused to enter a collaborative arrangement, the nurse practitioner or endorsed midwife would not realistically be able to practise, removing a vital access point for the community to quality healthcare and choice. We need to ensure that a career as a nurse practitioner and an endorsed midwife is fulfilling and well supported, where they are valued for the professionals they are. Where they can practice autonomously, attract an income in their own right, and offer services to their patients that attract the appropriate subsides. Due to the changes today, we can assure our nurses and midwives that this is what our Government will deliver for you and the people you serve. This Bill has been a long time coming. I have been campaigning for this alongside nurses and midwives from across the country for many years—decades even. This is an issue I feel strongly about, as a nurse, and a former Secretary of the ANMF. I know how much this means to the profession. The bill comes following a recommendation by the Medicare Benefits Schedule Review Taskforce. As a result, an independent review of collaborative arrangements was commissioned by the Department of Health and Aged Care. This included an analysis of Australian and international literature, and extensive stakeholder consultation on the efficacy and appropriateness of collaborative arrangements. The findings of the independent review supported the need for clinical collaboration between all health professionals, however, found that the current legislative requirements for collaborative arrangements can create barriers to accessing care. This was not news to our nurses and midwives. That's why I'm so pleased to be part of an Albanese Labor Government that listens, and makes changes to empower our dedicated, talented healthcare workers. This Bill will finally remove the legislated arrangement known as a 'collaborative arrangement' between a nurse practitioner or endorsed midwife, and a doctor . This will in turn assist in removing barriers to accessing primary care for Australians, particularly in rural and remote areas, where a general practitioner can be hard to come by. This Bill recognises that nurse practitioners and endorsed midwives are autonomous professionals who can deliver high quality care to patients within their scope of practice. Nurse practitioners and endorsed midwives will no longer need to have a specified legislated arrangement with a doctor to prescribe Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme medicines and provide services under Medicare. Removing the legislative requirement for collaborative arrangements will not impede clinical collaboration or the delivery of care. These health professionals are already regulated by the Professional Standards for Practice and Quality and Safety Guidelines issued by the Nursing and Midwifery Board of Australia, which require collaboration with other health professionals. This is an actionable standard under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act as in force in each state and territory. Currently, nurse practitioners and endorsed midwives are the only professions that have legislated collaborative arrangements requirements for MBS and PBS access. These changes today will bring them into line with other healthcare professions. Moreover, the Bill will contribute to the long-term goals of the Strengthening Medicare Taskforce, and the Nurse Practitioner Workforce Plan, and the Woman Centred Care Report—all of which recognise that nurse practitioner and midwifery led care are crucial to ensuring all Australians receive timely healthcare. And it is not only good for nurse practitioners and endorsed midwives, it's good for women. We know the care economy—a highly feminised workforce, is often underpaid, undervalued, and underutilised. Women work longer hours for less across our care and support industries. Economic equality and self-determination is so much harder to come by for working women when the work you do isn't appropriately regarded or remunerated. A Bill that empowers nurse practitioners and endorsed midwives is one that empowers women, taking practical action to reduce the gender pay gap and enhance gender equality. You don't have to look far into our past to see a world where all doctors were men and all nurses were women. By boosting the status, financial viability and autonomy of this still highly feminised workforce of nurses and midwives, we are taking a concrete step towards a healthcare system powered by gender equality, rather than continuing to labour under patriarchal norms and default settings. It's particularly timely that our Government released the Gender Equality Strategy less than two weeks ago—as supporting the more effective use of our predominantly female healthcare workforce will improve gender equality in healthcare access and outcomes. Throughout consultation on the Women-centred care: Strategic Directions for Australian Maternity Services, it was heard that women wanted greater access to continuity of care. Women feel more cared for and respected if they have a strong and enduring relationship with a single or small team of carers throughout their pregnancy. The removal of legislated collaborative arrangements will bring us closer to this ideal, by strengthening access to endorsed midwives, including in First Nations settings, aligning with the principles of Closing the Gap through Birthing on Country. I conclude by reinforcing that the Albanese Government is determined to make it easier for people to access high-quality care where they need it, when they need it. This Bill will help to deliver this and further the Government's commitment to strengthening Medicare. A commitment that has already seen an historic investment from Labor since we formed Government. But we won't stop here. The Albanese Government understands that there is no health system without nurses. And there is no Medicare without nurses! Removing the red tape that holds back our nurses and midwives from providing the high-quality care that Australians so dearly need will—finally—go some way to recognising this. And it builds on other Albanese Government measures to recognise and support nurses and midwives, like more nursing and midwifery scholarships, opportunities for re-entry to practice, fee-free TAFE, and higher Medicare rebates for nurse practitioners. Nurses and midwives are at the centre of everything we do. As they should be. I thank all nurses, nurse practitioners, and midwives and the organisations that support them, for their tireless work and advocacy. I am proud to fight for nurses in this place, to ensure that every single person in this country recognises their strengths and capabilities. Making practical, structural changes to our health system will go a long way to achieving this. Supporting nurse practitioners and endorsed midwives to use their skills is good for patients, good for the health system, and encourages more talented people to take up these professions. Australia's health care system is powered by the sweat, hearts and expertise of nurses and midwives. It's time to let them deliver the work and care that they were trained to deliver. NATIONAL CANCER SCREENING REGISTER AMENDMENT BILL 2024 The need for this National Cancer Screening Register Amendment Bill 2024 arose from the 2023-24 Federal Budget announcement 'Tackling smoking and vaping, and improving cancer outcomes'. Under this measure, the Government announced a $263.8 million investment for a new National Lung Cancer Screening Program commencing in July 2025 to support earlier detection of lung cancer, when treatment is likely to be more effective. Part of this allocation includes expansion of the National Cancer Screening Register to support delivery of the new Program. While advances have been made in the diagnosis, treatment and care of people with lung cancer, it is still the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in Australia. Compared to most other cancers, the survival rate of people with lung cancer is poor. On average, only one in five people diagnosed with lung cancer survive five years after diagnosis, compared to a five-year relative survival rate of more than 70 per cent for all cancers combined. Indigenous Australians are twice as likely to be diagnosed with lung cancer compared to non-Indigenous Australians. They are also twice as likely to die from lung cancer compared to non-Indigenous Australians. In addition to Indigenous Australians, people living in remote, very remote areas and areas of greatest socioeconomic disadvantage are disproportionately affected by lung cancer, with higher lung cancer incidence and mortality in these populations. For many people, the impacts of long-term smoking have increased their risk of developing cancer and other health complications. This is why the Government is taking action in line with the National Tobacco Strategy 2020-2030 through stronger legislation, enforcement, education and support to prevent the uptake of smoking and vaping, and to encourage people to quit. The Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Act 2023, passed by the Parliament in 2023, consolidated the existing Commonwealth tobacco control framework into one Act. It modernised and simplified the existing provisions and allows us to introduce new measures to strengthen our response to smoking and to prevent the promotion of vaping and e-cigarettes. The introduction of reforms to protect Australians, particularly young people, from the emerging harms of vaping and nicotine dependence, is the next step. At the same time, the Government is focussing on education and support. The 2023-24 budget included $63 million for public health information campaigns to discourage Australians from taking up vaping and smoking and encourage more people to quit. A further $30 million was invested in support programs to help Australians quit. These measures aim to address the significant threat to public health caused by cigarettes and vaping. We want to do everything we can to avoid people suffering from preventable lung cancer. The good news is that if lung cancer is detected at an earlier stage, it is more likely to be successfully treated, leading to better outcomes for individuals as well as the larger community. The aim of the National Lung Cancer Screening Program is to reduce the burden of lung cancer in the community—including incidence of the disease, morbidity from the disease, or mortality from the disease. The Program will facilitate this by detecting lung cancer earlier than would be the case in the absence of screening, thereby improving health outcomes. The Program will target asymptomatic individuals aged 50 to 70 years with a history of cigarette smoking of at least 30 pack-years, and if an individual has a history of cigarette smoking, has quit within the past 10 years. Through the Program, eligible at-risk Australians will be able to get a lung scan every two years, as recommended by the independent Medical Services Advisory Committee, and follow-up scans if there are any findings. A 'positive' screening test identifies people who are at increased likelihood of having lung cancer and who require further investigation to determine whether they have the disease. Participants will be encouraged to screen regularly so signs of lung cancer can be detected early. The new screening program is expected to prevent more than 500 lung cancer deaths every year. This Bill will amend the National Cancer Screening Register Act 2016 which provides the legislative framework for the operation of the National Cancer Screening Register. Specifically, the Bill adds 'lung cancer' to the definition of 'designated cancer' and as a result, expands the scope of the Register. The Act established the National Cancer Screening Register as a register of information about screening associated with certain types of cancer for the purpose of supporting cancer screening programs. The Register commenced operation in 2017. The Act was drafted in such a way that new cancer screening programs could be added to the scope of the Register in the future, through amendments to the definition of 'designated cancer'. Currently, the designated cancers in the Act are bowel cancer and cervical cancer, to allow the Register to support the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program and the National Cervical Screening Program, respectively. Inclusion of lung cancer as a 'designated cancer' in the Act will make the National Lung Cancer Screening Program the third cancer screening program to be delivered by the Register. The Government recognises the opportunity to leverage the Register to facilitate a national approach to lung cancer screening. Expansion of the scope of the Register to the new Program will enable a consolidated source of lung cancer screening information to be maintained and used to support the screening program. The Bill will provide the legislative basis for the Register to deliver the Program, including handling of program participants' personal and sensitive information in connection with lung cancer screening and diagnoses. The Bill will effectively expand the Register's purposes that are already in place for the bowel and cervical screening programs to the new National Lung Cancer Screening Program. For example, to support continuity of care, the Register will generate advice and screening reminders for program participants and their nominated healthcare provider about when an individual is due to undergo a lung scan. If required, reminders will prompt an individual to see their healthcare provider following a lung scan. Depending on the participant's risk profile, the provider may refer the participant for a follow-up lung scan. The Register will support healthcare providers by providing them access to patients' lung cancer screening information, for the purpose of providing healthcare. Program participants will have access to their lung cancer screening information in the Register and be able to update their participation in the Program, such as deferring their screening or opting out of the Register. As a repository of information about lung cancer screening and diagnoses, the Register will support monitoring of the effectiveness, quality and safety of lung cancer screening to improve service delivery of the Program. There are other efficiencies that can be gained by building on the current functions of the Register to support lung cancer screening. For example, the Register already inter-operates with GP clinical information systems to enable healthcare providers to provide data to the Register, as well as access to screening information in the Register to better inform clinical decision-making. Importantly, adding lung cancer as a designated cancer will extend the limited authorisations and exceptions in the Act to ensure that personal information is only collected, recorded, used or disclosed to or from the Register for specific purposes. It should be noted that, apart from these legislative protections and restrictions, the Register Operator is required to operate the Register in accordance with strict security requirements. Through this Bill, the existing identity and user access management solutions and security protocols will be expanded to lung cancer screening information held in the Register. The Government is serious about increasing the number of Australians who participate in cancer screening as part of the fight against cancer. The National Lung Cancer Screening Program, in particular, is being designed to underpin the principles of access and equity. That is why a key element of the Program includes two new Medicare Benefits Schedule items for lung cancer screening which will be available from July 2025 to enable scans to be delivered at no out-of-pocket cost to patients. The National Lung Cancer Screening Program is being co-designed with and for First Nations people to ensure the program is culturally safe and appropriate, and mobile screening and patient travel support measures are in development to increase access to the Program—including to support Australians in rural and remote locations with limited access to these services. Other key activities underway to support the Program include development of program guidelines, workforce education and training materials, a quality management framework and a national communication strategy. While the Program will impact our health system, it is not anticipated to increase the patient pool, but rather reduce the current impact of treating advanced stage cancer patients and palliative care patients. The Department of Health and Aged Care continues to work with states and territories on implementation of the Program. Passage of the bill in the Winter sitting will enable sufficient time to scale up the Register, undertake consultations with healthcare providers, build additional clinical software interface, and deploy the Register to support the National Lung Cancer Screening Program from July 2025. I commend the Bill. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day. Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023 126

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

Returned from the House of Representatives 126 Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Bill 2023, Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023, National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023, National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Amendment (Strengthening Quality and Integrity in Vocational Education and Training No. 1) Bill 2024, Social Services Legislation Amendment (Child Support and Family Assistance Technical Amendments) Bill 2024, Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2023-2024, Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2023-2024, Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2023-2024, Broadcasting Services Amendment (Community Television) Bill 2024, Competition and Consumer Amendment (Fair Go for Consumers and Small Business) Bill 2024, Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment Bill 2024, Treasury Laws Amendment (Foreign Investment) Bill 2024, Autonomous Sanctions Amendment Bill 2024, Defence Amendment (Safeguarding Australia's Military Secrets) Bill 2024, Defence Trade Controls Amendment Bill 2024, Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill (No. 2) 2023, Treasury Laws Amendment (Making Multinationals Pay Their Fair Share—Integrity and Transparency) Bill 2023 127

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

Australian Research Council Amendment (Review Response) Bill 2023

National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023

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

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

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2023-2024

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2023-2024

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

Broadcasting Services Amendment (Community Television) Bill 2024

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

Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Fees Imposition Amendment Bill 2024

Treasury Laws Amendment (Foreign Investment) Bill 2024

Autonomous Sanctions Amendment Bill 2024

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

Defence Trade Controls Amendment Bill 2024

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

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

Assent 127 COMMITTEES 127 COMMITTEES Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 127 Reference 127 17:45 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania For the 10th time, I, and also on behalf of Senator Cadell, move: That, noting the importance of ensuring the National Electricity Grid has the capacity to provide a reliable and secure supply of energy to Australians as the economy transitions to new and more dispersed methods of generations and storage, and acknowledging that transition will necessarily transgress on agricultural, Indigenous and environmental lands and marine environments, the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 28 November 2024: (a) power imbalance between indigenous landholders, farmers and fishers, and government and energy companies seeking to compulsorily acquire or access their land or fishing grounds; (b) terms and conditions for compulsory access and acquisition; (c) fairness of compensation; (d) options for development of a fair national approach to access and acquisition; (e) options to maintain and ensure the rights of farmers and fishers to maintain and ensure productivity of agriculture and fisheries; and (f) any other matter. They say persistence pays off. Perhaps it does, perhaps it doesn't, but I genuinely hope so. This matter clearly has a history over a considerable period of time now and has been debated a number of times in the chamber. In my view—and I don't think I'm misrepresenting Senator Cadell—this is an important matter for our communities, and the communities, particularly in regional Australia, that we represent deserve to have their voices heard in this place. Farmers have come to Canberra on a number of occasions seeking support and for their voices to be heard—and they should be heard. This is not an unreasonable motion. It is not a motion that is against infrastructure supporting the national electricity grid. It is a motion that recognises we are undertaking a significant transition in this country that will require additional transmission, that will require access to agricultural land, Indigenous land, environmental lands and marine environments, but seeks a process that will put in place just terms and a fair and national approach to the development of that infrastructure. That's what this motion seeks. It's not anti-anything except unfairness. With previous iterations of this motion, we have been told by those opposite: 'You don't need to worry. We are going to establish our own inquiry, our own process, and we will organise for Mr Andrew Dyer, the Energy Infrastructure Commissioner, to conduct an inquiry around the country to look at this issue. You don't need to worry. There's nothing to see here. It'll be fine.' Mr Dyer did his work. He travelled the country. He had a lot of meetings. He discussed things with farmers. He talked to communities around the country. But that inquiry that we were assured by the government would resolve all the issues did nothing of the sort. In fact, when that inquiry came back the report confirmed there were chronic problems. A survey showed that a staggering 92 per cent of respondents were dissatisfied with the level of engagement from project developers. It didn't matter whether they were a farmer who just didn't want it or somebody who supported the development but still couldn't get some straight answers. I have had a conversation with someone who is a dead-set supporter of infrastructure across his farm but has had seven changes of path across his land, and he's growing weary of the fact that he can't get sensible answers. The survey also found that more than 90 per cent of people were dissatisfied with the information being provided or their concerns being resolved. It's not a bad record so far. The government tells us: 'This'll be fine. Mr Dyer will do his work and resolve all the problems.' But 92 per cent are not satisfied with the engagement and 90 per cent are not satisfied with the information being provided or having their concerns resolved. But the really disappointing thing about the report is that it did nothing to provide solutions, which is what this motion is looking to do. This motion is looking to provide solutions—'options for development of a fair national approach to access and acquisition' and 'options to maintain and ensure the rights of farmers and fishers to maintain and ensure productivity of agriculture and fisheries'. This motion is seeking a Senate inquiry, firstly, so that the voices of regional Australia, Indigenous communities and those representing environmental lands can be heard because the government's not listening and also to provide some solutions as to how we might sensibly progress this important infrastructure. The report contains no commentary on tax treatment of payments, compensation or equitable process for negotiation of access and payment regimes, all which need attention and all which are creating friction across the country. Minister Bowen doesn't want anyone to talk about this, and Minister Watt won't stand up to Minister Bowen—or has no currency in cabinet, I don't know—and is not prepared to stand up for farmers. We heard during question time today that he's quite happy to close down parts of agriculture in this country, as the agriculture minister. He doesn't have what it takes to stand up for farmers. Senator Hughes 273828 He doesn't want to get his akubra dirty! Senator COLBECK 00AOL We might come to the akubra later. Farmers, fishers, Indigenous Australians and those representing environmental lands in this country don't get to have their voices heard on this important transition. That's all we're asking for. This is a more than reasonable request. And, when you consider, for example, that in the fishery space off the south-east coast of Victoria the south-east trawl fishery land more than 20,000 tonnes of fish and are by far the largest supplier of local fish to consumers between Melbourne and Sydney, these fisheries are likely to be subject to more than 90 per cent of the marine farm impacts on commercial fishing in Gippsland. What about the consumers of seafood in this country? Potentially they will have one of the most significant fisheries in this country impacted by the infrastructure that's been proposed in these regions, but they don't get their voices heard. The carpetbaggers in the wind industry do. They won't be supported by Minister Bowen or those on the crossbenches. Those whose lands are being impacted don't get their voice heard. I happened to be in another inquiry by another committee where a member of the Greens organised for a group of Indigenous Australians to come and give evidence to that committee because they were concerned about the returns they were getting for energy developments on their lands. It was really quite instructive. They told us that they were getting paid less for energy infrastructure on their Indigenous lands, on their Aboriginal lands, than leaseholders were getting in Queensland, and they didn't think that was fair. They came to this other committee, at the invitation of a member of the Greens, to give evidence to that effect. Yet the Greens wouldn't support this inquiry, which is wanting to give that voice currency in this debate; they're not prepared to do it. We were told how they got a different price in Western Australia to what they got in Queensland. This motion seeks to understand how we can find a fair and national approach to this matter. They are very, very sensible terms of reference. They're not about saying, 'Don't do this,' but about asking, 'How do we do this?' We know that the government are running way behind because they are handling this so badly. Had we gone ahead with motion No. 1 or perhaps motion No. 2 or even motion No. 3, we could have had this inquiry completed by now. Senator Cadell 300134 Motion 8 would have done it. Senator COLBECK 00AOL Motion 8 would have been nice too, Senator Cadell. It would have been very nice. But, no, that's not what we get. They just don't want to have this conversation. They don't want to find ways to make sure that this can work properly for our nation. They just want to say no. Then there's the extraordinarily troubling circumstance that we are seeing in Queensland, where a number of these projects are going ahead. That's the reason that environmental lands are included in this motion. We've got a former member of the Greens, Steven Nowakowski, who is mapping these developments and came to Canberra to brief us. Mr Nowakowski actually supported the leader of the Greens in this place and helped her campaign in northern Queensland so that she could get elected. He came down here concerned about the impact of these developments right through northern Queensland, particularly in koala habitat. And, yet, the Greens won't support this. Here is the coalition concerned about the impact on environmental land, and the Greens are voting against it. He's a former member of the Greens. He's former because his own party wouldn't listen to him, somebody who lives on, works on and knows this country. There are 1,300 hectares of untouched koala habitat being impacted by one of the developments—and what do we hear from the environmental movement? Here's the thing. I watch television advertisements from the WWF in my home state of Tasmania. I have seen them here in Canberra. They ask me to donate to them to stop koala extinction. We've got an environment minister who says, 'No extinctions on my watch.' Did the WWF put in an objection to this development in Queensland that's going to impact on 1,300 hectares of pristine, prime koala habitat? There's been not a word from the WWF. Seriously, this organisation, the WWF, should be investigated for fraud. They are asking Australians to donate to them to prevent koala extinction. I reckon the ACCC would have a case to have a look at these guys. They are advertising for money, for donations, to prevent koala extinction. They tell us that koalas could go extinct, yet 1,300 hectares of prime koala habitat is being disturbed by one development and there's been not a sound out of the WWF. We see this go on and on. It's actually quite disgraceful. We have remained consistent and persistent with respect to this debate, and we will continue to do so. We are genuinely concerned about the impact on farmers. We are genuinely concerned about the impacts for Indigenous Australians. We are genuinely concerned about the impact on environmental lands and also on our fishers. All we are asking is for their voices to be heard and for us to play our role, as we should in this place, to help find some solutions to ensure that these important developments can be undertaken in an orderly way and with fair compensation and fair access rights. That's all we are asking for. We're not asking for anything out of the ordinary, and the government at least should come on board, because it knows it has a problem. Andrew Dyer told them they had a problem in their report. Then, of course, it was time for him to leave. 18:00 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Well, pull the other one! If anything symbolises the unfitness of this ramshackle, failure-to-adjust opposition over here more than this resolution, it was the astroturf— Senator Colbeck 00AOL All you've got is personal insult. Senator AYRES 16913 I mean, there weren't enough people to call it a rally, but it was the pretend rally held out the front of the parliament a few months ago. Pull the other one! You're on about whales, koalas and parrots. These people who have never shown a moment's interest—a vestige of interest—in the welfare of whales and parrots and koalas are suddenly in here demanding an inquiry. It's the most woeful acting performance since Beverly Hills Cop III from this show. They're pretending, having a fake campaign about what's going on out there with one of the most significant national projects that this country will ever undertake. And where are they? They're in the way. They're making up issues and making up a fake campaign. You know what? Some of the memes are just direct copies of what is peddled by the far right in the United States or Europe. They don't even bother to get the old AI app out and change the meme. It's the same nonsense meme. We saw the rally of a couple of dozen people out the front. Mr Joyce and others claimed to have had thousands of people there. It is true that projects like this give rise to legitimate issues and real anxieties, like any project does—like building a shopping centre, a coalmine or a factory in any suburb or region, which happens every day of the week. But, somehow, this is special. The show is prosecuting this campaign with social media memes that are generated out of who knows where. Much of it comes from offshore. I can tell you this: the world is passing you by, and nothing symbolises this more than what the former Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Joyce, said about these issues. Look at the coherence of this campaign. This is what Mr Joyce said in a newspaper. He was not being quoted in an interview, where I suppose you can get a little bit loose. These are words that he wrote down on paper, stuck in the old fax machine in Danglemah and sent off to the Armidale Express, a very fine newspaper in north-western New South Wales. This is two paragraphs of Joyce 'coherence' on the question, which betrays how silly this campaign is. He said, 'The prevailing zeitgeist seems intent that it is religiously pure if they toss us over the power price cliff.' But what does that sentence mean? He then goes on to say, 'Power is sold in five-minute lots.' I can verify that; it is true. The National Energy Regulator does say that that is a true thing. But then he goes on: 'Power is five-minute power noodles.' What does that mean? Five-minute noodles are a snack, not a diet that could keep you healthy. Renewables sold in five-minute noodle packages on the national electricity market are a clarion call from the island called naivete. That is the beating intellectual heart of this so-called campaign that pretends to be interested in the environment. Senator McGrath 217241 You're an electoral snob. Senator AYRES 16913 It's not snobbery to demand coherence. It is not snobbery to demand that the former prime minister, the beating intellectual heart of this so-called campaign, arranges words in sentences in a way that makes sense when it's such a critical national issue. This is a big national project, and there are legitimate issues. But this campaign, this pretended interest, shouldn't be run by the mad old uncles at the barbecue, for whom the world is passing by on these questions, when what regional communities need and what the investment community needs is certainty, is a clear message from Canberra about these projects. The problem with this opposition is that, when they were sent a clear electoral message right around Australia—in city seats, in outer-suburban seats, in regional seats, in coastal seats, in urban seats—that their corrupted politics of climate politics and all the mad stuff was rejected overwhelmingly by the Australian people, that was an opportunity to take a breath and to act on the basis of the evidence and to act in the national interest. But, instead, when there was an opportunity, finally, for this ramshackle show to act in the national interest, it's all back to the silly stuff: it's back to Tony Abbott on climate; it's back to Scott Morrison on climate. Let's take offshore wind. We've seen offshore wind off the Hunter Valley. We've seen offshore wind off Gippsland. These are big nation-building projects. And what's going on? Billboards with whales. It's absolute nonsense. It's made-up stuff and it's not even made up in Australia. If you're going to make up a campaign, make it up in Australia. Instead, it's imported, derivative nonsense from right-wing extremists overseas. Some of you who are sensible enough should recognise this for what it is. It's the capturing of a once-sensible, once-centrist political party by the extreme right and by social media memes. The problem is that, if you go on with this nonsense too long, you end up being captured by it—so once-sensible people get sillier and sillier and sillier, and you drift further and further and further to the Right. This project in the Hunter Valley will employ 4,000 people during its construction—that's what one of the proponents tells us—and create 1,500 permanent jobs. It will supply vast quantities of low-cost power for households and for industry, and you've got Mr Dutton standing underneath billboards with pictures of whales on them! What garbage! If people in one of these areas are worried about an offshore wind project that they won't be able to see, imagine how worried they're going to be when Mr Dutton finally announces his real solution: a nuclear power station in Port Stephens, in the Port of Newcastle, in Hervey Bay or in Gippsland! Name a place! Mr Dutton said three months ago, full of all the usual nonsense: 'We're going to announce it six weeks out from the budget. We're going to tell Australians where these magical nuclear power stations are going to be.' Now, Mr O'Brien is in witness protection—I've never seen him. And Mr Dutton says, 'We're going to tell you later.' Well, if Mr Dutton thinks he can tell Australians where these experimental nuclear power stations that will never deliver are going to be delivered— Senator AYRES 16913 I will take that interjection about submarines in a tic, because you lot should take your national security obligations seriously. You should take them seriously. But why aren't you honest with Australians about what passes for a plan? It's uncosted, it's not geographically specific and you're never going to tell people where the nuclear power station is going to be. Mr Dutton's plan requires dozens of experimental nuclear power stations all over the Australian coastline, and Australians are legitimately worried about this show that couldn't build any energy capacity in Australia. Four gigawatts went out over the last decade; one gigawatt went in—that was the contribution. And now Australians are expected to believe that this show—that couldn't build anything, that didn't build a power station, that moaned about coal-fired power stations closing and that had 14 of them announce closure on its watch—would somehow be capable of building a safe, workable nuclear power station in Port Stephens or Gippsland or Hervey Bay. That's the hypocrisy of this show. It is made up. It is uncosted. It is not real. It is partly a figment of their imagination and partly an outsourced, offshore, far-right political campaign that is about anything but the big issues that this country faces. We are on the edge of the fastest growing region of the world in human history. We have opportunities and challenges. We have in this country vast resources and comparative advantage under the ground and above the ground in terms of our solar and wind resources, and our people. What would this show have the Australian people do? Put up with another decade of complete, hopeless inaction, of disinvestment, of capital running away to invest anywhere but in the Australian energy market? I'll tell you what: there's an alternative. This federal government, the Albanese government, has a strategy that it is implementing day after day, week after week. I can tell you, as Assistant Minister for Trade, that when I go around the world I get two reactions. One is a giant sigh of relief from the investment community that the country is not run by the rabble opposite who debauched our electricity market so badly that capital just ran away; and the second is a very strong interest from around the world in the unfolding Future Made in Australia strategy, which will all be about this. It will be about making sure that we capture the opportunities for Australians—not in the inner city, because big factories aren't built in the inner city, but in the outer suburbs and the regions. If you want to stand in the way of national development, if you want to stand in the way of national infrastructure, and if you want to stand in the way of the national interest and the interest of regional Australians, be my guest. What this resolution shows is that you are not up to it, that you have not learned the lessons of the last election and that you are in no way interested in the interests of regional Australians. 18:15 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I'll make a reasonably short contribution, because I want to provide colleagues who have been attracted to the chamber following Senator Ayres's contribution, no doubt, to pursue the debate. I want to give them an opportunity because they've been moved, by Senator Ayres's contribution, to come to the chamber to share their thoughts. So well done, Senator Ayres, for attracting everyone to the chamber and adding to interest in this debate. I just want to quickly make a few points, but before I do that I just have some introductory comments. I'm sure Senator Colbeck has been accused of many things during his long career here, but I don't think he's ever been accused of being a member of the extreme right. I think Senator Colbeck is always very measured and considered in terms of his comments, and his comments in relation to this debate were no different. The second point I would make is that there is nothing in the terms of reference that mentions nuclear power—absolutely nothing. There's nothing in the terms of reference that talks about whales. There's nothing in the terms of reference that talks about many of the things that Senator Ayres talked about during his contribution. The three points that I'd like to quickly make are these: first, this is an extraordinarily reasonably worded resolution. It is very reasonably worded. The terms of reference are matters that should be considered. They talk about the economy transitioning to newer, more dispersed methods of generations and storage, which is the government's own policy. This is a very, very reasonably worded resolution. It touches upon matters of keen interest to many Australians, including: (a) power imbalance— and there is a power imbalance; that's a fact— between indigenous landholders, farmers and fishers, and government and energy companies seeking to compulsorily acquire or access their land or fishing grounds; (b) terms and conditions for compulsory access and acquisition; (c) fairness of compensation; (d) options for development of a fair national approach to access and acquisition— because this is a national issue, and I would have thought that the approach that's adopted should be a fair approach and apply across the nation equally, whether it be in Tasmania or Queensland or anywhere else. It also includes: (e) options to maintain and ensure the rights of farmers and fishers to maintain and ensure productivity of agriculture and fisheries; and— Those opposite tell us time and time again about the great job they're doing in terms of enhancing our trade markets, so tell us how you're going to make sure that those who produce the products which are then marketed overseas are going to maintain their productivity, please. It also includes: (f) any other matter. This is a very reasonable and considered terms of reference, as one would expect from my colleagues Senator Cadell and Senator Colbeck. The second point I want to make is this: the information that came out in the results of the work that Mr Dyer undertook are extremely disturbing. I do not think anyone reasonable could look at the results of his work and not be concerned by the fact that 92 per cent of respondents were not happy with the engagement they had from project proponents—92 per cent! That's an extraordinary figure, 92 per cent! And then 90 per cent were not satisfied with the information they had been provided or that their concerns had been addressed. Those are startlingly bad figures, and, from my perspective—and Senator Colbeck was right; Mr Dyer's work was held up by saying, 'You don't need to do this, because Mr Dyer's doing the work,' but then his work came in and heightened the need for this inquiry. It actually heightened the need for this inquiry. The last point I'll make is this: it is the job of the Senate—it is our job—to undertake these sorts of reference inquiries. As Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, I've undertaken an inquiry that was referred to our committee by Senator Roberts in relation to a royal commission on COVID-19; an inquiry referred by Senator Shoebridge of the Greens, in relation to our FOI system; and an inquiry referred by Senator Green in relation to consent laws in the sexual assault context. This is our job. It shouldn't matter if a senator belongs to any other party. If you refer a matter which deserves investigation by a Senate references committee, then I believe—this is my firm belief as someone who cares about this institution—that we should undertake that inquiry in good faith. That's why we're here. I will keep speaking in favour of this motion as long as we keep needing to put it up, but, please, reconsider your position. This is something which should be considered. 18:20 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales Thank you very much, and I too rise to support this motion, and to again implore the government to allow us to have an inquiry. I do not see how they can legitimately oppose something as simple and as straightforward as an inquiry. We keep seeing this government refuse to acknowledge the concerns of the communities that are being impacted by transmission lines and wind turbines and solar factories, as well as of the people who face the very real prospect of compulsory acquisition of easements across their land. We have learned—through our own inquiries, through asking questions of proponents—that having easements put across their land has more than just aesthetic and physical impacts. It impacts their tax status. It impacts their income and how their income is generated and how capital gains tax is treated. There is a whole raft of ramifications—which we on this side are learning about because we're out there asking the questions—that we believe the government should learn about. But I wonder if—instead of seeing an inquiry, which, in the big scheme of things, because we've already got the committee system set up in this parliament, is not a huge drain on resources—what we might instead see from this government is a $15 million communications campaign, as asked for by the Australian Conservation Foundation in their pre-budget submission. Yes, the ACF have written to the government asking for a mere $15 million to educate and inform and run a strategic, targeted, public communications strategy and campaign, because the ACF are concerned: … that the social licence for constructing new energy projects and transmission—sufficient to meet the Government's 82% by 2030 target—is at risk due to increasing levels of community opposition and fear. Well, I'm glad they see that, because this government completely ignores that community opposition and fear! I can tell you that the answer to that fear is not a smart, glossy communications campaign like the propaganda campaign we're currently seeing across televisions everywhere, from Sydney to Melbourne to Cairns, about the Murray-Darling Basin and how we're all going to run out of food and water in the next drought, which is the biggest load of rubbish! And if the ACF gets their wish and gets $15 million, which is about the same as it cost for the Murray-Darling Basin campaign, then maybe we will see photos of wind turbines off the coast of Dover or Scotland! That's what the government did: they had photos of a Turkish citrus orchard, to justify their Murray-Darling Basin propaganda—a Turkish citrus orchard, because we don't have beautiful photogenic citrus orchards in Griffith or around the Mallee! So I can just imagine that we'll get pictures of the solar panels built across in China, saying, 'This is the solution to Australia's problems.' That will be the $15 million spend that we'll get from this government, instead of them listening to people or actually getting out from behind their desks in Canberra—particularly the way the departments are now being instructed to do consultations: 'Yes, do a community consultation; send out an online survey web link, and get people to do an online survey.' That's how this government does community consultations. Then, if they actually do bother to sit down across the table to talk to a real person face to face, the first words out of their mouths will be, 'Sign here,' as they produce a non-disclosure agreement, because, far from being the government of openness and transparency that they'd promised to be, this government is the government of secrecy. We've seen that just today, with their 'how not to answer a question' manifesto provided to every department. And we've seen the departments following that manifesto, verbatim, in our estimates processes, in our answers to questions on notice. So I do actually believe that it is far more likely that we will see some sort of a glossy communications campaign before we actually see some genuine consultation with the people who are being impacted—the people of Deniliquin and of Moulamein, who have Transgrid powerlines going over their heads, or the people of Port Stephens, who have taken me to the coast and pointed to the horizon and said, 'Far from what the government would have you believe, these wind turbines will be visible; they will not be over the horizon.' We're talking about wind turbines 280 metres high. Senator DAVEY 281697 Two hundred and eighty-four—thank you for the interjection, Senator Cadell. They will be visible from the beach. They will be planted in a whale migration zone. And then they will require massive high-voltage direct-current cables to connect them to the shore. Now, unlike onshore transmission lines, you won't be able to see the cables; the cables will be put on the ocean floor. But there are still concerns about those cables. Where are we going to get them from? Currently, most production capacity for high-voltage direct-current cables is booked out until the late 2020s. This could lead to shortages for any country outside China. The government yells at us and says: 'Nuclear? Oh, it will take you too long to build!' Well, how long will it take to lay these cables, when we can't even guarantee that we can access them? Where are we going to miracle these cables from? There's a shortage of vessels capable of laying these cables. (Quorum formed) Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 18:32 to 20:30 BUDGET 133 BUDGET Statement and Documents 133 20:30 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I table the following documents: The Budget 2024-25—Statement by the Treasurer (Dr Chalmers), dated 14 May 2024. Budget papers— No. 1—Budget strategy and outlook. No. 2—Budget measures. No. 3—Federal financial relations. No. 4—Agency resourcing. Ministerial statements— Regional Ministerial Budget Statement 2024-25: Delivering a resilient and prosperous future for regional Australia—Statement by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government (Ms C King) and the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories (Ms McBain), dated 14 May 2024. Women's Budget Statement 2024-25—Statement by the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Women and the Minister for the Public Service (Senator Gallagher) and the Treasurer (Dr Chalmers), dated 14 May 2024. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the statement and the documents. Leave granted. Senator AYRES 16913 I move: That the Senate take note of the statement and documents. Debate adjourned. Proposed Expenditure 133 20:30 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I table the following documents: Particulars of proposed expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2025. Particulars of certain proposed expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2025. Particulars of proposed expenditure in relation to the parliamentary departments in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2025. Particulars of proposed additional expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2024 [Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2023-2024]. Particulars of certain proposed additional expenditure in respect of the year ending on 30 June 2024 [Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2023-2024]. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the documents. Leave granted. Senator AYRES 16913 I move: That the documents be referred to legislation committees for the consideration of the estimates. Question agreed to. Portfolio Budget Statements 134 20:31 The PRESIDENT 112096 I table the portfolio budget statements for 2024-25 for the Department of the Senate, the Parliamentary Budget Office and the Department of Parliamentary Services. Portfolio Budget Statements, Portfolio Additional Estimates Statements 134 20:31 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I table the portfolio budget statements for portfolios and executive departments in accordance with the list circulated in the chamber. The list read as follows— Estimates of proposed expenditure for 2024-25—Portfolio budget statements—Portfolios and executive departments— Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry portfolio. Attorney-General's portfolio. Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water portfolio. Defence portfolio. Department of Veterans' Affairs. Education portfolio. Employment and Workplace Relations portfolio. Finance portfolio. Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio. Health and Aged Care portfolio. Home Affairs portfolio. Industry, Science and Resources portfolio. Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts portfolio. Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio. Social Services portfolio. Treasury portfolio. Estimates of proposed supplementary expenditure for 2023-24—Portfolio supplementary additional estimates statements— Attorney-General's portfolio. Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water portfolio. Defence portfolio. Employment and Workplace Relations portfolio. Finance portfolio. Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio. Health and Aged Care portfolio. Home Affairs portfolio. Industry, Science and Resources. Prime Minister and Cabinet portfolio. Social Services portfolio. Treasury portfolio. ADJOURNMENT 134 ADJOURNMENT Women in Sport 134 20:32 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania I rise tonight to offer my congratulations to the Flying Bats Football Club, not for dominating amateur women's competition while fielding five male players, forcing female players to walk away from the game and causing opposing women's teams to forfeit—no! I congratulate them for demonstrating exactly what Australian sporting CEOs, bureaucrats and ministers wanted when they said that male intrusion in women's sport was a good thing for inclusion. For years now, highly paid sporting CEOs and government ministers have told us that fairness for female players at community level isn't a priority. The Flying Bats are proving that this is indeed the case. Many Australians are rightly outraged that women and girls are being subjected to such unfairness, but you need to know that this is no accident. It was the deliberate policy of Australia's major sporting codes and a direction right from the very top—from the Australian Sports Commission CEO and the Minister for Sport—to force women and girls to put up with this unfairness and to smear as bigots those who spoke out. Football Australia and Football NSW chose to align themselves with Sport Australia inclusion guidelines in 2019 by stating that male players identifying as women were permitted to play in women's competition despite the fact that it was obvious that this policy would result in the exact situation which is now occurring with the Flying Bats. And there is even worse than that situation being permitted. The ABC reported last year: Sources have also confirmed to ABC Sport that other registered football participants (including players, coaches, and officials) who have commented, shared, or contributed to discriminatory posts on social media platforms will be investigated by the appropriate football authorities. Punishments could include suspension from competitions as well as possible police charges. Let's be clear. They were talking about suspension from competitions and criminal charges for female players or coaches of women's teams who publicly opposed the inclusion of males in women's competition. But it wasn't just one sport shamelessly throwing women under the bus and threatening anyone who spoke out. The AFL's community football gender policy explicitly states that males identifying as women or non-binary can choose to play in women's competitions. Here's a direct quote from that policy: It is the AFL's view that in community football social inclusion has a greater priority than concerns about possible competitive advantages if gender diverse players participate. According to the AFL, it is a greater priority for males to be able to choose to play women's football than it is for females to have a competition of their own. The AFL goes on to say: Refusing to play against a team with a (suspected) gender diverse player runs against the AFL's principles of inclusion as set out in the Gender Diversity Policy—Community Football and is also discriminatory. This will not be tolerated by the AFL. So not only do women not get to choose to play in a single-sex competition; the AFL says they can't even choose to opt out if they find out they're going to be playing against males in full-contact football. All of the major sporting codes in Australia allow male intrusion into women's sport at the community level. Some of those sports, such as rugby, swimming and athletics, have international governing bodies which have specifically adopted policies acknowledging that it is not fair for males to compete in women's competitions. Yet, at a local level, the Australian administrators actively encourage it. These administrators thought that they'd get away with it, as long as women's teams getting smashed by males wasn't televised. But now the Flying Bats are showing us what males competing in women's community sport looks like, and at least some administrators are waking up. Football NSW have called on the federal government to review existing legislation and guidelines, have slammed government agencies for offering no support and have stated that, in the 2024 environment, Football NSW holds serious concerns about the safety of its female players. The legislation that they are now calling to have reviewed is the exact same legislation I propose to amend with my save women's sports bill, by clarifying that single-sex sport for women is lawful at all levels—but sports then said that there was no need to do so. I hope that when the male players on the Flying Bats accept their next trophy they remember to thank the CEOs and Minister Wells and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese for refusing to act to protect women single-sex sport in Australia. Dental Health 135 20:37 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia We know that there has been a lot of talk about cost-of-living pressures in this parliament. I speak tonight on the urgent need to give our communities the opportunity to free themselves of the cost-of-living crisis that is the inability to access dental care under Medicare. The reality for so many Australians is that going to the dentist is completely out of reach. More and more people in Australia are putting off going to the dentist because it simply costs too much. Our community's health is suffering needlessly because of this, with 3.4 million Australians skipping dental care because of the cost. I've heard from so many people that they are holding out on going to the dentist. They are living with toothache, with gingivitis, with cavities, with hypersensitivity, with chipped and crooked teeth, and so many more profoundly painful conditions. It is impacting their lives, their livelihoods and their mental health. We know that most dental issues that people are experiencing are largely preventable. In order to prevent these conditions, we must deliver affordable, regular visits to the dentist. Going to the dentist, going to see an oral health expert or practitioner, is essential health care. It is impossible to ignore the reality of the benefits that bringing dental care into Medicare would have for so many in our community. We know that poor dental care is linked to serious health conditions. Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, pregnancy complications, stroke, respiratory conditions—all are linked to poor dental and oral health. Why then is it that the government refuse to take action? The average cost of a scale and clean nationally is $229. The most costly place to get a scale and clean is right here in the ACT, where it costs $284. In 90 per cent of federal electorates, the cost of a new-patient visit to the dentist exceeds $253. Forty-six per cent of Australians over 15 do not have access to private health cover to cover at least some of the cost. This reality is driving thousands, or tens of thousands, of unnecessary preventable presentations to emergency departments all over Australia. Hospitalisations for serious yet preventable dental conditions have increased by nearly 15 per cent since the COVID-19 pandemic. Public dental waiting times in the same period in Western Australia have increased to more than 10 months in some parts of WA. The facts are clear; dental health care is essential health care. Far too many people are left without it. Investing in preventive dental care, especially preventive dental care for young people, preventive dental care for First Nations people and preventive dental care for disabled people, would deliver significantly improved health outcomes and lower the pressure on our already overrun public health system and emergency departments. If the government wants to know where the money for such programs could come from and if the government wants to know where we might find the money to fund dental care into Medicare, may I point them to $65 billion over the next 10 years in AUKUS submarine expenditure and over $400 billion over the next 30 years. Maybe, instead of buying these clapped-out old machines from the Americans, we could give people the ability to go to the dentist for free. Media 136 20:42 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia Have you ever wondered why the government is so adamant about shielding you from online content, or why the media is always in total lock step? I've no doubt it's quite comforting to believe that the government knows what's best for you and that they've got your back, but, if you're anything like me, alarm bells go off when you hear that the government are safeguarding your interests, especially when it comes to censorship. Whether you call it the mass media, the legacy media, the mainstream media or the free press, journalists of the past bravely exposed scandals without fear or favour. Some still do today, but they're often met with backlash, ridicule and diatribe. The media once hailed itself as the fourth estate—the crucial check against government overreach and corruption and an indispensable peer for the pillar of democracy. Journalism was an honourable pursuit driven by ethics and a commitment to the truth. However, control over traditional media outlets soon became consolidated into a few hands, and, over the past three decades or so, journalism has drastically declined. Journalists today are pressured by their employers to craft narratives rather than report facts, with those narratives commonly aligning with corporate and government interests. In the 1990s, the internet promised to fix it with decentralised control and genuine freedom of expression. In those days, the internet was merely a strange meeting place for gamers and Star Trek fans, but eventually it transformed our media consumption habits, with social media platforms emerging as influential players in news, information and entertainment. What should have developed into a space for a diverse and free dialogue has degenerated into a weapon of mass deletion. Twitter, now X, was perfectly acceptable to the establishment when it was populated for and curated by aggrieved academics giving each other virtual back rubs over the horrors of cheap coal-fired power and colonialism. But, as soon as Elon Musk turned it into a mainstream, free speech platform, the discourse returned, the bots were eliminated and the warning sirens went off. If only we'd had Elon Musk's Twitter during COVID—a period in which the media was the greatest purveyor of misinformation and disinformation on the planet. Instead, we had the mainstream media and social media quarterbacking the establishment's narrative and removing opinions that contradicted them. The Twitter Files scandal in the US exposed the cosy relationship between these platforms and government agencies, echoing past instances of media manipulation, and the domestic Home Affairs censorship saga I exposed last year did a similar thing right here in Australia. If you think this sounds too far-fetched, remember that, in the 1960s, the CIA ran Operation Mockingbird, a clandestine venture designed to influence journalists and media organisations in order to affect public opinion and control the news cycle. And how about Google? The company's wistful origin story is that it was the brainchild of two young go-getters at Stanford, but missing from that magical story is the part about how it was reportedly started in 1995 as a DARPA-funded project for the CIA and the NSA. Many social media platforms, to this day, hire former intelligence employees, most of whom work in trust and safety teams determining what content gets amplified or fact-checked and what gets taken down entirely. Big tech is the perfect intersection between government, the ruling class and the intelligence services, along with their mates in big business. You see what they want you to see. Australia is at the tip of the spear of a global censorship movement, and I suspect that many who are involved are blissfully unaware and think that they're doing the right thing by shutting down and deleting so-called mis- and disinformation. But let's be clear: the government isn't thinking about your safety, and it doesn't care about misinformation. What it cares about is making sure that you see an approved message at all times. Budget 137 20:46 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales Today is my first budget day as a senator, and I note it is the third budget of the Albanese Labor government. It is the third budget of this government that has inflicted the cost-of-living crisis that Australian families are struggling through right now. What I had hoped we would see tonight—and this is the view of many I have spoken with, throughout my state of New South Wales—was a budget that was focused on addressing Labor's home-grown cost-of-living crisis. But, instead of addressing the causes of Labor's home-grown inflation, Labor's spending is up by $315 billion. After three Labor budgets, the average Australian household with a mortgage is $35,000 worse off. While immigration continues to soar, Labor isn't delivering enough houses. This third budget does nothing to restore what Labor has cost Australians, and we are all poorer for it. A budget that begins to repair the massive hit to real disposable incomes that Australian families are experiencing is what we were expecting—as someone earning $100,000 is around $7,000 a year worse off under this government—and a budget that addresses the fact that, since Labor came to power, prices have gone up by 17 per cent. The latest inflation data showed that, under Labor, prices across the board have risen by close to 10 per cent, with the increase even greater for many essential items. Food is up 10 per cent. Housing is up 12 per cent. Gas is up 25 per cent. Electricity is up 18 per cent. Australians are poorer under Labor. There is a risk that this spending will keep inflation higher for longer. The RBA has indicated this. While we support any help for families and small businesses with high energy costs, this rebate is, in the words of Taylor Swift, a bandaid on a bullet wound. It doesn't change the fact that Australians still won't see the $275 reduction in their energy bills that the Prime Minister promised before the election. In fact, many Australians would need to see a $1,000 cut in their power bill just to get the promised $275 reduction. It's shameful—absolutely shameful. It's placing the sole burden of wrestling the economy back under control onto borrowers—onto people who have a mortgage. That's what young Australian families and people with a small business have to wrestle with. It's a story of the struggle that so many Australian families are going through right now. They are expected to do the hard work so that the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, doesn't have to get his hands dirty. A budget that addresses the housing crisis is also something we didn't get—not just social housing but barriers to private housing being unlocked. We saw a so-called announcement over the weekend from the government about housing that does nothing for the private market whatsoever. There is no hope for young Australians wanting to break into the market, nothing to redirect migration towards the construction that is so badly needed to construct homes of the future and nothing to councils for the small things that really matter in unlocking supply. This Labor budget fails economic tests. In these uncertain times we needed a budget that got back to basics. That means a budget that restored standards of living by finally addressing inflation and pressures being felt by families at the checkout and with their energy bills; restored prosperity and created opportunity by supporting small businesses and helping young Australians into a home; restored budget discipline and honesty; restrained spending; brought back fiscal guardrails and a tax-to-GDP cap; and delivered a structural surplus, not a windfall surplus. Labor's third budget has failed all these tests. Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 137 20:51 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland Over the weekend I spoke with representatives from the Home to Bilo campaign. They told me about the concerns that two women living in Biloela, which is in my home region of Central Queensland, have about the government's Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024. I received concerns from both Priya and Vashini, and I propose to read out their statements as they have been given to me for the parliament. The first one is from Priya, who you may remember from the Home to Bilo campaign: My husband Nades and I were so happy when the Labor government granted us permanent residency in 2022, after many years of fear and uncertainty about our future in Australia. We were so happy when the government announced that all people on TPVs and SHEVs would be given permanency here too. But we are so worried to hear about this Deportation Bill. This Bill could see people on bridging visas, who are in the same position that my family were in, put into jail for refusing to go back to danger. This Bill could see families split up. People all around Australia were horrified at how long my daughters Kopika and Tharnicaa were put into detention for. But this new Bill could affect up to 375 children living in Australia. If their parents were put into jail, then those children would have to go into care. This would be devastating for those children. The people who are on bridging visas in the Australian community have been here for a decade. They are neighbours, workmates and friends of the Australian people. We want to respectfully ask the government to drop this Bill and focus on giving some certainty to people on bridging visas. They need peace and permanency, not more punishment. Vashini writes: I came to Australia by sea, fleeing the horrors of the civil war in Sri Lanka, with my parents and my siblings. We were granted Safe Haven Enterprise Visas and started to rebuild our lives in Australia. I met my husband Riswan in Australia. Riswan's claims for asylum were rejected under the flawed Fast Track system. He has been issued 3 month bridging visas for years on end. We have tried countless times to ask for intervention for his case, and there has been no answer. We have three young children. Our home should be a happy home—it could be a happy home—filled with the laughter, chaos and delight of two loving parents and their three kids. But instead, every time my husband has to apply for a new bridging visa, he goes quiet, because he's so stressed about what might happen next. I hold his hand and tell him it's going to be okay, but I don't really know that it is. My husband is so much more than an asylum seeker. He's a carpenter, a taxpayer, a husband, a father. He's a friend. But he, and our family, cannot move forward until his immigration status in Australia is resolved. This new Deportation Bill has terrified our family. If this Bill passes into law, Riswan would face jail time if he refuses to cooperate with his deportation. But how could anyone expect this loving husband and father to willingly agree to leave his wife and children behind? After living in Australia for ten years, my husband, and others like him, have built lives here. They are part of the fabric of our community. It's time to stop punishing them for seeking safety in Australia. They need permanency in Australia, not prison. Walk for a Veteran with PTSD 138 20:55 Senator McLACHLAN 287062 South Australia I rise to advise the Senate and honourable senators that the 2024 Walk for a Veteran with PTSD will be held in Adelaide on 27 July. I am a proud patron of this charity where veterans, families and their friends and supporters trek 42 kilometres along South Australia's beautiful coastline. It is not only veterans that are participating in this great event; it is first responders. The money that is raised goes to both veteran and first responder charities. I would like to thank APOD, or Australian Partners of Defence, and their CEO, Paul Broadbridge, for sponsoring the event this year. It will commence at 6 am at the Seacliff Surf Life Saving Club and proceed for about 20 kilometres up the coast and then return back to Seacliff for celebrations. You don't have to do all 42 kilometres. You can do seven, 14, 28 or join me on the 42. Members may be surprised that this will be my seventh time, and for at least five I have done the 42 kilometres. I am in my 50s. So I encourage everyone, no matter what their age, to join us. Holocaust Remembrance Day, Migration, Housing 138 20:57 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I rise to speak on an event whose message and symbolism is more important—and more important particularly in 2024—than it has been for many, many years. On 5 May the world observed Yom HaShoah, also known as Holocaust Remembrance Day. I gathered, as I always do, with the Western Australian Jewish community for a moving ceremony at the centre of their community in Yokine in Perth's northern suburbs. As I begin this contribution, let me commend the community and its leaders for the inspiring and stoic example they continue to set for the people of my home state during these incredibly challenging times. Because the event took place against a backdrop of chaotic global affairs and followed the events of 7 October last year, the worst slaughter of Jewish people since the Holocaust, I am sure we can all reflect on the enormity of the feeling that filled the hall that evening. Yom HaShoah is a time for Jewish people, for all people, to pause and reflect on the cruelty, the suffering and the bravery that occurred during the Holocaust. The overarching resolution that comes from marking this day is that the world must never allow genocide like that of the Holocaust to occur again. However, ensuring this promise of 'never again' cannot be achieved without eternal vigilance, especially at a time when antisemitism is rearing its ugly head across the globe, including, unfortunately, in our own country. We so regularly pride ourselves on being a haven of acceptance and safety, but that's not so when we see it in full force in our cities, including on university campuses. I applaud my coalition colleagues who, today, are pursuing this issue with the urgency it deserves by putting their names to a motion moved by Senator Henderson to bring forward an inquiry into antisemitism generally but most particularly on our university campuses. In reflecting on this need for vigilance and how quickly antisemitism can escalate, I was reminded of the story of a Jewish man living in Italy during the period leading up to and during the Second World War. Primo Levi was born in 1919 in Turin and was known for his athletic pursuits and his academic prowess. He would go on to receive top marks in his study of the classics and chemistry and eventually wrote his thesis on the asymmetry of the carbon atom. Primo's encounters with antisemitism started early, and he was bullied at school. This deteriorated into discrimination that limited his study and work opportunities. In February 1944, he was loaded onto a cramped transport destined for Auschwitz, deprived of liberty and subjected to shocking abuse. Primo later described this time in his book If This Is a Man. He wrote: Then for the first time we became aware that our language lacks words to express this offence, the demolition of a man. In a moment, with almost prophetic intuition, the reality was revealed to us: we had reached the bottom. It is not possible to sink lower than this; no human condition is more miserable than this, nor could it conceivably be so. He paints a picture of the complete and total deprivation of human dignity, the lowest lows one human can impose on another. Primo, unlike millions of others, survived his time in the death camp. His story points to a message for us all to consider in the wake of 7 October and, of course, of the Yom HaShoah. The road to Auschwitz began with the deprivation of respect, with verbal insults and the othering of Jewish people. Whatever we may like to believe, for as long as we abide antisemitic hate around the world and in our community we cannot be certain that such horrors will remain only in the history books. Indeed, tragic events show us that, unfortunately, they do not. As has been said by many in the past few months, never again is now. On the night of the Albanese government's third budget, Labor has again proved itself to be irresponsible and lacking in substance. But, as the Australian people are seeing, not only does the Prime Minister break his word; he has also imposed policies on the public that they've never asked for. As I wrote recently in the West Australian newspaper, one of these is overseeing the biggest increase in unmodelled immigration this country has ever seen since the end of the Second World War. I'd like to share some of the points raised in that newspaper article, including the disproportionate effect this policy is having on my home state of Western Australia. Last month, Australian Bureau of Statistics data confirmed the extent of Labor's unplanned migration binge. For WA, which has recorded the fastest growing population in the country for four consecutive quarters, the ramifications of this are more widely felt than any other Albanese policy. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, net overseas immigration to Australia soared to 548,000 arrivals in the 12 months to September last year, the most recent reporting period. WA's population grew to more than 2.9 million people and on current projections will exceed three million people by Christmas next year—quite possibly even sooner—with our annual growth rate of 3.3 per cent outstripping east coast capitals significantly. The ABS datasets, released every three months, show that WA's population has now grown at a faster rate than any other capital city since December 2022, beginning at a 2.3 per cent growth rate. These record immigration levels have been a godsend for Jim Chalmers and Labor, as they remain the only thing keeping the national economy from entering a technical recession. For the rest of the country, however, it's a very different story. Take housing, for example. The median price to rent a home in Perth is now a record $640 a week, up from $520 a week in December 2022. It's a result of Perth having the most restricted rental vacancy market in the country, at a crippling 0.4 per cent. The problem of finding a home has been so severe that we've seen press reports in recent months of Perth real estate agents leasing out rooms in empty homes for as much as $450 per week and people paying $120 a night to sleep in someone's backyard through Airbnb. While WA might be copping the brunt of it, the housing crisis is well and truly a national problem. Despite the 900,000 permanent and long-term overseas arrivals who entered Australia between July 2022 and December 2023, only around 265,000 new homes were built, meaning immigration is outstripping the supply of new dwellings by almost four to one. Thanks to an economy saddled with planning bottlenecks and Labor's pipeline of green infrastructure projects, approvals for new homes around the country are at their lowest level in 12 years. Median house prices are at record levels in three of Australia's capital cities, including Perth, at $660,000. Anthony Albanese's solution to this urgently pressing concern—Labor's Help to Buy scheme—has been treated like an afterthought. Nearly two years since Labor was elected, the legislation is still being debated in this parliament. Unlike the coalition's policy to allow first home buyers to access their super to get a foot on the property ladder, Labor's policy will at best apply to no more than 10,000 people each year. The Help to Buy scheme's restrictions, such as cutting off eligibility to people with an income of more than $90,000 and capping eligible homes to roughly half the average house price in cities such as Sydney means the policy is shuffling deckchairs as the Titanic sinks. From Labor's own projections, it will only help at most 40,000 people over four years. That's if it's ever even legislated. As a proud Western Australian senator and a long-term supporter of planned, modelled immigration, I begrudge none of the nearly 100,000 people who have decided to call WA home in the last 12 months. Our country and our state are some of the best places in the world to live and raise a family. But unplanned, unmodelled and, most importantly, unasked for immigration on this scale will only bring a loss of support for immigration—a phenomenon we are witnessing in many parts of the world already. For the most successful multicultural country on Earth, such an outcome would be a great tragedy. Anthony Albanese needs to remember that his first priority is to Australians, who he will have failed if he risks—as he currently does—preventing an entire generation of working Australians from owning their own home. Queensland: Community Events 140 21:07 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I was absolutely delighted to attend once again the Malayalee Association of Queensland's Sangamam festival, which was held to celebrate Easter, Vishu and Eid. I'd like to congratulate Sudha Nair, who is the President of the Malayalee Association of Queensland Inc and her all-female organising committee for the wonderful work they did in bringing the event together. As I said, it celebrates Easter, Vishu and Eid. There were performances from both Indian performers and people of non-Indian heritage. It really did bring the community together. One of the great highlights was the wonderful performance of all the masters of ceremony, the emcees. I'd like to specifically congratulate the emcees, Pooja Suna Sasi, who is a university student, and also the other three, who were school students: Sophie Sunil, Vaidehi Shiju Sankar and Daya Anoop Sudhi. Can I just say that Daya was absolutely superb. Here is a young girl who is in primary school; she did impersonations, she did accents and she was absolutely terrific—a star in the making. Congratulations to everyone involved in that very, very successful event. The second event I'd like to speak to is an ANZAC service at the Cityhope Church at Ripley under the leadership of their founding pastor, Mark Edwards, and senior pastor Ryan Germain. That was held on Sunday 14 April 2024. It included an interview with Mr Matt Anderson PSM, who's the director of the Australian War Memorial and Brigadier Aaron Hassell. Those interviews were conducted by the founding pastor, Mark Edwards OAM. They were thoughtful, considered, full of humour and an absolute reflection of Mark Edwards's character. He's the one who provided leadership to the church in 1998 when it acquired land at Ripley. They built that church in what has become one of the fastest-growing areas in Queensland. It is an absolute blessing that that church is in Ripley in one of the fastest-growing areas in Queensland, and serves the community so well. It is a blessing for the community, helping victims of domestic violence, helping people in need through their food bank and doing all the other things the church does to help its community. Once again, thank you so much to everyone at Cityhope Church Ripley, including founding Pastor Mark Edwards OAM and also senior Pastor Ryan Germain. Lastly, I'd like to thank my friends in the Queensland Serbian community for hosting the Serbian celebrations in Queensland for St George's Day. What a festival it was. I'd like to particularly thank the president, Aleksandar 'Sasha' Mladenovic, for putting on such a great event. I also want to thank Zac Popov, who's the president of St George Willawong Football Club. It was absolutely superb. You can't go past an event where you're given a shot of plum brandy, some bread and some salt when you first arrive. It was absolutely terrific. I know, Mr Acting Deputy President McGrath, that you would have enjoyed it immensely. It would have been an appropriate continuation, perhaps, of your birthday celebrations, which I know actually increased the GDP of the retail sector in Warwick quite considerably over the last weekend! I will end my contribution by wishing you a happy 50th birthday. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Thank you, Senator Scarr. You're very kind for that. Senate adjourned at 21 :11