DOCUMENTS

2024-05-15 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Wednesday, 15 May 2024

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

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 09:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 If there are no objections, the meetings are authorised. BILLS 1 BILLS Airline Passenger Protections (Pay on Delay) Bill 2024 1

Airline Passenger Protections (Pay on Delay) Bill 2024

Second Reading 1 09:02 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I started my contribution to the debate on the Airline Passenger Protections (Pay on Delay) Bill 2024 with a case study about regional Australians because, when we see flights cancelled and flights excessively delayed, the impact on regional Australians is often not thought of. People think, 'You get to the airport. It's inconvenient, but no worries,' but, if you've driven for two or three hours to get to the airport, the inconvenience is exacerbated. This bill, while it's not a silver bullet and while there may still be delays, will make airlines accountable. It will actually put the focus back on consumers. I remember when I was growing up that, if you were in retail or in any sort of customer service industry, the mantra was 'The customer is always right.' That has been forgotten in this day and age, particularly when you look at industries like the airline industry, which is serviced by the duopoly of Qantas and Virgin and, to a lesser extent, Rex. They are so big, and competition is so lacking, that no-one is holding them accountable for their actions. We hear anecdotally all the time that airlines take bookings for flights, and, when they see that that flight isn't necessarily full, they just cancel it: 'They can catch the next flight.' It doesn't always work. When we're talking about people in regional areas who are going from A to B via C on separate airlines because one airline doesn't service that route and another airline doesn't service that route, the inconvenience and the cost to the consumer is not fair; it's not justified. This bill will establish minimum standards, which is not too much to ask. This bill will have standards for how passengers should be treated when they experience delays, cancellations and sometimes denial of boarding because of the airlines. It's not because of the fog, not because of safety issues, but because the airlines are treating customers as fools. I commend this bill to the Senate. I implore my colleagues to support this bill, hold the airlines to account and put customers first. It is good customer service and it is good common courtesy. 09:05 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I'm very pleased to rise in support of this private senators' bill, the Airline Passenger Protections (Pay on Delay) Bill 2024. I do congratulate my good friends and colleagues Senator McKenzie and Senator Smith, who have been heavily involved in this bill. I also commend them both, especially Senator McKenzie for her passionate pursuit of fairness in the aviation sector for the Australian public. It might be a private senators' bill, but it's a public cause. It is seeking fairness for the millions of Australians every year who fly around our beautiful country and who are required to fly. This isn't a luxury in our country. It's not a luxury; it's a requirement—for family obligations, to catch up with friends, to attend material events or to go to urgent medical appointments. Flying is required in a country such as ours. This bill needs to be seen in that context. It also needs to be seen in the context of the rate of flight cancellations in this country, which is absolutely appalling. In January 2024, passengers endured 3.1 per cent of flights being cancelled, and the long-term average of cancellations has blown out to 2.2 per cent. But in January it was 3.1 per cent. How are we going to rectify this unless there is an economic impact upon the service provider and unless the service provider is held to account through legislation such as this? We just saw Qantas get hit with a $100 million penalty and having to do a $20 million remediation program in relation to its conduct. Qantas is going to have to pay a total of $120 million, subject to Federal Court approval, as a result of its conduct in relation to flights. That means 86,000 customers are going to participate in a $20 million remediation program, and there is going to be a $100 million civil penalty—$120 million. The Australian public should not have to wait for the ACCC to take action in order to get compensation for services which are not provided on time or to their satisfaction. Those 86,000 customers shouldn't have to wait for the ACCC to take action. They should be able to take action under the contract they have with the airline. They shouldn't have to wait for the ACCC to take action, and that goes to the crux, to the heart, of this legislation. The Senate aviation inquiry which was held last year was fiercely resisted by the Labor government. I think we've seen now, with the $120 million hit Qantas is taking and with this private senators' bill, how wrong the Albanese Labor government was to resist that aviation inquiry. Again, I congratulate my good friend and colleague Senator McKenzie for her passionate advocacy in this space. It has made a difference. What this bill will do is actually restore the balance between the supplier and the customer. Services in this country are monopolistic—at least, not an oligopoly but tending towards a monopoly. It will also make the Australian market consistent with our international competitors. Why is it that consumers have the benefit of these sorts of rights in Canada, but we don't have them in Australia? Why do consumers in the United States have these rights, but we don't have them in Australia? Why do they have them in Europe, but we don't have them in Australia? Why do they have them in the UK, but we don't have them in Australia? There are no answers to these questions from the government, and that's why the coalition has been forced to put forward this private senators' bill. The other important point on this bill is that it involves heavy consultation on a number of its key components, including the minimum standards that consumers have a right to expect with respect to accommodation, meals and, potentially, monetary compensation. An aviation code of conduct would be required to be established within 12 months, and 12 months is long enough. Consumers have been putting up with this for far longer than 12 months. This needs to be done, and it needs to be done quickly. The consumers of aviation services in Senator Bilyk's home state of Tasmania deserve this bill. They deserve to be compensated when their flights are cancelled and they're inconvenienced. The consumers of airline services in Minister Farrell's home state of South Australia deserve to be compensated when they're faced with monetary cost when their flights are cancelled, as do people from my home state of Queensland when they go to fly to South Australia to visit the great vineyards and their flights are cancelled. How do you compensate someone for that loss of opportunity? It's very hard to compensate, in fact. Consumers across this whole country deserve to be treated fairly when their flights are cancelled. There are a number of really good provisions in this bill. I don't have time to talk about all of them; there's so much good stuff. There's a rhetorical embarrassment of riches in this bill, so I have to keep to the main points. Firstly, in relation to protection of minors, there's a very important point that requires rules to be made to ensure that minors under the age of 14 are seated next to their guardian at no extra cost. That really should be a no-brainer. It's hard to think of any circumstance where a minor shouldn't be able to be seated next to their guardian at no extra cost. As the movers of this bill said, 'This provision is crucial for ensuring the safety and wellbeing of young passengers and providing peace of mind to families and caregivers.' A lot of the bill is common sense! I do not understand why the government is resisting this private senators' bill. You should really reflect on it, because I think this is good work that's been done by this Senate and the senators involved, and it should be adopted by the government. It should be supported by the Greens and the crossbench, and it should be adopted because it will make a real difference to families in Australia. Secondly, the bill would require the transport minister to make rules to establish minimum standards of treatment for passengers who experience delays, cancellations or denial of boarding. It shouldn't be done on an ad hoc basis. It shouldn't be a lucky dip. There should be standard minimum rules that apply—standard minimum rules of treatment, in this case—across the board. Each Australian should be treated fairly, and a component of that fairness should be consistency of treatment in terms of minimum standards. That would include the payment of compensation for significant delays, cancellations or denial of boarding. Thirdly, there needs to be compensation for lost or damaged baggage. Again, there should be rules applied on a fair basis, consistently, across the whole industry. Again, it shouldn't be a lucky dip. The same rules should apply, so passengers know what to expect in that situation. Refunds should be provided in a timely manner, as should other compensation owed. You shouldn't have to wrangle with the airlines in relation to whether or not they're going to give you some offset for future travel or they're going to give you this or that. There should be clear rules about the payment of compensation when the service which you have paid for has not been delivered. It should be clear, it should be consistent and it should be fair. On ground delays: in the case of tarmac delays lasting over three hours, the bill requires rules for carriers, including the obligation to provide timely information and assistance to passengers as well as the minimum standards of treatment of passengers that the carrier is required to meet. This closes any loophole through which a carrier could board a flight to avoid penalties, knowing the aircraft cannot depart within a specified time. We know; we've all been in this position. I've certainly been in that position. I've had family members in this position where they've boarded a flight and sat on it for hour after hour, and it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter, at the end of the day, whether or not you're sitting in the aircraft or the lounge when your flight is delayed. The end result is the same. Your flight is delayed. Therefore, the treatment should be the same. It doesn't matter where you're sitting during the course of the delay. Again, this is common sense. And this bill is replete with common sense. On information: the carriers should be required to provide timely information in language that is simple, clear and concise. This includes any information regarding recourse against the carrier under the carrier's obligations. This is an important point. The rights of consumers to compensation in these circumstances should be clear and accessible. You shouldn't have to go digging through pages and pages of terms and conditions in small type to find your rights. It should be absolutely clear what your rights are, and the carriers should advise you of your rights in terms of compensation. On an aviation code of conduct: the requirement should be to establish an airline code of conduct in direct response to the ongoing concerns of the ACCC—as evidenced by this $120 million hit imposed on Qantas—and other consumer advocacy groups regarding carriers' pricing strategies, inconsistent fare types and the experiences of third-party purchasers of airfares. The purpose of the code should be to ensure the fair and proper treatment of passengers and that passengers reach their intended destination as booked. Finally, the government would also be required under the code to ensure transparency in pricing through a consistent definition of a 'ticket of carriage' in the terms and conditions of carriage, preventing hidden fees and charges and ensuring consumers are fully informed at the point of purchase. We should be making it as easy as possible for consumers to understand what their rights are, the terms and conditions of their contract of carriage and their rights to seek compensation. We have a major issue here. Just reflect. Following the ACCC's action against Qantas, 86,000 passengers of Qantas are going to receive compensation for the way they were treated by Qantas under their contract. Senator Bilyk HZB What did you have to say, then? What did you do when you were in government? Senator SCARR 282997 Eighty-six thousand passengers are going to receive remediation payments, Senator Bilyk, as a result of the ACCC's action. But those 86,000 passengers should not have had to wait for the ACCC action. This bill proposes a system to protect consumers, protect their rights, give them a pathway to compensation as easily and quickly as possible and ensure they don't have to wait for the regulator to step in and take action. It's so that the people across our great land who rely on airline travel not as a luxury but as a necessity are able to get compensation in circumstances where the supplier has not delivered to the consumer what the consumer has paid for. In light of all that and the fact that consumers in the United States, the UK, Europe and Canada have these rights, give the people of Australia these rights and protections—these rights to compensation when their flights are cancelled and delayed and when they bear the costs of our airlines, including Qantas, not delivering what they say they are going to deliver. 09:20 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I rise to speak on the Airline Passenger Protections (Pay on Delay) Bill 2024. Firstly, I want to congratulate Senator McKenzie on this excellent private senator's bill. This is a profound demonstration of the work that the opposition is doing because the government won't stand up for airline passengers. The government won't do the work that Australians deserve, and this bill brings justice to airline passengers who have been systematically ripped off by airlines, particularly by Qantas. But there's a long and sordid history to this. It is disgraceful when you consider the background, because it's clear why the government won't support this bill, this excellent bill, which I'll discuss shortly. The government won't support this bill because the government has been doing dirty deals with Qantas. This is payday for Qantas. This is payday in the form of hundreds of thousands of dollars—in fact, it is probably more than that; it's probably many millions of dollars—as a result of the blocking of flights from Qatar and as a result of the dirty deal over the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, where Qantas delivered hundreds of thousands of dollars in free flights, flying campaigners around this country, with no regard for the many Indigenous Australians who did not support the Voice, who did not support the overreach, who did not support a change in our Constitution which would have profoundly divided Australia. The Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, has been more concerned with swanning around on the red carpet with Alan Joyce, pumping up his personal and political relationship, than in standing up for Australians. Frankly, Australians have had a gutful. They've had a gutful of the elites. They've had a gutful of the special deals. Catherine King is not saying to the Prime Minister: 'Prime Minister, this is not appropriate. We've got to stand up for airline passengers. We've got to do the right thing.' She hasn't had the courage to say to the Prime Minister, her factional ally, 'Prime Minister, we can't keep doing these dirty deals with Qantas.' We know that Catherine King is a weak infrastructure minister. You only have to look at the budget last night, and you only have to look at what she has delivered for the people of Ballarat, her local electorate. Shame on Catherine King. In going through the budget papers last night, looking at the local investments for the people of Ballarat, there was zero. Regional Victorians have been betrayed by the Albanese government on Catherine King's watch, and, for the third budget in a row, there is nothing of any note— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Urquhart, on a point of order? Senator Urquhart 231199 I ask that the senator refer to those in the other place by their appropriate titles, and I also ask that the senator not reflect on those in the other place in a manner that is not parliamentary. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Henderson, bear that in mind as you continue your contribution. Please go on. Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Thank you very much. I mean, that's a ridiculous point of order. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Don't debate the point of order. Please continue the second reading. Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Ms King, the member for Ballarat, has profoundly betrayed the people of Ballarat—not one single new project, no investment. No wonder she's so weak on this bill. No wonder she has betrayed airline passengers across this country. I will not be silenced in standing up for Victorians, I will not be silenced in standing up for airline passengers, and I will not be silenced in commending the work of Senator McKenzie, who is saying enough is enough. Enough is enough. So thank you for firing me up, because, I tell you what, I as a regional Victorian am disgusted—not one new project in Geelong, in Ballarat, in Bendigo or in Wodonga. The current member for Corangamite tries to say that $6 million for a basketball stadium is a new commitment. What a load of rubbish! It was taken out of the funding round and then had to be shoved back in, but it will never be built because there's not enough money. So, frankly, when it comes to infrastructure, this government is a disgrace. Contrast that with what we did under our government and you can all hang your heads in shame. The Airline Passenger Protections (Pay on Delay) Bill is a great reflection of how we are standing up for Australians. For many Australians, plane travel is no longer a luxury; it is a necessity, with hundreds of thousands of people travelling across Australia every day for medical appointments, business trips or leisure, and often under very dire circumstances—after the loss of loved ones, attending funerals. When you purchase a plane ticket, you expect to leave on time and arrive on time, and often there are very serious consequences if you don't. If you don't, airlines need to be held to account, as they are in so many other parts of the world. And it's getting worse. The red-carpet swanning around between Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister, and Alan Joyce has taken Australians backwards. The long-term average rate of flight cancellations prior to COVID was 1.5 per cent. In January 2024, passengers endured 3.1 per cent of flights being cancelled, and the long-term average rate of cancellations has blown out to 2.2 per cent. What a disgrace! What a disgrace—the ghost flights. The ACCC has now stepped in and fined Qantas. We're not just talking about a slap on the wrist. It's an $80 million fine for grossly misleading Australians, and $20 million in compensation. What a disgrace! And what does it say about the values and ethics of this company? It's about not just the gouging, the delays, the lack of consideration and the lack of care but also the grossly misleading conduct and negligent conduct, where, of course, they've been caught out and they've copped a very significant fine. I want to just go through this bill because there are some important provisions in it. The bill includes the protection of minors. Recognising the vulnerability of minors, the bill would require the transport minister to make rules which mandate that minors under the age of 14 are seated next to their guardian or their parent at no extra cost. Can you imagine an airline charging extra so a child can sit next to their parent or their guardian? This provision is crucial for ensuring the safety and wellbeing of young passengers and providing peace of mind for families and caregivers. The bill also provides minimum standards of treatment. The bill would require the transport minister to make rules which establish minimum standards of treatment for passengers who experience delays, cancellations or denial of boarding, which can often happen when a flight is overbooked. These standards are intended to ensure that passengers are provided with essential amenities such as food, water and accommodation during such disruptions, which, of course, would mitigate the inconvenience and this discomfort. The minimum standards may also set compensation for significant delays, cancellations or denial of boarding. The bill also provides for compensation for lost or damaged baggage. This would require the minister to make rules which introduce provisions for passengers to seek compensation. It is absolutely unacceptable for passengers to suffer severe financial losses due to mishandling of their baggage, and so this bill establishes a framework for them to seek compensation for the loss or damage of their baggage. And, of course, it holds airlines to account for property entrusted to their care. There are also obligations for refunds to be provided in a timely manner—no kicking the can down the road. In the case of tarmac delays of over three hours, the bill provides for rules for carriers, including the obligation to provide timely information and assistance to passengers, as well as providing for minimum standards of treatment of passengers that the carrier is required to meet. This closes any loophole that allows a carrier to board a flight to avoid penalties, knowing that the aircraft cannot depart within a specified time. The carrier will also be required to provide timely information in language that is simple, clear and concise. This includes any information regarding recourse against the carrier in terms of the carrier's obligations. Also in the bill is a requirement to establish an airline code of conduct in direct response to the ongoing concerns by the ACCC and other consumer advocacy groups regarding the carrier's pricing strategies, which include inconsistent fare types and the experiences of third-party purchasers of airfares. So the purpose of the code is to ensure the fair and proper treatment of passengers and that passengers reach their intended destination as booked. This bill includes some very, very important provisions. The code that I just mentioned will ensure transparency in pricing by ensuring a consistent definition of 'a ticket of carriage' and the terms and conditions of carriage, preventing hidden fees and charges and ensuring that consumers are fully informed at the point of purchase. I think we've all had the experience of trying to book an airline ticket thinking it's a certain price, only to find that we are pushed into a certain direction on the website and required to take on extra packages or elements of the ticket, only to find that the ticket price increases very substantially. This bill addresses the poor performance of the aviation sector, which has a very significant flow-on impact on the Australian economy. I think it's fair to say that Australians are sick of being gouged by the airlines due to a lack of competition. Australians are sick of being taken for granted. Australians are sick of sitting on the tarmac or in a terminal in distress because they can't get to where they need to go, with no accountability by the airline. I really have to say, in seeing this bill put forward and hoping that the government will have a change of heart, that I feel for the hardworking flight attendants, pilots and ground staff of Qantas and Virgin because they often cop the brunt of passenger grief, and they are doing their very best. We salute those workers because they are working extremely hard, often under very difficult circumstances. Why should employees of Qantas or Virgin have to cop grief from passengers because Qantas or Virgin don't do the right thing or—let's cut to the chase here—because the government doesn't do the right thing? The Prime Minister is more concerned about swanning around on the red carpet with Alan Joyce and squandering millions of dollars on the Voice. Let's not forget that, for the first 18 months of this parliament, all we spoke about was the Voice. The Prime Minister had absolutely no regard for the cost-of-living pressures that Australians are facing. He talked about bringing Australians together, but all he did was divide Australia, and we paid a very, very high price—in excess of $460 million. I want to reference the very good Senate inquiry last year, which was of course fiercely resisted by the Albanese government at every turn. We're still waiting for Alan Joyce to appear. Why is the government running a protection racket for Alan Joyce? He has questions to answer. He has treated this parliament with contempt. This is the pinnacle of our democracy here in this parliament. Everyone must comply with the law and everyone is accountable under our democracy. It is a shocking reflection on this government that they keep voting to protect Alan Joyce from appearing before the Senate inquiry and answering very important questions. I commend this bill. I commend what it would do for Australian airline passengers and for competition in the airline market and I again plead with the government to have a change of heart and to stop worrying about its deals with mates and start standing up for the Australian people. 09:35 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania I rise to speak on the Airline Passenger Protections (Pay on Delay) Bill 2024. It is really very, very, very refreshing to see that, after almost a decade in government, the coalition have finally discovered the need to protect the consumer interests of airline passengers. We on this side of the chamber are certainly well aware that the market power and anticompetitive practices of the major airlines have not been serving Australians well, and I'm glad to see that those opposite have now come to the same realisation. But let us compare this new-found enthusiasm. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator BILYK HZB You didn't have any of this enthusiasm for the 10 years you were in government. Let's compare the coalition's new-found enthusiasm for protecting airline consumers with their actual record when they were in government. During their time in government, there were no fewer than 12—I repeat: 12—reports from the ACCC which outlined problems with declining customer service standards, higher prices, record cancellations and record delays. Yet, for almost a decade in government, those opposite did absolutely nothing to tackle the power of the big airlines, increase competition or improve consumer protections. You weren't worried about it when you were in government, were you? We know from a June 2023 ACCC report that pricing is not the only barrier to entry for smaller airlines. Another major barrier is airport take-off and landing sites at Sydney airport. Yet those opposite failed to address this in government. They didn't do a thing. During the pandemic, Qantas received $2.7 billion in taxpayer funded government assistance from those on that side, including $900 million in JobKeeper payments. Of course this assistance was necessary to keep the airline afloat during the pandemic. But I'll tell you what is outrageous. What is outrageous is that they were not required to pay any of this money back despite making a whopping $2.5 billion profit last financial year. So they got money from the government, there was absolutely nothing that said they had to pay it back and then they made a profit of $2.5 billion. Although they received money for JobKeeper, let's not forget that, while they were receiving all that money, Qantas was shamelessly outsourcing the jobs of the thousands of baggage handlers, catering workers and flight attendants that the other side now seem to feel some compassion for. You didn't care about it then, and we know you don't really care about it now. Qantas was shamelessly outsourcing those jobs. I remember coming into this place time and time again to plead for Dnata workers who were stood down without any payment. You didn't care about them then. Where has this new-found love come from, I wonder? As I said, I came in here time and time again to ensure Qantas were made accountable for looking after their workforce in return for the taxpayer assistance they were receiving. Now we all know that the coalition always sides with big business over workers, so it's probably no surprise to anyone that coalition frontbenchers referred to the illegal sacking of 1,700 workers by Qantas as 'a good model'. Today they've found some compassion for these workers. Today they want you to think that they've always cared for these workers. Well, do not be misled. They also said, if I remember correctly, that it was in the best interests of the company for these workers to be sacked. The bill that's currently before the Senate is the latest thought bubble from an opposition that's bereft of any real ideas or any real plan for the future. They come in here, they put up these little stunts, they have their rants and they get worked up by a simple request to be respectful and start yelling—situation normal. As the saying goes, though, never look a gift horse in the mouth. I guess if the opposition are willing to go in to bat for airline consumers after a decade of neglect then we should really welcome their change in attitude. The other reason I appreciate the opposition bringing this bill on for debate is that it gives me an opportunity to compare the previous government's lacklustre record to what a government does when it is serious about improving airline competition and consumer protection. Whether it's providing regular public audits to improve transparency, growing access for new entrants or improving regional access, the Albanese Labor government's record stands in stark contrast to that of the previous government. We've also taken the important step of reforming the slot system at Sydney Airport for the first time in over 27 years. I accept that Australians have been paying too much for travel. I have, too, often faced delays and cancellations. You really want to try living in Tasmania. The thing is we know there's still much more to be done. A stunt bill doesn't solve all the problems, and your new-found love for Qantas—or for the airlines and the workers—does not solve all the problems. There's an aviation white paper due to be released mid this year in accordance with our election commitment. Following a comprehensive process including industry round tables, a green paper and further public consultation, the white paper will outline the government's policy in relation to the safety, competitiveness, sustainability and efficiency of the aviation sector. A reform of the kind proposed in the bill may happen, but, through the white paper process, various policy approaches are being carefully considered and compared and well designed, taking into account the extensive feedback of stakeholders. For the sake of airline competition and the true interests of the travelling public, we want to engage in genuine reform, not just stunts. 09:42 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales It's really interesting to hear the different perspectives on this. Senator Bilyk HZB The reality! Senator KOVACIC 306168 No, it's my turn to speak. Thank you. The Airline Passenger Protections (Pay on Delay) Bill 2024 is a bill for an act to require the transport minister to make rules prescribing carriers' obligations and for related purposes. I'm going to read the outline from the explanatory memorandum so we have an understanding of what this is actually about. The purpose of this Bill is to require the Minister for Transport to make rules to prescribe certain obligations to passengers for airline carriers operating in Australian airspace. That's pretty reasonable. The obligations would be designed to protect passengers who experience a delay, cancellation or denial of boarding. Again, that's pretty reasonable. The Bill also requires the Minister to establish an airline code of conduct that provides for the protection of passengers and third parties from improper conduct by carriers. I can't see anything wrong with that. The Bill is in response to the increasing level of consumer complaints lodged against airlines in Australia. The latest ACCC airline monitoring report confirms once again that the sector is not where it should be— so this is the ACCC airline monitoring report; it is not an opposition report. It is the latest airline monitoring report— as does that fact complaints to the ACCC concerning aviation have risen by nearly 200% since 2018. With around 93% of market share, Qantas and Virgin have a tighter grip on domestic air travel than another notable duopoly—Coles and Woolworths—do on the supermarket industry. The reality is that domestic airlines have been held largely unaccountable for their poor performance because Australian consumers have not had the option of choosing other operators. In the international sector, airlines operating in Australia are already subject to similar requirements in other jurisdictions, such as the European Union, United Kingdom and Canada. The new rules would ensure foreign carriers operating in Australia are subject to the same consumer obligations as domestic carriers. That all sounds pretty reasonable. For me, in a nutshell, this is about three things. This is about fairness, transparency and communication. It's requiring carriers in Australian airspace to be fair and transparent and to properly communicate with their customers. I can't see anything wrong with that. As my colleague Senator Henderson pointed out, plane travel isn't a luxury. It's not something that you always go and do just because you can. For many, many Australians, it is a necessity. The scale and geography of our country require people to fly to places. We can't always drive there and we can't always get a train there. We have to fly. That could be for medical appointments, medical treatment, a business trip or—if it is, in fact, a special luxury for a family—a family holiday, or, as Senator Henderson noted, it could be for a sad reason. It could be for a funeral. It could be for something you don't want to go and do but you need to go and do. When you buy that ticket, when you pay that money—particularly in the current cost-of-living crisis if your family has saved to go on a holiday or has pooled what resources it has to go see a family member who is unwell—you have certain expectations. Those expectations are that you are actually going to get to the place that you have booked the ticket to go to, that you are going to get there in a reasonable time and that your bags are also going to be there when you get there. Those are not unreasonable expectations when you hand over a lot of money to purchase your airline ticket. But the failings of our major airlines over recent years have left many Australians frustrated, distressed, inconvenienced and out of pocket as a result of poor service and poor outcomes. There is no question that we are currently navigating an extraordinary cost-of-living crisis. The last thing that Australians need when they make the decision to travel, whether out of necessity or because they have scrimped and saved for a holiday for themselves or their family, is to lose some of that money as a result of poor service from our airlines. Those service standards are significantly lower today than they were prior to the disruptions caused by the COVID pandemic. The long-term average of flight cancellations prior to COVID was 1½ per cent. In January this year, it became 3.1 per cent. But the on-time performance is something that has more impact. That's the delay in flights, being late. On-time performance is much, much worse now than it was prior to COVID. In January this year, 26.6 per cent of flights were delayed. That means you had a one-in-four chance of your flight being delayed. That is a lot of delayed flights. The pre-pandemic long-term average rate of delayed flights was 17.8 per cent, so less than one in five. I know that many Australians have faced delayed flights over the last couple of years. If it happens once in a while, you understand that this can happen. And it is not always the airline's fault. There can be weather issues and there can be technical issues. If there is a technical issue with a plane, none of us have a problem with that being communicated to us or with understanding that. We all accept that, for the safety of passengers, we want things like that to be resolved. But this is where the airlines need to lift their game: they need to communicate this to us—to tell us. We shouldn't be sitting on a flight on the tarmac for an hour or an hour and a half with little knowledge of what is going on, with an inability to communicate to family or to work colleagues who might be waiting for us at the other end because we actually don't know what's happening. That is not okay. This is where I talk about the fairness and the transparency and the communication. We have purchased a ticket—we've paid the money for that ticket—and we have a reasonable expectation that that service be delivered to us in the way it has been described. Deteriorating and persistent poor performance by domestic airlines has exposed these inadequate protections for customers under Australian law, with millions of dollars in flight credits still owed nearly four years on from the outbreak of the pandemic. So many of us became confused as to whether we had flight credits, whether we had the passes, what they were, how and when we could use them, what flights we could use them for, whether or not they expired and, if they had expired, when they had. That's not fair. That's not transparent. And that's not good communication. This state of affairs has persisted because there haven't been consequences, because of a lack of competition. We don't have a lot of choice. We don't have other airlines to go to. The Senate aviation inquiry last year, which was fiercely resisted by this government at pretty much every juncture, exposed that the government does not have a plan to address lack of competition and poor performance within the aviation industry. This inquiry recommended better protections for consumers across Australia. That isn't a radical recommendation. That's a fair and reasonable recommendation: better protections for consumers across Australia. This isn't a coffee or a muffin or something that you've bought for lunch; this is a significant expense, with impacts to individuals if their flights are cancelled or not on time. People miss significant personal and family events. People can miss connecting flights. People who are travelling could miss the beginning of a cruise or another trip that they have planned that's connected to it. People who travel who have paid for hotels and accommodation and are delayed may miss a concert that they've decided to go to. People who travel may miss important business meetings, so small businesses may have the cost of airline travel for their staff who actually weren't able to complete the purpose of their trip. That is unacceptable. The recommendation for better protections for consumers across Australia is a reasonable one. But the recommendations were met with silence from the government, and everything was pushed off into a review. Again, the coalition has been forced to act in this space because Labor won't. I commend my colleagues Senators McKenzie and Smith for putting this bill forward. This bill will tilt the balance from market giants to everyday Australians by protecting the rights of passengers in circumstances where delays, cancellations or denial of boarding occur. This bill instructs the minister to create rules for airlines within 12 months to ensure that passengers are compensated and treated fairly when they experience disruptions and delays. That's not unreasonable. These rules would be similar to protections already enjoyed by passengers in Canada, the United Kingdom, Europe and the United States. It's not clear to me why Australian passengers—Australian consumers—shouldn't be afforded those same protections. The minister is required to consult widely on the rules to ensure that all views are taken into account in determining what the minimum standards should be, including in relation to meals, hotels, refunds and, potentially, monetary compensation, and that's fair and reasonable as well. It also instructs the minister to create a clear definition of an 'airfare' in direct response to the defence being lodged by Qantas in the ACCC lawsuit. The bill would require an aviation code of conduct to be established within 12 months to protect passengers and travel agents from improper conduct by carriers. There are codes in the retail sector, in banking and in telecommunications. Why should aviation be any different? A transport sector as vital as aviation in a country like Australia, where so many of us rely on air travel, should be subject to the same frameworks that protect consumers in other industries. There are a few key provisions in the rules required by the bill, and one that I want to talk about in particular is the protection of minors—children. Recognising the vulnerability of children, this bill would require the transport minister to make rules which mandate that minors under the age of 14 are seated next to their guardian at no extra costs. This means that parents get to sit next to their children on the plane without having to pay extra. Who else do you want your children to sit next to in order to ensure their safety? That's common sense. A parent or guardian should not have to pay extra to have their children seated with them. This provision is crucial for ensuring the safety and wellbeing of young passengers and for providing peace of mind to families and caregivers. (Time expired) 09:57 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia It gives me great pleasure to be able to stand here today and talk about the Airline Passenger Protections (Pay on Delay) Bill 2024, but it's really sad that we have to be here. You would have thought the corporate responsibility of Australia's two major airlines, particularly our national carrier, would have been sufficient for us not to need to have such a bill. But, sadly, we do, and that's why we're here. I'm very pleased to be standing here in support the bill. In supporting this bill, we are supporting many, many Australians who use air services—not just those who use airlines to go on a holiday, which we all love and enjoy, but many Australians who have to use air services for everything that goes on in their everyday lives. There are so many examples of non-leisure travel that has been disproportionately impacted over the last few years by the shoddy behaviour and the lack of competition which is driving inefficiency in our airline system. We have seen a significant decline in airline efficiency and capability since COVID, and it's really quite inexcusable. Of course we all understood during COVID that there were going to be significant implications, and Australian aviation suffered during that time, as did many, many other businesses. Most of that is behind us now, yet the performance of our major airlines in Australia has remained at a dismally low level. As I said, while airlines are often seen as things that people use because they're going on a holiday, which is absolutely great, there are a lot of other reasons people use airlines. For instance, if you live in rural, regional or remote Australia, often the only way that you're able to access specialist treatment is by using an airline. As another example, just about every one of us in this place, apart from those that are members for the Canberra district, arrive here on an aeroplane. For our work, we have to fly on a plane. Many other businesses around the country also rely on air travel to enable them to do their business, get to their meetings and make sure that they're serving their customers. Our elite sporting teams also rely on airlines. These are the sporting teams that play around the country every weekend, and during the week, in some instances, that, hopefully, inspire young Australians to be active and healthy, because they're going out there and cheering on their favourite team. Think about a team like the North Queensland Cowboys, as an example, all the way up in Townsville. The implications of delayed and cancelled flights on a team like them, who are often so far away from where they're playing on a weekend, can be very, very significant. There are many, many people from many places that are impacted by the shoddy performance of our airline sector. The reality is, if you purchase a ticket on a plane, you have every reason to expect that it's going to leave on time and arrive where you actually booked the ticket for—that the destination you booked for is the destination your plane lands at. You also should have a reasonable expectation that the luggage that you've checked in actually arrives at that destination on the same plane that you do. But so often that is not the case. Over recent years, we have seen major frustration for and inconvenience to Australians because of the significantly lower service standards that we are seeing from our airlines. We managed, before COVID, to have a pretty efficient and effective system where, went you went to the airport, you usually didn't worry about whether your plane was going to be delayed or possibly cancelled. It happened on occasion. Of course, everybody understands that, in the interest of safety—if there's a technical issue or bad weather—there are reasons why a plane may have to be delayed, and we all understood that prior to COVID. But the number of delays and cancellations that have happened since COVID would suggest that we are certainly not in a position where we can blame every delay on the weather or a technical issue with the safety of the aircraft—there seem to be way too many for that. If you look at the change in the percentage of flights that are cancelled, before COVID it was about 1.5 per cent. One would suggest that 1.5 per cent probably correlates with the issues in relation to weather and technical safety. In January 2024 that figure was 3.1 per cent. It's more than double. There has to be some sort of explanation as to why that is the case. Similarly on performance, in relation to delays, prior to COVID about 17. 8 per cent of flights were delayed. Post COVID, we're seeing that rate, in January this year, at 26.6 per cent, so that's a significant increase in the number of planes that are being delayed. The poor performance of airlines—whilst we acknowledge the inconvenience to and frustration of the many passengers around Australia who are suffering as a result of this poor performance—also has a significant impact on the performance of our economy. As an example, previously, if you went to catch a plane for a business visit or meeting in another destination, you would usually factor in a certain amount of time for travel to get to that meeting. You can no longer do that with any sense of confidence. In fact, I know many people in the business community who now will fly the day before because they're worried about delays or cancellations of planes which can mean that, by the time they get to their destination, they may have missed the reason for them being there. So people are factoring into their day hours and hours of additional, totally non-productive time that they didn't previously have to factor in, simply because of the unreliability of our airline system, in order to ensure they do get to their destination on time and are able to meet the purpose of their business travel. This is so unproductive for the Australian economy. It also exposes the inadequacy of the compensation that is provided to the people who are inconvenienced. We certainly know that millions and millions of dollars in flight credits are still owed to Australians. This just shouldn't have happened. It also brings into question the competitive nature of our aviation sector. Clearly it is not working, because the competitive tension that should be in place isn't, because we've seen both airlines doing the exact same thing. Equally concerning is that, despite this lower performance and despite the fact that their planes are all full—I certainly know personally that I haven't been on a plane recently that hasn't been full, so the airlines aren't flying around the skies with half empty planes—we are still being inconvenienced. Why on earth are our prices still as high as they are? The planes are full, so we should see prices being reduced. We also mustn't forget that these companies are the ones that took billions of dollars of support from Australian taxpayers during the pandemic. Of course we understood the devastating impact that COVID had on the aviation sector, and it had to be maintained during that time. But the fact that we have not seen an aviation sector who have thought that it was urgent or important enough to actually get back to pre-COVID efficiency levels suggests to me there is something wrong in the psyche of the airlines, because they're clearly making a lot of money. Last year, the Senate aviation inquiry—an inquiry that was fiercely resisted by those opposite, a government that doesn't seem to have a plan to address this poor performance, I might say—found that there was so much need for better protections for consumers, who have been hurt by airlines over and over again in recent years. This is not the first example of the coalition having to come into this parliament and actually take up the role of protecting, supporting or delivering outcomes for Australian consumers because the government just isn't doing its job. This is a government that doesn't seem to understand that the job of a government is to govern. The job of a government is to protect Australian citizens and, in this instance, people who are flying from a substandard performance by our airline sector, which is leaving Australians significantly out of pocket and creating great productivity declines for our nation. I commend the coalition senators who have sponsored this bill to try and address this issue because the government wasn't prepared to do it. What will happen now is we'll see that consumers actually have some power back in the negotiation with airlines. I hope that those in this place will actually see the merit of this particular bill. It begs the question why anybody would want to vote against something that protects Australian consumers from the poor performance of very, very large businesses. We've got two corporate giants at the head of our aviation sector in Australia, and we're saying that consumers should have a little bit more power and a better balance in that negotiation than they currently have, which has absolutely been evidenced by the way that passengers and consumers have been treated over the last few years. The bill puts in place a number of very sensible provisions that will make sure that our consumers are better protected. Protecting minors by making sure that their safety and their wellbeing when they're on aircraft is maximised is an eminently sensible thing for us to be requiring the airlines to do. We also need to make sure that there is a minimum standard required of airlines so people actually know what their rights are: minimum standards of treatment for people who were delayed and minimum standards for those that have their flights cancelled or have been denied boarding, whether that be the provision of food and drink or accommodation if they require an overnight stay. It seems pretty reasonable that you should be compensated if your bag goes missing or is significantly damaged. We need to make sure that airlines are held to account for ensuring not only that your baggage gets to your destination on the same plane as you do but also that it's not damaged in the process. We need to make sure that refunds for cancelled flights that aren't able to be taken are done in a timely fashion. We need to make sure when a plane is on the ground and there are delays that that information is provided to the passengers in a timely fashion so that they can make the necessary decisions about their own circumstances to deal with the inconvenience of the delay. We also need to address the loophole where, if you board a flight, you're not covered by the same conditions or rules as if the flight hadn't been boarded, and make sure that there's consistency whether you're on the plane or off the plane if you're delayed. We also need to make sure that the airlines are required to provide that information to consumers in an easy-to-understand format and in an appropriate and timely fashion. That also includes making sure that those consumers that are impacted know what recourse is available to them should it occur, because right now there is a lack of information that's being provided to consumers about what their rights are if their flight is cancelled or delayed. By establishing an aviation code of conduct we can make sure that, via this mechanism, carriers have to provide pricing strategies that are transparent. It will hopefully avoid inconsistent fare types, ensure fair and proper treatment of passengers and make sure that passengers reach their intended destination as booked. The government—and we'd like to think that, given the importance of and the level of reliance on the aviation sector, particularly in a country the size of Australia, the government would take it seriously—needs to ensure that under the code we have transparency in pricing, consistent definitions around ticket of carriage and the prevention of hidden fees and charges. Sadly, once again we've seen that it was another organisation that had to get the government—or Qantas in this instance—kicking and screaming, to address this issue. We know that 86,000 Qantas customers will now be compensated because of the ACCC's intervention on this issue, because the government wasn't prepared to do anything. They're going to cop a whopping $80 million fine, which would have been better used to make sure that Australians were getting fair treatment when it came to— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 Senator Ruston, the time for the debate has now expired. The Senate will now proceed to the consideration of government business. MOTIONS 11 MOTIONS Middle East 11 10:12 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I seek leave to move a motion relating to the 76th anniversary of the Nakba in 1948. Leave not granted. Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Pursuant to the contingent notice of motion standing in the name of Senator Waters, I move: That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the 76th anniversary of the Nakba. Today marks the 76th anniversary of the Nakba. Nakba is the Arabic word for 'catastrophe', and Nakba Day is observed by Palestinians across the world. The Nakba was the violent displacement, dispossession and ethnic cleansing of Palestinian people. This year this particular day is deeply solemn. Today's day of reflection is happening against the backdrop of the ongoing genocide in Gaza. Tens of thousands of civilians are dead. Millions are being actively and deliberately starved, dehydrated and exposed to epidemic disease as a result of the choices and the actions of the State of Israel. As we sit here, the Israel military are dropping bombs and progressing their tanks through Rafah, one of the most densely populated places on the planet due to the forced depopulation of northern Gaza—1. 7 million people. Seventy-five per cent of all Palestinians, 1.5 million people, in Gaza are now displaced, and this is the area the Israeli military are bombing and this is the area through which Israeli tanks are moving. Millions of people have been forced into an area not much bigger than a Perth suburb under the guise of it being a designated safe area. Well, just last week, dozens were killed in that designated safe zone by the Israeli military—shame. Benjamin Netanyahu and his war cabinet have crossed every red line imaginable. The Australian government has done nothing except tell Israel not to go down this path. It is clear that the war cabinet does not care for the weak words of this government—that they have no effect on restraining the bloodshed or devastation. It is time that the Prime Minister and the foreign minister took real, meaningful action. I have been proud to be part of a movement in this place that has brought the people's protest into this place of power, this place where government officials and ministers could take action. The Australian government must cancel their contract with Elbit Systems. Until they do, they are aiding and abetting genocide. We must sanction Prime Minister Netanyahu and his war cabinet, who have made clear that they have no interest in respecting international law or the lives of innocent Palestinians. Crucially, we must expel the State of Israel's Ambassador to Australia because we cannot play a part in or uphold an international rules based order only when it suits us. War crimes must be called out wherever they occur and whoever the perpetrators are. We are well over six months into this genocide. When is the Australian government going to wake up and actually do something about it? What will it take for you to see that the deaths of thousands of children and the levelling of whole cities is not a limited engagement but the latest series of actions by a state which has been systemically and actively working to rid and to move the Palestinian people from— (Time expired) 10:18 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia This is another shameless and shameful Greens stunt. It's another occasion where the Greens come in whilst indicating, of course, to the great suffering of those people in Gaza at present—the great suffering and enormous tragedy of the loss of life—and that far too many civilians have died in the period since 7 October. The Greens do so in a way to seek to divide in this chamber, to seek to wedge, and with a completely one-sided approach. Does this motion call for the Iranian Ambassador to Australia or a representative to be expelled? No, it doesn't, notwithstanding the fact that Iran sponsored Hamas to undertake the 7 October slaughter of women, children, babies and others, notwithstanding the fact that Iran sponsors Hezbollah to maintain terrorist operations in the northern parts of Israel, notwithstanding the fact that Iran has been sponsoring the Houthi rebels to undertake attacks in the Red Sea and notwithstanding the fact that Iran has provided weapons to Russia to help and aid their attack on Ukraine. This is a completely lopsided, one-sided, biased resolution from the Australian Greens. It does not deserve the consideration or the support of the Australian Senate. It overlooks the reality that Hamas continue to hold an estimated 130 hostages that they have held since the slaughter, on 7 October last year, of more Jews on a single day than at any time since the Holocaust. They continue to hold those hostages. Some have died whilst being held hostage by Hamas. In ceasefire negotiations, do Hamas agree to release hostages in return for a ceasefire? No, they don't. They stack all manner of other conditions upon that. Do Hamas agree to surrender terrorist infrastructure and terrorist leaders in return for a ceasefire? No, they don't. They are happy to continue to hide behind innocent civilians in Gaza and to let those people suffer and die while they seek to protect their Hamas terrorist leadership and infrastructure capabilities. There is a pathway to a sustainable ceasefire. It would be for Hamas to unconditionally release its hostages and surrender its terrorist leadership and capabilities. That would actually provide a genuine pathway for a ceasefire, stability and security and for proper negotiations to occur towards a two-state solution that is negotiated and, unlike what the Labor Party is taking Australia's policy position towards, tackles the difficult questions around borders, rights of return, security agreements and other factors that are essential and necessary for there to be enduring peace between Israeli peoples and Palestinian peoples within the region. But we will not be party to this type of stunt by the Greens, this type of one-sided approach by the Greens or this type of divisiveness from the Greens. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 Senator Hanson, before you commence your statement, I ask that you, please, either turn around the scarf that you are wearing or remove it altogether. It is against standing orders for you to have any slogans upon your dress. So please do that before I allocate the call to you. Thank you, Senator Hanson. 10:22 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I totally agree with the opposition's comments with regard to this. This is a stunt. It is unbelievable what the Greens are asking for. What they're asking for in this motion is basically to acknowledge that 'the Nakba was the violent displacement, dispossession and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people'. I just want to draw attention to what happened between 1948 and 2014 when we talk about ethnic cleansing or displacement of people, especially Jewish people. In Algeria in 1948, there were 140,000 Jews. Today, there are 50. In Egypt, there were 75,000. There are now 100. In Iraq, there were 135,000. There are now 10. In Lebanon, there were 5,000. There are now 100. In Libya, there were 38,000. There are none now. In Morocco, there were 265,000. Now there are 2,150. In Syria, there were 30,000. Now there are 100. In Tunisia, there were 105,000. There are now 1,050. In Yemen, there were 63,000. There are now 50. The Jews were displaced. Bethlehem in 1950 was 80 per cent Christian. Today, it's 80 per cent Muslim. That is over a period of 70 years. So, if you're talking about genocide and displacement, the Jewish people have been treated like this for centuries, for thousands upon thousands of years, by different races and countries. It breaks my heart to see the same thing happening in our country with the Jewish students who are mistreated on university campuses and to see what is happening on our streets in Australia, with the Palestinian protest marches. I think it's disgusting and should not be allowed. What I see my country coming to now breaks my heart. What these people, regardless of their race—and it's not a race; it is a religion—now have to face in this country is un-Australian. This is an absolute stunt by the Greens, and I get so annoyed to call it out for what it is and to call out the Labor Party for their pathetic attempt to allow the Palestinians onto the UN. It is appalling. It is absolutely appalling to support that, and I'll talk about that more. What I will say is why can't we just live in peace? You have the problems that are happening in Israel and Palestine. We're not going to solve that. That has to be solved, but you can't solve it with a country that is run by Hamas, which is actually a terrorist organisation. You can't solve it with your stunts here in the Senate. That's not good enough. That's not what the Australian people want. If you really care about the Australian people and what's happening, then don't support these protest rallies that are happening in Australia. Support the people based on the violence that they are facing on their own streets in this country. The youth—you talk about radicalisation. This is all geared at destroying the Western way of life. This is all about destroying our democracy. That's what this is all about. It's not about worrying about what's happening in Palestine. This is a political stunt, and it's being driven by Labor and the Greens who actually support those Muslims in this country purely for the vote. That's what it's about. It's got nothing to do with what's happening over there. The fight between Israel and Palestine has gone on for centuries. But the Jews have come out here to this country for peace and for a new way of life. Why are they being treated the way that they are? I just don't understand it. Why can't people live in peace in this country? Why can't we stand up and support that? Why do you keep supporting the Palestinians when what we do in this place has got nothing to do with it? You're very one sided in your attitude to the whole thing with Palestine and Israel. But I do support the Jewish people. I support them in having the right to stand up and fight for their own country. If anyone were to invade our nation, where would you stand? What would you do? I can't see the Greens standing up and fighting for this nation if anyone attacked us. Those poor people who were living in peace had their whole lives destroyed. What about them? We never hear about that. 10:27 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The conflict in the Middle East is causing deep distress for many Australians. That is particularly the case for those who have a connection to the region and those who have loved ones who are directly impacted. In Australian government engagements— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 Sorry, Minister. Senator Waters? Senator Waters 192970 Point of order, Acting Deputy President Cox. You instructed Senator Hanson to remove an article of clothing that had a slogan on it, and she has just replaced it now that the snappers are in the gallery. She is flouting your ruling, and I ask you to ask her to comply with it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 Senator Hanson, there was an instruction for you to remove the scarf with a visible slogan on it, which is against standing orders. So, again, I request that you either turn the scarf around or remove the scarf or leave the chamber. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 Senator Hanson, you don't have the call. I have given the instruction. It's not a debate. I would like you to either remove the scarf or leave the chamber. Thank you. Senator McALLISTER 121628 In our engagements, the foreign minister presses for progress towards peace in her engagements with counterparts in the Middle East and with partners in Europe, Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States, in our region and in multilateral forums. As demonstrated by our vote in the United Nations General Assembly, we are using Australia's voice to advocate for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire and a pathway out of this conflict. Unfortunately, this motion does not engage with these difficult, sensitive, important questions in the same constructive terms. In fact, this motion is drafted to be absolutist and to be divisive, and it is another example of the Greens political party seeking to divide—taking absolutist positions on a complex issue in an effort to win votes. They are putting their own interests ahead of social cohesion. I'll make the point here which I made earlier and others on this side of the chamber have made. We gain very little by reproducing the conflict here—by talking past one another, by shouting at one another and by insisting on respective absolutes. There are too many politicians in Australia who are manipulating legitimate, heartfelt community concern for their own ends. The Greens political party is willing to purposely amplify disinformation and exploit distress in a blatant and cynical play for votes. For once I would like them to look at the national interest and whether their actions serve community cohesion or threaten it. At the same time, we see Mr Dutton reflexively dismissing concern for Palestinians as 'Hamas sympathising'. He's asked about the humanitarian catastrophe in Rafah, and he can't even bring himself to mention civilians in the answer. Australians know that our country needs mature leadership for serious times. Australia's diplomacy and decisions are guided by the principles of peace and seek to advance a lasting peace, which is what we have always said that we will do. There is a need to acknowledge the real trauma on all sides and to acknowledge each other's humanity and to come together, as peacemakers throughout history have done. That is the approach that we take, and it's the approach that we urge community and political leaders in Australia to embrace. So we don't support the suspension and we don't support the motion, and I move: That the question be now put. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 The question is that the question be now put.

The Senate divided. [10:36]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Cox)

30 AYES Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 11 NOES 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. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

10:38 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 The question now is that the suspension of standing orders moved by Senator Steele-John be agreed to.

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

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 Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

BILLS 14 BILLS National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 3) Bill 2023 14

National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 3) Bill 2023

First Reading 14 10:42 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 15 10:43 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— In December 2020, the Comprehensive Review of the Legal Framework of the National Intelligence Community, led by Mr Dennis Richardson AC— released its final report with 203 recommendations. This was the most significant review of intelligence legislation since the Hope royal commissions. Although the comprehensive review found that the legislative framework governing our intelligence agencies is largely fit-for-purpose, targeted reforms are required to ensure our laws keep pace with the ever-changing technological and security landscape. Today, I am introducing the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 3) Bill 2023. The bill supports our intelligence agencies by making changes to improve their ability to protect the identities of their employees, communicate information to other Commonwealth and state agencies, where appropriate, and clarify approval processes for various activities. The bill also promotes increased oversight of our intelligence agencies by promoting further oversight of ASIO's security assessment work, and making it clear that junior Ministers are not able to exercise certain powers. In making these changes, the bill would implement 12 recommendations of the comprehensive review. Importantly, the bill delivers on our firm commitment to implementing the recommendations of the comprehensive review as quickly as possible. Much of the security conversation we've had as a nation over the past 20 years has been dominated by discussions around terrorism. That is always going to remain a core focus of the Australian government. Threats to life are our priority. However, it is no secret that we face enormously significant challenges when we look beyond our borders. In his 2023 Annual Threat Assessment, the Director-General of Security noted more Australians are being targeted for espionage and foreign interference than at any time in Australia's history. The Director-General of National Intelligence also noted in Senate Estimates earlier this year that Australia is facing some of its most complex strategic circumstances since 1942. The importance of our intelligence agencies has never been greater. Overview of the Bill The bill would implement 12 recommendations from the comprehensive review and make a range of other refinements to intelligence-related legislation, including the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (ASIO Act) and the Intelligence Services Act 2001 (Intelligence Services Act). Schedule 1 of the bill seeks to clarify and enhance the scope of the security assessment framework in Part IV of the ASIO Act. The bill would achieve this by expanding the definition of prescribed administrative action and allowing for further decisions or action to be prescribed by regulations. Schedule 1 would make clear that ASIO advice provided for the purposes of informing decisions by the Foreign Investment Review Board are not security assessments for the purposes of Part IV of the ASIO Act. The bill would also enable ASIO to make a preliminary communication under Part IV to a state, or authority of a state, in certain circumstances where the requirements of security make it reasonable to do so. Schedule 1 would also introduce a requirement for ASIO to notify the IGIS where certain security assessments are not furnished within 12 months. This promotes accountability on the part of ASIO in respect of delayed security assessments. Schedule 2 of the bill seeks to improve the protections of the identities of Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS), ASIO and Australian Signals Directorate (ASD) staff members. The bill would improve and enable cover arrangements for ASIO, ASIS and ASD staff by enabling the respective Directors-General to determine one or more authorities of the Commonwealth that may be identified as the employer or place of work for a current or former staff member. Schedule 2 will also strengthen identity protections for ASIO and ASIS staff and agents under the Archives Act. Schedule 2 would consolidate the secrecy offences in the Intelligence Services Act. However, the scope of these offences would not be expanded. Furthermore, Schedule 2 would update and modernise the existing publication offence in the ASIO Act to take into account developments in technology and modern communications. Schedule 2 would introduce a new disclosure offence designed to strengthen protections for the identity of ASIO officers and affiliates, bringing them into closer alignment with those afforded to ASIS officers under section 41 of the Intelligence Services Act. These offences have been developed with reference to the principles for framing secrecy offences contained in the Commonwealth Government's Review of Secrecy Provisions Final Report. Schedule 3 of the bill would make amendments to provide greater legal certainty and clarity with regard to ministerial authorisations and warrants. Schedule 3 would also amend the sequencing of ministerial authorisations in the Intelligence Services Act to enable a more streamlined authorisations process. Schedule 3 would also ensure that certain powers vested in the Attorney-General can only be exercised by the Attorney-General or a person acting as the Attorney-General. Schedule 4 of the bill introduces additional oversight in relation to ASIO's security clearance work. The bill would introduce a requirement for ASIO to notify the IGIS where a security clearance decision or security clearance suitability assessment has taken more than 12 months to finalise. Schedule 4 also amends the ASIO Act to enable the Director-General of Security to delegate their power to furnish non-prejudicial security clearance suitability assessments to an ASIO employee regardless of their position. It does not change the existing legislation relating to the furnishing of prejudicial security clearance suitability assessments. Conclusion The measures I have outlined in the bill would make targeted amendments to the legal framework governing our intelligence agencies, as recommended by the comprehensive review. It will also make some related changes which will strengthen protections for the identity of ASIS, ASD and ASIO staff, and clarify or refine elements of the intelligence services act. These changes will support our intelligence agencies in their vital work, while also enhancing oversight in specific areas. The bill reflects the government's commitment to the continual improvement of Australia's robust national security laws, to ensure that Australians are kept safe and our way of life is protected. I commend this bill to the chamber. 10:43 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I rise to make a contribution on the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 3) Bill 2023. The comprehensive review of the legal framework of the national intelligence community, otherwise known as the Richardson review, was commissioned by the former coalition government. This was the most significant review of Australia's intelligence legislation since the Hope royal commissions in 1974 and 1983. It was undertaken by the former secretary of the Department of Defence Mr Dennis Richardson, and the unclassified version of the review and government response were released on 4 December 2020. The majority of the national security legislation amendment bill before the Senate now deals with 12 of the recommendations from the Richardson review, all of which the former coalition government agreed to in the 2020 government response. The bill also includes some additional elements that the current government has identified as necessary in consultation with our national security agencies. The bill contains four schedules. Schedule 1 of the bill would amend the ASIO Act to extend the definition of 'prescribed administrative action' to decisions relating to parole, firearms licences and security guard licences, and enable new categories of prescribed administrative action to be prescribed by the regulations. This schedule would also improve ASIO's ability to communicate information to other Commonwealth agencies, a state or authorities of a state for certain prescribed administrative actions, while also clarifying that a decision under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 does not constitute prescribed administrative action. Schedule 1 would require ASIO to notify the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security where certain security assessments are not furnished within 12 months. Schedule 2 would improve cover employment arrangements and protections for employees of ASIO, ASIS and the Australian Signals Directorate, while separately consolidating a number of secrecy offences in the Intelligence Services Act. Schedule 2 would also strengthen identity protections for ASIO and ASIS staff and agents under the Archives Act and would modernise the publication offence in the ASIO Act, which makes it an offence to make public the identity of current or former ASIO employees and affiliates, to account for developments in technology and modern communications. Schedule 3 of the bill would clarify and streamline processes for ministerial authorisations and warrants for ASIS, ASD and AGO. Schedule 4 would introduce further oversight of ASIO's work on security assessments and security clearance related activities, including by requiring ASIO to notify the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security where a security clearance decision or security clearance suitability assessment has taken more than 12 months to finalise. This schedule would also amend the ASIO Act to enable the Director-General of Security to delegate their power to furnish non-prejudicial security clearance suitability assessments to an ASIO employee, regardless of their position. Collectively, these reforms address 12 of the recommendations of the Comprehensive Review of the Legal Framework of the National Intelligence Community that relate to security assessments, the protection of identities and information, authorisations for intelligence activities and oversight. Separate to the recommendations of the Richardson review, the bill would also clarify the operation of existing provisions of the ASIO Act and the IS Act and update the publication offence of the ASIO Act to take into account developments in technology and modern communications. The measures in this bill will support Australia's national security agencies by strengthening identity protections for employees, increasing operational flexibility and sharing of information, clarifying some authorities to provide greater certainty and supporting quicker processing of security clearance suitability assessments. The bill will also promote increased oversight of national security agencies by introducing additional safeguards to provide oversight of ASIO's work on security assessments and vetting, and limiting who can exercise certain powers. The coalition will always support sensible changes to ensure our legislation is fit for purpose to enable our intelligence agencies to effectively perform their vital roles and ensure this performance is subject to appropriate oversight. As such, we will be supporting the passage of this bill. 10:47 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I rise on behalf of the Greens to indicate our very real concerns about this legislation and, indeed, about the overall national security legislation landscape in this country. We know that this bill, the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 3) Bill 2023, came about following the now quite aged review by former secretary Richardson. Former secretary Richardson delivered a report in 2019 that was largely ignored by the coalition, who, I think, implemented a handful of the recommendations put forward by Mr Richardson. Those unimplemented recommendations have now been considered by the Albanese Labor government, which is seeking to implement another handful of recommendations from the Richardson report. When we're looking at national security legislation, it's useful to look at one of the observations that Mr Richardson made in his report. He said, effectively, that laws that put constraints around national security agencies—organisations like ASIO and others—and laws that put a legal framework around the national intelligence community should not be seen as barriers. They should be seen not as things that agencies try to slip around and avoid but as essential statements of principle that limit their operations and ensure that they perform their functions in accordance with the law. Just this week we've seen two extraordinary examples from the national intelligence community, which covers parts of Defence, signals, ASIO and elements of the AFP. We've seen two incidents this week which show what a danger the current national intelligence community is to basic principles of a free and open and fair society in this country. The first was that the AFP have been green-lighting undercover police operatives from the People's Republic of China, permitting and inviting them to come to Australia as recently as 2019—and who knows what they've done since—under the Chinese government's Operation Fox Hunt program, which is effectively a way in which that government hunts down dissidents, people it identifies as economic criminals and others around the globe. The way you become an economic criminal in most instances in that particular regime is when activities that were accepted in building fortunes and creating corporate wealth whilst those individuals and corporations were in favour with the government suddenly become criminalised when they lose the favour of the government. That's often the way in which economic criminals are identified in the People's Republic of China. If they leave the country and perhaps take some of their wealth with them, they get put on the Operation Fox Hunt list. We know from investigations by organisations associated with the United Nations that over a dozen of those individuals have been hunted down in Australia—often individuals we've given the protection of permanent residency to. They have been hunted down and extracted back to China, and heaven knows what's happened to them in the criminal justice system there. You would have thought that the AFP would insist upon limiting that and opposing that wherever possible, but instead, under current commissioner Kershaw, they literally invited undercover police operatives to come here to track down a woman who had the protection of permanent residency in this country. This was allegedly under some constraints—some agreement that was struck between the AFP and the Ministry of Public Security in the people's republic. And then, lo and behold, apparently the undercover operatives breached that polite little gentleman's agreement that Commissioner Kershaw entered into with them, and they removed, through whatever level of coercion—and we don't know—that woman back to China, and we don't know what's happened to her. This was all secret, all undercover and all covered by the secrecy provisions in the national security legislation in this country. No-one said a whisper about it—no-one from the AFP, nobody from DFAT, nobody from the Attorney-General's office. It was all covered under a blanket of security. The only way we found out was that a whistleblower from within the Chinese government's overseas covert operations unit actually told us the truth. We didn't find out from our own agencies. We didn't find out from Commissioner Kershaw or the AFP. We didn't find out from the current or the former Attorney-General. We found out from someone blowing the whistle. And thank goodness we did. But, of course, if that gentleman had blown the whistle as an Australian officer, we would have seen the Labor Party and the coalition wanting to put him in jail. They would have said: 'Oh, no; a breach of Australia's national security legislation! The national interest is harmed.' Instead of acknowledging him as a brave individual who stood up and spoke truth to power, both the Labor Party and the coalition would be wanting to put him in jail under these very laws. And why do we know that? Because another event happened this week. David McBride, a former military lawyer who, for his country, served two tours in uniform in Afghanistan has been put in jail by the Labor Party and the coalition. They put him in jail for the crime of telling the truth about war crimes, using this very legislation—with all of its checks, balances, nonsense and secret reviews by secret committees, populated only by the so-called parties of government, which means the war parties and the secrecy parties. They put him in jail because he raised repeated concerns about war crimes, including the murdering of civilians by Australian troops in Afghanistan. He was concerned about how the senior hierarchy was not being held to account and the key decision-makers were not being held to account. Some of his concerns were that everyone lower in the food chain in the ADF was being hung out to dry while all the big, key decision-makers were being given medals and promotions and being rewarded. Who wouldn't be concerned seeing the current CDF get a medal when he oversaw operations which we now know were deeply compromised by repeated war crimes and the unlawful killing of civilians? No intermediate officers were held to account for the war crimes. Who wouldn't be concerned about the lack of responsibility in the hierarchy? But, as a Greens senator, I want to be clear: those individuals who committed the war crimes should also be held to account—100 per cent. When none of his concerns were being addressed, when no-one was being held to account inside the ADF and when, as a lawyer, he had this evidence of people being murdered—extrajudicial murders by people wearing Australian uniforms, with some of it captured on video—and no-one was doing anything about it, he then tried to use the PID Act and tried to make disclosures in accordance with law but was completely ignored. Nothing happened. So, eventually, as you would hope any individual of character would do when they saw evidence of murders and extrajudicial crimes such as those committed by Australian troops in uniform and nobody was taking action, he went to the public and told the media about it. As a result of that, we had the Brereton inquiry, which confirmed dozens and dozens of war crimes likely committed by Australian troops. What does the Labor Party and the coalition do with that? Do they seek to find responsibility in the ADF and hold the Chief of Defence Force to account? Do they even take his medal off him? No—nothing there on the Chief of Defence even though he was in charge of that theatre of operations for a significant part of the time. There was nothing done to the CDF—keep your medal and keep your promotion—and nothing to the other theatre commanders. Instead, the first prosecution under these very laws, commenced under the former coalition government and backed to the hilt by the now Albanese Labor government, is against David McBride, the whistleblower—not someone who pulled the trigger but someone who blew the whistle. That's who this government targeted, that's who the former government targeted and that's who these laws target—whistleblowers. This week, after years and years of pressing for a criminal conviction, actively seeking jail time for David McBride, we finally saw the outcome that I'm sure the coalition, elements of the national security organisations in this country and the Albanese Labor government cheered in, because Justice Mossop put him in jail for a minimum 2½ years and a maximum 5½ years. That's 5½ years in jail for telling the truth about war crimes. We have seen the Albanese Labor government run an attempted character assassination on David McBride and say he's not the perfect whistleblower, that he was concerned that the focus of the investigation was all on the troops at the lower end of the spectrum who were following orders and that no-one higher in the hierarchy was being held to account. They say, for that reason, we should just ignore any kind of public interest. They say we should just ignore it—that he didn't have a public interest. We don't interrogate the motives of whistleblowers; we interrogate the information they give to the public. The information David McBride gave to the public has been essential for the first few—weak and pathetic as they are—steps on accountability for these war crimes. Without David McBride, we wouldn't even know. When you read the decision of Justice Mossop, who adopted the submissions put to him by the Commonwealth government, there's one word that comes back time after time. There's one word that gets repeated in Justice Mossop's judgement. It's the word that was fed to him by the Albanese Labor government. It was fed to him by the Commonwealth in the prosecution. It's 'deterrence'. David McBride has been put in jail for 5½ years for deterrence. What does that mean? That is a message to every other whistleblower, or potential whistleblower, in this country: 'Don't you dare. Don't you dare tell the truth about what our special forces are doing, what defence is doing, what ASIO is doing or what the AFP is doing. Don't you dare.' That's the message the Albanese Labor government has delivered now through the decision of Justice Mossop, who adopted the position put of deterrence. 'Don't you dare tell the truth'—this is the legislation that supports that. Is it any wonder the Greens don't support the war parties and their moves in this regard? 11:02 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia At the outset I want to place on the record my appreciation for the work of Senator Shoebridge and his team in leading the Greens in relation to the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 3) Bill 2023. In considering this legislation, I think it is important to place it in context. I will go to the context in a moment. But I want to first place on the record a few key concerns that I and my colleagues share on the legislation before us this afternoon. The legislation as currently worded would include expansion of the exclusions that are provided for those with spent convictions to enable ASIO to use, record or disclose other pieces of critical information related to spent convictions. This has been raised as a concern by the human rights committee inquiry into this bill. The bill also reduces oversight by excluding ASIS, the general Geospatial Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Signals Directorate, the Office of National Intelligence and the Defence Intelligence Organisation from the Commonwealth Ombudsman's jurisdiction. Does anyone seriously believe that these entities require less oversight, that they are organisations with track records that would lead a reasonable legislature to believe that they can be trusted to go off on their own? This is a deeply concerning aspect of this bill. We do not support these changes, and we'll propose amendments to retain the ombudsman's oversight and remove what we believe is the inappropriate use of spent convictions. The context of this bill is important, and it is this: this Labor government has recently completed the prosecution of David McBride, the whistleblower without whom the Australian public would not know that our armed forces in Afghanistan were murdering Afghan civilians—were torturing Afghan civilians, were burning their homes to the ground—and that this was not an isolated incident but a pattern of behaviour. It occurred again and again and again across multiple deployments. Crimes were perpetrated by senior squadron leadership—individuals who had been placed on the highest moral pedestal by both the Australian Defence Force's senior command and Australian governments of both Liberal and Labor leadership. Without David McBride, the public would not know. Because of his actions, the public gained insight into what was being done in the community's name. This was a courageous act by this individual, who I have met. In the face of pressure such as none in here can possibly imagine and risk to which I hope none of us in here are ever subjected, he decided to do the right thing and tell the truth. And the response of this government is to send him away for more than five years. It is disgusting. It is a disgrace. Not only have they sent him away; they have failed to act on so many of the issues which he was attempting to bring to the attention of the public. As we sit here now, we have had the Brereton inquiry deliver a report that has led to some initially very tepid consequences for a few individual perpetrators on the ground—some of them. Let us make no mistake: it is vital that the individuals who pulled the trigger—who kicked innocent civilians off the edge of cliffs and then came down to the bottom and shot them in the back of the head—be held personally responsible. And it is vital to understand that, in an organisation such as the Australian Army and the Australian special forces, there is a chain of command and a chain of responsibility. If those individuals commit those actions within a certain operation or theatre of war, the senior command must also be held responsible. That has not occurred to this day. The Australian government, dragged kicking and screaming by the work of individuals such as David McBride, has begun some accountability measures against some individual perpetrators, but the systemic issues remain. Those at the top of the chain of command were in posts of responsibility during the times when the SAS squadrons would go outside the wire of the base and travel into the Afghan countryside and murder and destroy and shoot disabled people as they fled helicopters. While those actions were being perpetrated, those in the position of senior command either knew and did nothing or did not know when they should have. Neither outcome frees them from responsibility. That is just the military leadership. But we have a defence minister in this country with extraordinary powers. Across the time of our some-20 years in Afghanistan, defence ministers were appointed by both the Labor and Liberal parties, and not a single one of them has been held responsible for the fact that organisations under their responsibility ended up enabling individuals to carry out these crimes. In fact, a ridiculous political silence has settled over this issue, where both sides pretend that they had never heard the stories around the bars of Canberra, that they had never had the side conversations with the defence ministers who had come back from Afghanistan after having been to the illegal bars on base and heard the stories from the troops who were deeply concerned—let's put it politely—with the culture of what was occurring on the ground in Afghanistan. It wasn't so much an open political secret in this place as an open military secret within the structures of the Australian senior armed forces command. This is ridiculous. This lack of accountability has enabled individual perpetrators to frame themselves as the victims of a scapegoating exercise. It has allowed these individuals who did perpetrate these disgusting, disgraceful, hateful crimes to paint themselves as the victims because those above them in senior positions of command have not been held responsible. Through this entire process, as members of the Liberal Party argue about unit citations and as Labor try to pretend that they weren't in government and didn't have a defence minister—in fact, multiple defence ministers—appointed while these crimes were occurring, the community that is ultimately forgotten is the Afghan people who have had their lives destroyed either as a direct result of these crimes or as a broader result of our presence in Afghanistan. And then there are the families of those individuals who perpetrated the crimes. Those individuals who perpetrated the crimes, who returned to Australia shrouded in untouchability, in a sense of superiority, in the procedural protection and cultural cloak offered to them by both the armed forces and the Australian political establishment, were then allowed and enabled to perpetrate terrible abuse against their own families. And when those families and individuals sought help they were often treated in a way that in no way matched the urgency, sensitivity, care and impartiality that they should have been able to expect in that moment. This entire sorry saga would have remained hidden in a vault somewhere in the Department of Defence, without David McBride and whistleblowers like him, who, faced with the choice between silence, complicity and action, decided to act—decided to risk their freedom, in the belief that if the public knew then politicians would be forced to act. Well, the public knows now. And the politicians did act. What David did not expect—as he and so many had hoped that that action would be against the perpetrators—was that that action would be against the whistleblowers. Or maybe they did expect that of the mob over here, the Liberal Party, which contains so many individuals who like to cosplay as though they will join together at some point in a new national security state where every area of policy is run through a Department of Home Affairs and a Department of Defence that are completely interlinked, that will allow them to know personally what every member of an opposition group is up to at any particular point in time, and who fantasise about a world where individuals in the community with free thought and action are protected from the results of that free thought and action by a super state that keeps the people of Hobbiton safe. Who does that remind us of? They certainly did not expect it from a Labor government elected on a platform of improving transparency in Australia and protecting whistleblowers. Every day Labor have been in government, they've had the power to drop these charges against McBride and instead to acknowledge his bravery and the bravery of so many other whistleblowers who have brought these issues to light, to celebrate them, and to hold the chain of command responsible. Instead, they have continued with the coalition's prosecution, and now they have condemned this man to over five years in jail. It is a shame upon them all. 11:17 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania In this bill before us today, the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 3) Bill 2023, the lack of scrutiny and the use of national security arrangements to hide information, as outlined in the bill, are very significant issues. And they are, may I say, significant matters of public interest. I rise today to add my support to the comments of my colleagues Senator Shoebridge and Senator Steele-John. I'll add my concerns and my personal experience over many years in this area, and I know other colleagues will also add their weight to this debate. It was reported yesterday—and it has been covered well by Senator Shoebridge and Senator Steele-John—that the jailing of David McBride, an Australian Army officer, a veteran of Afghanistan, for blowing the whistle on war crimes in Afghanistan by Australian forces, is a dark day for democracy and for press freedoms in Australia. David's defence argued about the public interest component of his disclosures, which have led to a chain of events including the civil prosecution of Ben Roberts-Smith and, may I say, a conviction in the civil courts that Ben Roberts-Smith is a war criminal. And yet, all those disclosures that were outlined in that court case in significant detail and all the other disclosures we've seen in the media—the Brereton report and the endless questions asked by the Greens in Senate estimates, as another example—have still not led to any criminal prosecution of Australian special forces in Afghanistan. It's not just Ben Roberts-Smith; we know there are a number of individuals who have been investigated for a period of time. The questions you need to ask yourself are: 'Would this have occurred if David McBride didn't provide those documents to the media—to the Guardian and the ABC?' and, 'Can any Australian, can any senator in this chamber, not argue that those disclosures were significant in terms of our moral and ethical duties to uphold justice for those in Afghanistan who were killed by Australian special forces in cold blood?' I don't hear anybody talking about that here today. Mr McBride, as a whistleblower, has risked everything—and I've read David McBride's book; I've spoken with David at rallies and, like my other colleagues, I've got to know him over the years. He was recently featured on 60 Minutes. It hasn't been easy for Mr McBride. His life's been sheer hell. As he said in his book, he knew what he was getting himself into when he handed over these documents. He had gone through internal processes to have his concerns dealt with at the highest levels—and they weren't—and he felt his moral and ethical obligation was to go down this path as a whistleblower. May I say, for Mr Andrew Wilkie in the other place, it was exactly the same thing. Remember the weapons of mass destruction that led us into this horrific war in Iraq—the illegal, immoral invasion of Iraq? He was threatened with 40 years in jail, and yet he continued to campaign on the need for telling the truth and the need to seek justice. He is now a member of parliament in the other place because of his convictions. I've always publicly acknowledged that he was a hero of mine during the Iraq war for speaking out on these matters and, once again, putting it all on the line. It's not an easy thing to do when you are an officer in the Army. But it was his training, as it was Mr McBride's training, that led them to this pathway to blow the whistle. They felt they had a moral obligation and a duty to disclose the truth. But that's not enough—we throw them in jail for doing so. The word 'deterrence' has been raised here today. I'd like to throw in another word: retribution—retribution for disclosing secrets. We haven't got the balance right, and, while we are seeking to improve it with amendments, this bill doesn't get the balance right. I also raise the case of Witness K and Mr Bernard Collaery. How many debates have we had in the Senate over the years trying to get respective governments to drop the prosecution of Witness K and Bernard Collaery? Once again, in the story of Witness K, which I'm sure Senator Paterson is very familiar with, he went through its extraordinary lengths internally to have his concerns dealt with within the national security apparatus. When his concerns became public and were taken to The Hague by Mr Collaery, what did we do? We prosecuted the whistleblower and the lawyer in this case. What sheer hell both those men went through for so many years, because they dared challenge the secrecy emblazed in this legislation today, when they felt they had a moral obligation and a duty to disclose information that was in the public interest. And it's an opportune time, less than a week away from 20 May, when another whistleblower—a publisher, Julian Assange—will find out from a UK court whether his appeal to the UK High Court against his extradition to the US for publishing inconvenient truths and facts about the war in Iraq has been successful. That's not to mention the other conflicts that both Australia and our allies, especially the US, have been prosecuting. His wife, Stella Assange, recently said—and she used the word—'This US persecution of my husband is nothing but retribution.' We are sending a very strong message of deterrence and retribution by prosecuting the whistleblowers for disclosing our secrets. Who knows what the High Court is going to do? The US government has been asked to provide assurances that Mr Assange, if he is extradited to the US, will be covered by US law like any other citizen. Will he be guaranteed his First Amendment rights? We'll wait and see what those US assurances are, but I can tell you they won't be worth the paper they are written on. I have been to Washington, and I have had meetings with the Department of Justice and the Department of State, as have my other colleagues. It's no secret that the US administration does not consider Mr Assange a journalist, even though he won a Walkley Award for journalism here in Australia. An international union of journalists have asked for his immediate release. WikiLeaks was a publisher. But if the US argue the case successfully that he's not a journalist, the First Amendment will not apply to him. This is really obvious. Australians need to know that it's all on the line for Mr Assange next Monday, after sitting in a maximum security prison, his health broken by years of imprisonment prior to that in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. I want to acknowledge that this government has said that he has suffered enough, and they want his extradition to end. It is a good thing that this government has at least publicly said that. We will never know what they've been doing behind the scenes in terms of trying to secure his release. I know there are people in this place that have done everything they can to try and secure his release. But it is such an important day next Monday. If Mr Assange is extradited to the US for doing his job as journalist, it will be a very dark day for press freedoms. This whole extradition was driven by the Trump administration. Once again, that's no secret. Mr Mike Pompeo, the head of the CIA at the time, drove this extradition process. They wanted Julian Assange's head on a pike. He was considered one of the most dangerous men in the world to the US. But, actually, the people who consider him the most dangerous are the US security apparatus. Let's also be reminded that our previous Prime Minister, Mr Scott Morrison, boasted publicly that he had Mike Pompeo on speed dial. It is no coincidence that the previous government did nothing to help Mr Assange, because we were so close to the US administration and the US security apparatus. This is an issue that many people in this chamber and this parliament have now signed onto—to free Mr Assange and to end this extradition. It is a significant matter of public interest in Australia. His case stands before all of us, not just here in Australia but internationally. The world will be watching what the UK courts decide next Monday. I hope to hell that they decide to allow him to appeal this persecution—this affront to freedom and democracy—and send a message that journalists have a very important job to do, which is to publish information without fear or favour if it's in the public interest. Once again, look at the disclosures from the video Collateral Murder, which shocked the world and propelled Wikileaks to international attention, not to mention all the disclosures that were made through a series of WikiLeaks publications, which may I say were published by some of the key media outlets around the world, who also won awards for journalism thanks to the WikiLeaks disclosures—everything released 100 per cent factually and carefully redacted in stories to protect our forces and US forces, which is also often ignored in the rhetoric. What other truth could we gain from a conflict like Iraq if it wasn't for Julian Assange and Private Bradley Manning, now Chelsea Manning, blowing the whistle? She has been pardoned by former president Obama and is now free. Yet the publisher of the documents, Julian Assange, is rotting in jail for our freedoms. I think all of us agree that that is not good enough. So I urge the US courts to cancel and walk away from this extradition, this persecution of an Australian citizen, a Walkley Award journalist, and I urge the UK courts to give him full access to the UK judicial system to appeal to the High Court. It brings me back to this bill before us today. I understand that the security services here and within the Five Eyes organisation do really important work. We do live in a very dangerous and complex world, but there are times when individuals are driven by their moral character to a point where they feel they have to blow the whistle. As Senator Shoebridge rightly said, don't prosecute the motives of these whistleblowers; prosecute the information that they have provided. If you look at what David McBride provided, if you look at what was provided through Bernard Collaery and witness K, and if you look at what WikiLeaks and Assange provided, none of us can argue that that wasn't in the public interest. Those disclosures were critical to our understanding of these conflicts and the need to do better and the need to seek justice. That's what I ask senators in this chamber to consider today. 11:32 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia This is an important debate, and I associate myself with the comments of my colleagues already on the table. National security laws and outcomes are too important to be done in quiet agreement between the political duopoly behind closed doors. Too much work in this place is done secretly and doesn't get the benefit of scrutiny from media, from our community, that informs the broader Australian public about what is happening in these services and departments. We need debate in the parliament on what is happening. There are some important, positive measures here, like removing the ability to delegate powers and expanding committee membership. We have long argued for those. Those committees need to be more representative. There are also matters of further consideration which need amendment and consideration more broadly. I want to talk about four things that in my experience here in this parliament go to questions of security and intelligence and an effective and uncompromised defence service. They are: firstly, the revolving door between Defence and major contracting and consulting bodies; secondly, the way in which the contracts have expanded in recent years and the hazards that that creates for our intelligence and security; thirdly, the issue that my colleague Senator Whish-Wilson has just spoken of with such clarity, around the role and importance of whistleblowers and their treatment and the facts they bring before us and the treatment of those facts; and fourthly, the climate crisis and the really significant contribution that makes to enlarging the security crisis in our country potentially into the future. We in the Greens have previously argued that the existing constitution of the PJCIS is not just unrepresentative of the parliament but also, in being so, probably unlawful insofar as it fails to comply with the intelligence act. This question of representative proper committee processes and structures is very important for us in the Greens, and we want to continue to see those bodies made representative and made effective to properly represent the skills, experience and perspectives in this parliament, which is what the Australian people want as they look to us to establish an effective security and intelligence service. The first hazard I want to talk about is this issue of the revolving door. Over the last year we have learnt a great deal about the movement of people who hold critical information from within the public sector, who rotate out into large consulting firms and then contract back into government. Defence has been a major area of the manipulation and use of the revolving door over the last year. This is an important security question. In the last five years, 100 personnel have moved out of Defence into KPMG specifically. I recently asked a question on notice about the work and security clearances of people moving out of Defence into such bodies. I asked what their security clearances were and what kind of work they had been doing. I've got to say that I think the people who responded to my QON had read the handbook that we've been hearing about recently that shows public servants how to block, obscure and make sure senators don't really get the depth of information they are seeking, because the answer they gave me answered another question. It didn't even address the question of what previous employees were doing and what their security clearances were before they left the service to join the private sector. We need to know not only what their security clearances were and the kind of work they did but where they are now, what they are doing now and what risks they create for us out there in the private sector. At the moment, we have no way of tracking and knowing what they do. That is a security risk. Where is that dealt with in what we have in front of us? That's a really important question for us. We need a public sector which does not push against the Senate but gives us the information we need to help ensure clarity, honesty, integrity, transparency, accountability and truth about what people are doing out there with the information they may have harnessed which could put our security at risk. Defence is a major contractor to the big four and to the consultancy industry more broadly, and their behaviour and the behaviour of the big four firms really need attention. It's a matter of security and intelligence integrity, and at present it is not properly managed. Defence has a massive reliance on external contracts. It's a critical challenge to security. We know that the previous government spent $20.8 billion in 2021-22 on external consultants, contractors and labour hire. I'm going to say that number again because it's huge: $20.8 billion in a single year. Seventy per cent of that spending was in Defence. We have a major issue in Defence contracting out enormous amounts of work. KPMG is the largest player in that big pool of consulting and contracting work. KPMG was found to have charged Defence $1.8 billion over the last decade. As PwC is to many other agencies, or was, so is KPMG to Defence, and the lack of scrutiny that this bill provides on this very important question of security is a real gap in our legislative program. We need to look at the culture that persists around these contracts. Too often it's a culture of overcharging, of duplication, of contracts for mates and of worse. We have a problem in the management and overseeing of these contracts, and the lack of scrutiny and the use of national security arguments to hide information is a really important issue in this massive use of private consultants in our defence sector. I want to go one example that has had some publicity, and it utterly deserves it. Defence has a $100 million contract with KPMG and, in recent times, made an alleged payment of $100,000 out of that $100 million contract for work that had not been delivered. The timelines had not been met. The work had not been done. A $100,000 payment was made to the consultant, KPMG, despite it not doing the work. That is an emblematic example of the failure to just properly manage the financial elements of that contract, let alone know the implications for security of such a strong, deep reliance on consultants. Our spending on consultants in this country, especially in Defence, is amongst the biggest external dependencies on consultants in the world. We have created a massive security risk, without any proper governance, by the overuse of consultants and contractors, and we are not properly managing it. Defence alone has expended almost $4 billion on the big four consulting firms in recent years, more than all other departments combined. It's very clear that KPMG has used insider information to profit from its consultancy projects. We've had evidence of inflated invoices, billing for hours not worked—I gave an example of that. I recently asked a question on notice about how many staff from the big four are inside Defence and carrying Defence common access cards. They have a card which gives them access to Defence. The answer is that 1,891 people who are from the big four consulting firms have access by a card into Defence. This is a problem. This is ungoverned. What challenge does this create for our security? It's something that deserves much closer examination. Where are we dealing with this question at present? Where is it dealt with? It's certainly not dealt with in this bill. I want to mention procurement, because procurement is such an important matter for value for money, which Australian citizens are interested in. It's also really important to be managed properly for security and transparency. It's not at present. We don't have proper oversight of what's going on with the procurement processes, and we don't properly track, monitor and observe the outcomes of some of them. When things go off the rails, they are not pulled into public view and properly managed within the public sector. We need an authority which looks at contracts like the one I just described and creates a path forward so that they don't occur again. The third question that I think is vitally important and has already been dealt with a number of times by previous speakers is the question of whistleblowers: how we treat them, what we do with the information they bring forward, whether we lock them up or whether we listen to the information they give us and honour them for the risks they have taken in the public interest. There would be no PwC crisis and no examination of the surfacing of our society's big challenges with the big four without whistleblowers and the actions they have taken in the last year. Many whistleblowers, in terror of the possible loss of employment not just in the big four firm they currently work in but in other large firms, have brought forward information—seeking anonymity and very frightened—which they feel, in good conscience, they cannot stay silent about. Whistleblowers do our Australian community a great service. They pay a very big price for it. Many of them know about that price before they come forward. David McBride knew he would possibly pay a price. Certainly Julian Assange's family did, and they have certainly paid a huge price. The price is not just paid by the whistleblowers but paid by their families and by their community. It means a lifetime loss not just of earnings but of security, safety and their mental and physical health. We must do more to protect our whistleblowers, not punish them. David McBride served two tours in uniform for our country, but we have just made a horrific decision to meet his bravery and courage—in exposing events that deserve our attention as a parliament and a community—with a jail sentence of more than five years. Shame! That is wrong. That is not the right way to treat someone who believed they were doing a good thing, and it happened under this exact legislation. Key decision-makers need to be held accountable, and one of the ways we hold our decision-makers, departments, public sector and defence and security services to account is through the work of whistleblowers, and we need to change the way we deal with whistleblowers—we need to provide them with an agency that assists them and stop punishing them for calling out, in David McBride's case, egregious war crimes. There were no intermediate officers held to account; he received a long jail sentence. Those who commit war crimes should be called out, and our whistleblowers should be protected, not punished, not locked up. Certainly they, along with their families, should not be paying the kind of price that they are for trying to see justice. We all owe them a very significant debt. The final point I want to mention is the way in which our country must address, through its security and intelligence and defence services, the massive challenge that faces our country in relation to the climate crisis. The big challenges that are going to come at us and the generations ahead in the coming decades will relate to the disasters and the emergencies that come from the climate crisis. We know that there will be mass global migrations. There'll be massive costs within Australian communities around the consequences of the climate crisis, and we should have that at the top of our agenda when we come to consideration of how our defence, security and intelligence services should be working. Where is the advance work on this challenge? It is missing in this bill and it's missing in our approach as a Senate. As a parliament, we need to respond to that challenge, not just lock up people who come forward and offer their incredible evidence and the experience they bring from their work in all kinds of services. We should be protecting whistleblowers. We should be looking at the procurement processes and protecting defence from the invasive and predatory efforts of big consulting firms. We should be ensuring that anyone who does move from a defence or security service into the private sector is properly managed so that we can be confident that we are not seeing the harvesting of important parts of our defence and security service for the benefit of profit and very large consulting firms. 11:46 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Well, here we are debating the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 3) Bill 2023, and I think all colleagues should reflect on the use of the term 'national security', because what a catch-all that phrase is. It's used to justify the persecution that Julian Assange is currently facing—'Oh, national security,' say the US government, when they're asked to justify why they're trying to extradite Mr Assange to a virtual death sentence in the United States. 'National security,' cry the Australian government, as a justification for prosecuting David McBride, who yesterday was, shamefully, sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years and eight months, with a non-parole period of 2½ years. 'National security,' say the government's lawyers in that case, when they're pressing for a significant term of imprisonment, 'because we need to deter people from doing what Mr McBride did'. Why? 'Because of national security,' say the Labor Party. 'National security,' say the so-called parties of government in this place, the so-called parties of government in the United Kingdom and the so-called parties of government in the political duopoly that is the United States of America, every single time they want to justify government secrecy, every single time they want to justify draconian new laws that crack down on rights and freedoms that we've enjoyed in this country and, indeed, that we have sent tens—in fact hundreds—of thousands of Australians overseas to fight and die to protect throughout the colonial history of this country. 'National security,' say the so-called parties of government when they refuse to introduce a charter of rights or a bill of rights in this country, leaving us as one of the only liberal democracies in the world that doesn't have some form of protection in that area. But what does 'national security' actually mean? Here's what it can mean: 'national security' used to protect the profits of corporations in the military-industrial complex; 'national security' used to protect the profits of fossil fuel corporations that are engaged in international geopolitical manoeuvrings in order to mine large gas, oil or other petroleum deposits around the world. National security has become a catch-all to punish and prosecute whistleblowers. Let's reflect just a little bit on what happened yesterday to Mr David McBride, a brave whistleblower who blew the whistle and exposed horrendous war crimes committed by people wearing Australian Defence Force uniforms. You'd expect that those people who committed the war crimes would have been the first to find themselves in the dock, but—no—it was the person who first exposed those war crimes. He was not only the first person to find themselves in the dock; he's now been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of over five years, with a non-parole period of 2½ years. We should be pinning medals on people like David McBride, not sentencing them to multiple years in prison. Our whistleblower protection framework in this country is fundamentally broken, a fact that was actually acknowledged by the Labor Party when they were in opposition. Now they're in government and the spooks have got their ear. The so-called national security apparatus of government have got hold of the Labor Party and, suddenly, they've abandoned the semi-principled position they held on whistleblower reform when they were in opposition. That's all gone out the window now. They were instructing their lawyers, in the case of Mr McBride, to press the judge for serious sanction based on the principle of deterrence. Of course that's what the spooks are going to say. Of course that's what the national security apparatus is going to say. That's the frame they live in. But it is incumbent on the government—which is actually not there to represent the spooks or the national security apparatus of government, but is there to represent the Australian people—to actually question that advice and, when necessary, reject that advice. But that won't happen. It doesn't matter which political stripe of government we have in place in this country, because we're operating in a political duopoly. Whether it's Coles or Woolworths, the price gouging remains, and, whether it's a Labor or Liberal government, the same approach will be taken. Let's run through it. The spooks decide they need more powers. The national security or intelligence apparatus in government decides it needs more powers. Because they know how this works, they put in their ambit claim for more powers. The government says: 'Yes, that's a good idea. We'll deliver that. We've just got to run it through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security.' It goes into that committee process, and occasionally that committee will rasp off a few of the roughest edges of the legislation that it gets. But who is on that committee? That's right: the Coles and Woolworths of Australian politics. The bill comes out of that committee process sometimes effectively unamended and occasionally with some of the sharpest, roughest edges sanded down. It comes into this parliament and it's passed by the Coles and Woolworths of Australian politics. On and on it goes; rinse and repeat. In the last 20 years we have had well more than 200 pieces of legislation which erode fundamental rights and freedoms pass through state, territory or Commonwealth parliaments in this country. All the while, the political duopoly fights off attempts to have a national conversation about whether we should have a bill of rights in this country, leaving us as one of the only so-called liberal democracies in the world that doesn't have some form of legislated or constitutionally enshrined bill of rights. In order to fix our whistleblower protections in Australia, we need a bill of rights. We need to understand that, when people like Mr McBride and the member for Clark, Mr Wilkie and, albeit in different circumstances, Witness K and Bernard Collaery take action, they are taking that action because it is in the public interest. Finally, the Attorney-General, Mr Dreyfus, did instruct the DPP to drop the charges that Mr Collaery was facing. I might add that it was after Witness K was prosecuted and persecuted through our legal system, with the support of governments of both political stripes, that Mr Dreyfus finally acted to drop the horrendous prosecution against Mr Collaery. If you look at the reasons that Mr Dreyfus gave for those instructions, they could just as easily be applied to Mr McBride's case. Although those cases were not completely analogous, the rationale for dropping the prosecution could have equally been applied to Mr McBride, because, fundamentally, both Mr Collaery and Mr McBride, although there were differences in their circumstances, were acting in the public interest and being persecuted and prosecuted by the state for acting in the public interest. It is up to Labor to justify why they acted to withdraw the prosecution against Mr Collaery but not against Mr McBride. In the same way, it's up to Labor to explain why they have not taken stronger action to protect the interests of Julian Assange, who after many years still languishes in prison in the UK because one of our great supposed friends on the international stage, the United States of America, wants to extradite him to, virtually, a death sentence over there for public interest journalism. There's a pattern emerging here, colleagues, where people who act in the public interest are persecuted and prosecuted by the state. That's what happened to Mr McBride, that's what's happening to Mr Assange, and that's what happened to Witness K and Bernard Collaery. They were prosecuted and persecuted by the state for acting in the public interest. Why does the state do it? National security. We keep hearing it. But, at the end of the day, 'national security' is code for protecting entrenched power interests. It is code for protecting corporate profits, whether that be in the military-industrial complex or in the petroleum complex. It is the profits of those corporations that drive so much of Australia's foreign policy. They are what drive so much of the government's agenda in this country, whether that is a Labor or Liberal government. We do have deep concerns about this legislation. There are some positive elements to it, and it's worth noting that the changes in the bill are a result of the Comprehensive Review of the Legal Framework of the National Intelligence Community undertaken by the Attorney-General's office. Of course, the Greens actively and often call for increased transparency and increased accountability, so we do support those elements of this legislation that deliver increased public reporting, increased transparency and increased accountability. We also note that the bill removes the ability of the Attorney-General to delegate their powers under the ASIO Act and the TIA Act and prohibits the conferral of the Attorney-General's powers under the ASIO Act and TIA Act upon another minister except by legislative amendment or substituted reference order made by the Governor-General in exceptional circumstances, and we do think that ensuring those powers are exercised by the Attorney-General only is appropriate. So we understand that there are some positive elements to this legislation. But I say to the Australian Labor Party: don't forget the things you said in opposition. Now, we've all heard the log cabin story of the Prime Minister, pumped out repeatedly, ad nauseam, on his social media challenges, and we all know that the man who sits in that office today is a very different person, with very different values from the ones he held in his early years. Australians understand the hypocrisy of that log cabin story. But I want to say to the Labor Party very clearly: Australians are beginning to understand your hypocrisy in regard to whistleblowers and to understand that what you said in opposition is not what you're going to actually deliver in government and that is on you. It is on you that you proposed a half-decent way forward to improve whistleblower protections in this country when you were in opposition, but you won't proceed with those reforms now you're in government. We need to look after people who are acting in the public interest, not subject them to the persecution and prosecution that people like David McBride have been subjected to. I want to say to Mr McBride that, notwithstanding the huge term of imprisonment to which he has been sentenced, there are many, many people in Australia who thank him for his courage, who thank him for his actions and who are sincerely, genuinely grateful to him for acting in the public interest. 12:01 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise to contribute to this debate on the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 3) Bill 2023. In the last two years of this parliament, we have seen the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, block and oppose pretty much all the other things that the government wants to do. But when it comes to the issue of national security, or to whipping up fear about immigration or trampling on the human rights of Australians and those who stand up for our freedoms, you know what? The two major parties are in lock step. Whenever it comes to an issue of national security, they close the doors; they work out the deal between themselves behind closed doors. It's the blokes looking after each other—and probably getting all a bit giddy about the terms 'national security' and 'defence' and the different technologies available. I can just imagine the defence minister right now being absolutely excited about the new toys that he's going to buy with the new expanded defence budget handed down last night. If there is anything that you can take as guaranteed in this place, it's that, when it comes to national security, when it comes to defence and when it comes to beating up on migrants and the issue of immigration, the major parties will be in lock step. And who's standing for the real freedoms of Australians in this place? It is the crossbench. It is the Greens. Over and over again, we've asked: 'Where is the scrutiny? Where is the justification for the overblown budgets? Where is the justification for the secrecy?' Now we ask: 'Where is the justification for jailing a man of integrity and courage for nearly seven years?' As for the Labor Party and the Liberal Party, the only thing you can guarantee that they'll agree on is: when it comes to beating up on everyday Australians' freedoms and human rights, they'll get in the room, they'll close the door and they'll get all giddy about it. This piece of legislation has some improvements, but it does not go anywhere near what we need for expanded transparency and accountability in this space. In fact, it does the opposite. There's more crackdown on FOI availability. There are the exemptions from transparency for further government agencies in this space. But I really want to raise the question of what on earth these two major parties have done over the last few years to stand up for the freedoms and the protection of those who dare to speak the truth—the whistleblowers who dare to speak the truth about what's going on in the name of the honour of Australian democracy. David McBride is a hero, and you failed him. Both sides failed him. It is an absolute disgrace that the first person imprisoned in this country in relation to war crimes is the person who exposed that this was going on. It is absolutely backwards. You don't have the courage in your convictions to stand up for the true freedoms that our brave defence personnel fight for every day, like the protection of human rights, democracy and freedom of the press. You're gutless. The only person jailed in this country for war crimes is the one that has exposed them. That's not to mention billionaire media moguls funding court cases to cover the backsides of those with big question marks over their heads. Did you do anything about that? Did you concern yourselves with the national security implications of a media mogul billionaire covering the legal costs of a war criminal? You did nothing. You've done nothing. No wonder the Australian people are sick and tired of hearing your bleak, limp offerings on human rights protection and freedom of the press. I know my colleagues on the Greens crossbench here have spoken eloquently about all the other issues in relation to this bill, and I commend them for putting it on the record today. On the fate of Australian citizen Julian Assange, what have you done? It's pretty much nothing. He's an Australian citizen who has stood up for the protection of human rights, the freedoms of Australians and democracy around the world, and you've done nothing. You've let him rot in a prison on the other side of the world and used him as a political pawn in your diplomatic negotiations. If he ever does get back to Australia, he's a shell of the man he was when you allowed him to be locked up. Your inconsistency with the freedoms that you like to protect and promote is just galling. The only thing we can trust both sides on is the inconsistency. You say one thing at the UN and do another thing here. You say one thing to your mates in Washington and do another thing here. You say one thing behind closed doors and don't even tell the Australian people what you're signing the public up to. The secrecy reeks in this national security space, and it has been an increasing problem. We know that. Legal experts continue to say to us in our Senate inquiries, over and over and over again, that the giddiness of the Labor and the Liberal parties about national security while locked behind closed doors with spooks is just pathetic. How about putting in some proper protections, like a human rights act, to tell the Australian people that you do care about their actual freedoms, their protections and their rights? This bill will pass today because both major parties love playing footsies under the table on national security, even at the expense of whistleblowers and the freedoms of everyday Australians and journalists. They're so quick to ram these types of laws through and very slow to do anything that actually protects the rights of whistleblowers and journalists to speak and report the truth. I look forward to hearing the minister's response. 12:10 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I thank senators for their contributions to this debate. This bill, the National Security Legislation Amendment (Comprehensive Review and Other Measures No. 3) Bill 2023, comes after a series of incidents in recent weeks which have been shocking to the community, to the communities involved and also to individuals that have been directly affected. Our security agencies face the daunting task of attempting to detect and disrupt these attacks before they occur, and our agencies are extremely successful in this work. As the DG of ASIO has made clear, even when it is not the primary threat facing the country, as is the case at the moment, terrorism is a threat that we can never turn away from. I thank our intelligence and law enforcement agencies for the tireless work they do to keep our communities safe. This bill reflects the government's commitment to the security of our society and to ensuring that the legislation that underpins the actions of the national intelligence community is robust. I commend the bill to the chamber. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 27 12:11 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I understand from the Clerk that no amendments to the bill have been circulated. Does any member require a committee stage? No member has indicated that. I call the minister. 12:11 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Communications Legislation Amendment (Prominence and Anti-siphoning) Bill 2023 27

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

First Reading 27 12:12 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. (Quorum formed) The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 We've now reached the hard marker, so it's not my intention to proceed with the motion that derived from the message that has been received. I shall now go to senators' statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 28 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Budget 28 12:15 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Labor has delivered a budget for all Australians—a budget that delivers a back-to-back surplus that will help reduce cost-of-living pressure and continues our commitment to improving the health system. This budget delivers tax cuts for every taxpayer and a $300 energy rebate. It also gives Australians cheaper medicines and makes it easier to see a doctor and access health care when most needed. I'm particularly pleased the budget includes measures to improve the health and wellbeing of First Nations people. We know there is much work to be done to close the gap, but there are many important measures in this budget as part of a $160 million package. Australians have already saved more than $370 million since we introduced 60-day prescriptions and reduced the PBS co-payment last year. This budget will deliver even cheaper medicines for First Nations peoples. We're expanding access to the Closing the Gap PBS co-payment for eligible First Nations people and investing $11.1 million. This will now apply to all Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme medicines dispensed by a pharmacy, public or private hospital, or approved medical practitioner. This means all eligible First Nations people who are registered on the Closing the Gap database will get their PBS medicines for free if they have a Commonwealth concession card. If they don't have a concession card, they will still pay only a discounted co-payment rate of $7.70. Those not registered will still benefit from the freeze on the maximum Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme—PBS—co-payments. There will be a freeze for up to five years for concession cardholders and a one-year freeze for everyone else with a Medicare card. I certainly know this will make a real difference for many First Nations people. The budget includes funding for more Medicare urgent care clinics. We've already delivered 58, and now we'll see that number grow to 87. In the Northern Territory, there have been more than 10,000 visits to the urgent care clinics on Larrakia country in Darwin and on the lands of the Arrernte people in Mparntwe, Alice Springs. Urgent care clinics will give more First Nations people better access to bulk-billed urgent care for conditions that are urgent but not life threatening without having to go to a hospital emergency department. We know that, without a strong and growing health workforce, the impact of these investments will be affected. That's why the budget includes a suite of measures to build and strengthen the health workforce. I'm particularly pleased there are a number of important measures to grow and support the First Nations health workforce. First Nations health professionals play a critical role in delivering health care that is culturally safe and responsive to community needs and, ultimately, delivers better outcomes for First Nations people. In this budget, the Australian Indigenous Doctors Association will receive $4 million to continue to improve cultural safety, increase engagement and support First Nations doctors to become medical specialists. We've seen some great outcomes with the Australian Indigenous Doctors Association. Recently, in a visit to the Torres Strait Islands that I made, I was able to see firsthand the 20 graduates, Torres Strait doctors, who come together on the Torres Strait not only to learn about Torres Strait culture but also to share their experiences in the medical world. I'd like to share with the Senate that 20 years ago, when they had the first Torres Strait Islander doctor, it was an incredible challenge to think that we could try and grow the number of Torres Strait doctors. Now we have over 120 Torres Strait doctors. I commend the Australian Indigenous Doctors Association for the work it's doing. We also see over 800 Indigenous doctors—of course, a large component of Aboriginal doctors—just 38 of whom are in the Northern Territory. We're also boosting the Lowitja O'Donoghue Foundation scholarships in enrolled nursing for undergraduate and postgraduate nursing students by $600,000. These investments will mean First Nations people will be supported to choose a career in nursing and deliver high-quality care to patients. In Darwin last week, alongside the member for Solomon Luke Gosling and with the support of the member for Lingiari Marion Scrymgour, I announced $24.6 million in funding for Charles Darwin University to establish and operate a medical school and $3.4 million for the Northern Territory Medical Program to boost the number of doctors in the Northern Territory. We certainly heard firsthand from staff and students about how much of a game changer this investment will be for them and for the Northern Territory. One student, Thevini Abeywardana, talked about how excited she was about the news. She said: It gives a lot of students the opportunity to stay close to family and friends, and being in an environment that they already know and are comfortable in. I'll be able to learn medicine, and then go to regional and remote communities and help out the communities there. Supporting students like Thevinito study, graduate and then work in the health sector is going to help reduce the impact of health issues that disproportionately affect First Nations people, particularly those in remote communities. This budget will support First Nations women and girls. Making professional indemnity insurance for midwives more available will safeguard culturally safe Birthing on Country services for First Nations mothers, with an investment of $3.5 million. Women and girls in rural and remote First Nations communities will also get free menstrual products like pads and tampons, and we're investing $12.5 million to ensure this happens across the country. These can be expensive and hard to get, and providing them for free will support girls and women to go on with their daily lives. I commend the Aboriginal community health sector for their support and advise on all of these initiatives, in particular NACCHO. This budget builds on the significant investments our government has made in First Nations health and wellbeing over the last two years. We've invested $5.1 billion under the Indigenous Australians Health Program for projects that directly support First Nations people to achieve the health outcomes that they want to see for their families. These projects are things like community controlled health services, infrastructure projects, new renal dialysis clinics in remote communities, and maternal and child health programs to support families to give their children the best, healthiest start to life. Our government has made $988.6 million of new investments since coming into government, and we're continuing to deliver on our commitments, including supporting 500 new health workers. The numbers are promising. Across the country more than 250 students are already enrolled in the program with 40 having completed it so far, and we only began 18 months ago. Finally, this budget demonstrates the Albanese government's commitment to closing the gap, and we're making a landmark investment in new remote jobs and housing. The Remote Jobs and Economic Development Program is grounded in self-determination and will be rolled out in partnership with First Nations communities. In fact, those consultations are occurring now across the regions where the Community Development Program has previously been established, and we are seeking to transfer from that program into the new jobs program. The historic 10-year housing agreement with the Northern Territory government will see 270 houses built each year. We know this will go towards reducing overcrowding—a huge issue for First Nations communities, but also a major health issue, in terms of what we're trying to do to reduce the health problems and close the gap. I was out at Maningrida just last week actually, with Minister Linda Burney, to look at the new homes for families and also the significant work that we're doing towards improving water quality. All of these measures will make a significant difference to the lives of First Nations Australians. Budget 29 12:25 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Just when you think this Labor government cannot get any more incompetent or stuff up any other government programs, they manage to exceed our very low expectations. This third Albanese government budget, the third in two years, is no exception to that. In fact, having had a look at some of the detail now, in relation to my home state of Western Australia, it is another complete disaster for Western Australians. It is very clear, very sadly, that Western Australians will be even worse off under this government than they were two years ago when Labor came into government. What is very clear is that Western Australians, like all Australians, will be paying the price for Labor's disastrous policies and their appallingly bad decisions. Their policies in this, their third budget, continue to be highly inflationary—disastrously and unnecessarily so. The cost of living for all Australians is up. Energy prices are up. Mortgages are up. Grocery prices are up. The list of expenses that are going up for family households continues to expand. Labor had the chance in this third budget to address the pain that Western Australian households were already feeling as a consequence of the last two budgets, but, sadly, they squibbed it and failed very basic economic tests, as the media today has picked up on, right across TV, newspapers and online articles. The verdict is very, very clear. So why are they doing this—apart from clear incompetence? They're very clearly trying to manufacture an artificial interest rate cut before the end of this year, in a desperate attempt to save themselves at the next election. This is clearly an election budget. It will leave disastrous deficits for this and the next generation to fill, over coming years. In these challenging economic times, which partially have been engineered by those opposite, we need a budget that goes back to basics. Instead, Labor are spending over $315 billion extra, which—despite their attempts, for the election, to get a lower inflation and lower interest rate result—is clearly inflationary. What does this mean for Australian householders who are already struggling? It means less spending opportunities for household budgets and, most likely, increased mortgage repayments. In Western Australia, wherever I go, I am constantly hearing from people about the stress on their household budgets and their concerns about cost-of-living increases, including the 12 interest-rate rises since this mob have been in government. Now, after three Labor budgets, the average Australian household with a mortgage is over $35,000 a year worse off. Instead of making things better, they have only made things worse. The budget last night confirmed the unprecedented increase in net migration. Remember, we've heard so often from those opposite: 'Yes, we're a bit sorry. We did open the floodgates a bit too fast. We didn't think about housing, but it is a bit of an issue,' but, when you look at the budget figures of last night, there's an increase in net migration: 1.67 million new migrants coming to our country over the next five years. That wouldn't be so bad if the government hadn't forgotten to work with state and territory governments to create enough housing for all of these new migrants so that Australians would be able to afford to buy a new house—if they could find one and get a mortgage—but also so Australians could rent. The questions that remain unanswered are: where are these new migrants going to live, and what will be the additional impacts on Australians' mortgages and ability to find a house or land to build on, after which they actually have to have a house built within three or four years? There is simply not enough rental stock available for people who are already here and then for the new 1.67 million migrants who they want to come to Australia. Labor has unashamedly fuelled this housing and rental crisis through migration when housing approvals are at an 11-year low. It just does not make sense. In Western Australia, in fact, we have the second-lowest quarterly level of new housing starts since records began 40 years ago. I hear so many stories of desperate families visiting home opens while searching for rentals, only to be competing with large groups of people for the same very limited housing supply. Net migration will be increasing in Western Australia over the forward estimates while the 1.67 million people are coming to Australia, and they will be coming to Western Australia. Net migration is increasing in Western Australia more than in any other state. It is a complete disgrace that the state and federal governments have not stopped to think about this and take action that will work. According to REIWA, the demand for housing will continue to outstrip supply in Western Australia, because we now have the largest annual growth since 2009. Another shocking discovery in last night's budget is the $1.4 billion in extra funding for the WA government's disastrous METRONET project. Those in Western Australia will remember how, seven years ago, Labor came into government saying they would build even more train lines in Western Australia. Seven years later, the original budget has gone from $4.8 billion to over $12.5 billion. Again, the state government that has rivers of gold has now had to be bailed out by the federal Labor government. And guess what? In seven years, there has not yet been a single train operating on a single train track. How incompetent is that? At a time when we need responsible economic management, the Albanese Labor government has yet again had to bail out the most incompetent state government in the history of Western Australia. In the time remaining, I'd like to talk about another decision that is having absolutely disastrous consequences on Western Australians, and that is the Albanese Labor government's decision to ban live exports of sheep from Western Australia. It is very clear that this is a kneejerk reaction that was done with the encouragement and engagement of animal welfare organisations on the east coast, who have no regard whatsoever for the welfare of the sheep that will still be exported to our markets overseas. They also have no regard whatsoever to the thousands and thousands of not only farmers but local communities who rely on this industry. I kid you not—get this—the brilliant Labor state government have said: 'Not a problem. We don't really like it, but we're not going to fight it. We're not going to stand up to the Albanese government. But we will encourage these sheep farmers to actually start selling and farming alternative protein.' That's grasshoppers, tofu and plant based meat. Can you imagine us going to the Middle East markets and saying, 'We're not going to sell you lamb anymore, but why don't you buy these crickets instead?' It is just insane. You know where they're going to go? Instead of buying from Western Australian farmers, who now have the highest animal welfare standards in the world, animals will be going to countries such as Sudan, South Africa and Ethiopia, where they do not have anywhere near the same animal welfare standards that we now have. If the Greens and the Labor Party opposite and the animal activists who were working with them to get this ban actually cared about the welfare of sheep, they would be supporting the Australian industry. The mortality rate of Australian sheep before reaching their destination has gone from 0.53 per cent in 2018 to less than 0.17 per cent. We now have the best standards. I say to those opposite and the so-called animal welfare lobby: not only are you going to kill the jobs and the livelihoods of thousands of Western Australian families and farming communities but you are now going to condemn millions more sheep to death because they will come from countries that do not have the same animal welfare standards. It is inexplicable. Shame on you all. Budget 30 12:35 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Budgets are about choices, and the choices that governments make reflect what is in budgets and also what is not in budgets. I want to talk today about some of the things that are in the budget that was presented last night and some of the things that aren't. Firstly, there is an epidemic of men's violence against women in this country. Many thousands of people recently joined marches and rallies across Australia calling for an end to gendered violence and for the declaration of a national emergency in the face of an unacceptably escalating death toll of women. This is a long overdue conversation, and it's something that we need to talk about. Australia has a massive problem with men being violent to women. We've got a problem with sexist jokes. We've got a problem with the 'boys will be boys' rhetoric. We've got a problem with toxic masculinity. We've got a problem with media coverage which is far too often harmful and biased. We've got a problem with coercive control. We've got a problem with emotional violence. We've got a problem with financial abuse. We've got a problem with sexual harassment and gendered violence. We've got a problem with sexual assault and rape. We've got a problem with women being murdered by men. We've got a problem with boys and men not understanding or respecting consent. I say to all the blokes out there in Australia, if someone is not enthusiastically expressing affirmative consent to you or if someone is not capable of expressing such consent, don't try to have sex with them! This is not difficult. It's just common basic decency, but far too many blokes don't seem to get it. They need this explained to them: don't try to have sex with someone unless they are enthusiastically expressing affirmative consent and are capable of expressing such consent. Violence against women is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men. Yet, historically, men have been happy to leave the heavy lifting in this space to women, as we collectively leave the heavy lifting in so many other areas to women. It has been left to women to organise. It has been left to women to rally and to work to end men's violence against women. Can you see the problem there? It is men's violence against women. That's why men in this country—Australian blokes—need to man up. This is a problem with men. It's a problem with masculinity. So men need to man up and do the work because it is men who need to change. We men need to have conversations with our family and our mates. We need to organise and rally. We need to find ways to be part of creating safe places for women in our workplaces, in our sports clubs, in our homes and in public. We need to make this country a safe place for women. We need to work to change the culture that has allowed us, as men, for far too long to behave in a way that puts women's safety at risk. We need to call out poor behaviour when we see it and we need to be ready to feel uncomfortable while we're doing it. Of course we're going to feel uncomfortable calling out sexist or misogynistic behaviour in a group of our male mates. But I'll tell you what: calling out that behaviour is not going to result in the physical harm or death that is faced far too regularly by far too many women in this country. So I say to Australian men: man up and do everything you can to help women feel safe and be safe in Australia. The budget was also a massive missed opportunity to invest in protecting nature. Particularly in my home state of Tasmania and also in New South Wales, we are still seeing the industrial-scale logging of our beautiful, biodiverse, carbon-rich native forests. The planet's climate is breaking down around us, yet we have an industry, in industrial native forest logging, that is a loss-making mendicant industry, that relies on public subsidies to survive, that destroys biodiversity, that indiscriminately slaughters millions of creatures every year and that emits massive amounts of carbon into our atmosphere. While our climate is breaking down around us and while ecological systems are crumbling at a global scale, there is no excuse to engage in the industrial native forest logging of carbon-rich, biodiverse, beautiful, magnificent forests. They are home to precious creatures, beautiful and unique creatures, like the Leadbeater's possum and the swift parrot. Both are endangered species. The swift parrot in Tasmania is being logged into extinction by the political duopoly of the Labor and Liberal parties. It's getting harder and harder to tell those two parties apart with their enthusiastic support for new coal and gas mines, their enthusiastic support for public subsidies to burn fossil fuels and their enthusiastic support for the destruction of our beautiful, precious native forests. The Greens are here to fight. We're here to fight for the Leadbeater's possum. We're here to fight for the swift parrot and the masked owl. We are here to fight for our forests, the cultural heritage that they contain, the carbon that they contain and the beautiful creatures that they are home to and that are slaughtered in their millions through the clear-felling and burning of our native forests. In Tasmania right now it's logging-burn season. They choke our skies, they choke the lungs of far too many Tasmanians and they choke the economies of regional towns and communities that rely on tourism for jobs and prosperity. And why do they do it? Because the Labor and Liberal parties publicly subsidise this behaviour. If you pulled all the public subsidies out of the native forest logging industry, it would end overnight. It cannot survive without its public subsidies. It employs next to no people in this country, and we can and should transition regional economies out of destroying forests and into rewilding places, establishing forests and helping us to repair some of the terrible scars that we've left behind on our landscape. We know that ending native forest logging would be of benefit to our emissions profile. We know that because in my home state of Tasmania, when we significantly reduced the amount of native forest logging under a Labor-Greens government between 2010 and 2014, we saw Tasmania transform on an economy-wide basis from being a major emitter of carbon to being a major sequesterer of carbon—all because we stopped destroying so much forest. We need to take action. The time to end native forest logging is now. Let's do it for our climate. Let's do it for our biodiversity. Let's do it for those beautiful, precious forests that sustain and nurture our spirit. Budget 32 12:45 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Last night the Treasurer delivered Labor's cost-of-living budget. It's a budget designed to help people who are under pressure, while setting us up for a future of prosperity. We're delivering immediate cost-of-living relief while putting downward pressure on inflation. Every Australian is a winner out of this budget. We're delivering a tax cut to every taxpayer, with an average cut of $1,888 per year. We're lowering your energy bill by delivering $300 in relief to every Australian household and $325 for small business. We're tackling the housing crisis by increasing Commonwealth rent assistance by 10 per cent, on top of the 15 per cent increase last year—the first back-to-back increase in rent assistance for over 30 years—and by investing $32 billion to build 1.2 million new homes over the next five years. We're making health care cheaper and more accessible by delivering the largest investment in bulk-billing in Medicare's history, freezing the copayment and the cost of medicines and investing in another 29 Medicare urgent care clinics on top of the 58 we've already delivered. We're also abolishing $3 billion of student HECS debt and reforming debt indexation to make it cheaper and fairer for everyone to go to uni. Whether it's higher wages, lower taxes, cuts to energy bills or record investments in housing, health care and education, Labor's budget is delivering for all Australians, especially those who we know are still doing it tough. We believe that we can and should make things right here in Australia. When the Liberals and Nationals were in government, they told our car-manufacturing industry to pack up and leave the country, destroying many small businesses and many medium-sized businesses in the supply chain, thousands of jobs and many communities across the country. What did they do? In the case of car manufacturing leaving the country, the vision from Mr Dutton for our economy was to dig up minerals, ship them over to China and then buy back everything we needed at a massive mark-up. That's the Liberals and Nationals' vision for the economy. Our vision is for a future made in Australia. The entire world is transitioning to net zero over the next few decades. That means that, here in Australia and around the world, we'll see massive demand for solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and cables—all products that we have the materials and expertise to manufacture right here in Australia. We can be a renewable energy and manufacturing superpower, and our $222.7 billion Future Made in Australia package is a first step in delivering that vision. And, would you believe it, the Liberals and Nationals oppose it. They oppose investing in local manufacturing. They say investing in local jobs, local manufacturing and economic opportunity in our regions is a waste of money. Instead, they want to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on building nuclear power plants around the country, only they won't tell us where they're going to put them. They won't tell us the final cost, how long it will take to build them, how they'll pay for it or where they'll dispose of the toxic nuclear waste. I don't want a nuclear power station or nuclear waste being dumped where I live, and I doubt Mr Dutton does either. So why should he expect anyone else to cop it? According to the Treasury forecasts, our cost-of-living policies are taking three-quarters of a percentage point off inflation this year and half a percentage point next year. We know people are doing it tough, but the forecast is for inflation to be under three per cent by Christmas, compared to 5.1 per cent, which we inherited from the Morrison government. We have also delivered the first back-to-back budget surplus in almost 20 years, taking more heat out of the economy. Of course, those opposite have been intentionally vague about what things they're going to cut and what they're going to slash and burn, but we know that the deputy Liberal leader, Sussan Ley, has already said that she wanted to get rid of Labor's tax cuts. She said on national television that she absolutely supports repealing the tax cuts for every Australian. So we know the tax cuts are on the chopping block if Mr Dutton gets in. What else? We saw the shadow Treasurer, Angus Taylor, on Insiders on Sunday boasting about how he opposed $45 billion of services in the last budget. That's before we even get to this week's budget and look at where the cuts are going to be. We know that when Mr Dutton was the health minister he tried to end bulk billing by making everyone pay to see a GP. So Medicare is under threat. He voted against the Housing Australia Future Fund. At a time when housing is so unaffordable for renters and first home buyers alike, he would cut the supply of new homes. He voted against our previous energy bill relief when every dollar counts in the weekly budget. They've called our investment in fee-free TAFE a waste of money. I know TAFE students trying to make ends meet don't think having education paid for is a waste of money. The Liberals and Nationals will cut the support from under people when they most need the government's help. Not only is our cost-of-living budget delivering tax cuts for all Australians and record investments in making health, housing and education cheaper but our government has also been laser focused on getting wages moving again, after a decade of the Liberals and Nationals' deliberate strategy to keep wages low. We know people are doing it tough, but our policies have delivered real wage growth of 4.1 per cent, the highest wage growth since 2009. We've delivered the highest wage growth in 15 years while creating a record number of new jobs and keeping unemployment at a record low. We've also passed laws to make jobs fairer, safer and more secure for millions of Australians. We've passed minimum standards for gig workers and truck drivers, who were trapped in a deadly race to the bottom. We've made it easier for casuals to seek conversion to permanent work. We've closed a Qantas labour loophole. We've made wage theft and industrial manslaughter crimes. We've made the biggest increase to paid parental leave since the previous Labor government introduced it in 2011. We've introduced paid family and domestic violence leave. We've introduced a right to disconnect from your job outside of your working hours. We've supported record wage increases for aged-care workers, and we've successfully campaigned for the biggest ever increase to the minimum wage. These policies have delivered the biggest real wages growth since 2009. Under the Liberals and Nationals' scheme for our economy, you're going to be working longer hours for less pay. I want to say, when looking at some of the parts of my home town of Sydney, that there are some big winners from this budget. We know people are still doing it tough, but, in the seat of Lindsay in Western Sydney, taxpayers will receive an average tax cut of $1,521. That's more money in your pocket for your weekly shop or to cover all unexpected costs that might pop up. People in Lindsay have already saved over $2.4 million on medicines on the PBS, and we're ensuring that people continue to have access to cheaper medicines by freezing the maximum cost of filling a script. The Penrith Medicare Urgent Care Clinic, delivered by the Albanese government, has already had 3,209 visits. That's freeing up emergency rooms and cutting waiting times at Nepean Hospital. We're helping students in Lindsay by cutting the HELP debt of more than 19,000 residents and capping HELP indexation. Students I've spoken to are doing it tough too, and this will help them avoid being stuck in a debt trap. Of course, we're investing in infrastructure across Western Sydney, in preparation for the opening of the Western Sydney airport. We're investing $115 million in the Mulgoa Road stage 2 upgrade, $100 million on upgrading Western Sydney rapid bus infrastructure and $400 million on upgrading Elizabeth Drive. The list goes on for so many electorates around the great state of New South Wales and across the country. It's a great budget. It's a great opportunity. It's time for people to get behind this great success story. Budget 33 12:55 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria This is actually a budget for billionaires. It's a budget that gives billions of dollars in tax subsidies to billionaires like Twiggy Forrest and Clive Palmer but overlooks the battlers who live and work across our regional communities. What a sad indictment on the Australian Labor Party, which once prided itself on being the party for workers, that the big winner out of last night's budget is actually Andrew Forrest. Labor's third budget—and most probably the last before the next election—does three things. Firstly, it throws any hint of fiscal discipline from Labor out the window, with budget deficits as far as the eye can see and $122 billion being added to our national debt, which is rapidly ratcheting up towards the trillion-dollar mark. As I look up at the gallery, I see some young students. It is those young students who will end up having to pay off Labor's debt and deficits that were announced and showcased in the budget last night. Secondly, it also embarks on a risky and reckless government-knows-best investment strategy that discards decades of bipartisan economics that Keating and Hawke championed in favour of a picking-winners policy. Yes, picking winners is back in vogue, and the main criterion for eligibility is having mates in the Australian Labor Party who can get you swiftly, quietly and secretly through the vetting process. Finally, this is a budget that once again, in a most calculated and cruel way, disregards and disrespects the future prosperity of regional Australians. Thirty per cent of this country doesn't live in a capital city, and once again our communities, our projects, our future have been put on the chopping block to meet Jim Chalmers and Anthony Albanese's political desires. This budget continues the funding drought that the regional communities have been subjected to since Labor came to power. But, worse, it dashes hopes of any regional assistance beyond the next election. This is an unprecedented and targeted attack on the prosperity and sustainability of regional Australia, as we continue to suffer through an Albanese Labor government. They were very happy to come up to Beef Week in Rockhampton last week, with their shiny new akubras, only to jump on a plane and, within the next 24 hours, dash the hopes of Western Australian live sheep exporters, thinking regional Australians wouldn't notice. The suffering commenced on 22 May 2022 and was given full effect in the October budget of that year when more than $10 billion was axed from regional programs by Labor. By the time of that budget, we were well and truly in the funding drought. The two-year funding drought for regional communities continues with confirmation that not one cent of money for regional economic development or community infrastructure will be delivered this year. Not one new program to support regional economic development was announced in last night's budget. Despite claiming that $1 billion would be made available to strengthen regional communities, commencing from 1 July last year, it has now been confirmed that no money will be paid out this year under either the Growing Regions Program or the Regional Precincts and Partnerships Program. There are councils and community organisations right across Australia who made applications for funding under one or other of those programs, way back in the middle of last year, who are still waiting for feedback on the projects. It's not just the immigration ministers who are incompetent. These ministers cannot run a chook raffle. You've got councils and community organisations who have done the hard work and put the application in, and no-one has bothered to get back to them since the middle of last year. 'How's the application going? When can we expect to get through the decision-making process? When do you think we'll be getting up to signing contracts? When do you think our community is actually going to see this new piece of infrastructure?' Organisations have had to go out and obtain quotes from contractors and suppliers on the basis of those funding guidelines that were supposed to have commenced—wait for it—by 15 May at the latest. The guidelines for these programs stated that you had to be ready to start the project by—guess what, Senator Lambie—today. But we haven't heard back from the government as to whether they've even been successful. These quotes and the reputations of our local councils and community organisations are now at risk simply because Minister Catherine King cannot get her or her department's act together. The reality is that many applicants will now face higher costs than the original quotes would have led them to believe. This is because of Labor's own homegrown inflation problem. These organisations will be left out of pocket, because you can guarantee the government won't be paying for the shortfall between the quote they obtained and the new price. Is it any wonder that the Australian National Audit Office is investigating the Growing Regions Program? I encourage any council or local organisation who has applied for funding under that program to make a submission to the ANAO. In total, our regions have been robbed of $130 million worth of investment that was meant to be delivered this financial year. That's what the budget actually says. The government is supposed to be establishing new programs for our heavily congested suburbs. That was supposed to commence on 1 July this year. Every council and community or sporting organisation in the suburbs of our capital cities should look hard at the experience of the regional grant programs. Don't look at the budget papers, because they suggest money will be paid in the 2024-25 year, but in the experience of the regional programs that hasn't been the case. All of this could have been avoided had the government not chosen to axe the Building Better Regions program, where community organisations and councils put in applications that had been assessed by the department and were sitting there ready for the funding to be delivered. That was axed by the Labor Party on their coming into power. The government and the Prime Minister and the minister need to apologise to these communities. Of course, not only have this government and this budget been disastrous for the regions; they have also been shocking for the infrastructure rollout. There have been more cuts and delays to infrastructure in the 2024-25 budget. After the government cancelled or cut over $25 billion worth of projects across the country since coming to power, this budget last night reveals another $2.1 billion of cuts. It just beggars belief, as we have seen record immigration flowing into our already congested cities, exacerbating the housing crisis. And now we have the government continuing to cut the road and rail infrastructure funding that our congested suburbs and cities need to deal with their own influx of people. It takes a lot of front—more front than Myers, shall we say—to think that you can get away with that type of joke. The result of these cuts has been that Labor has cut more than $906 million from road investment in 2024-25 and more than half a billion dollars from rail infrastructure investment in the same timeframe. That means Australians are driving on potholed and crumbling roads and the road toll continues to rise right across the country. Whether I'm speaking to a truckie or to other road users in our suburbs or around the regions, the failure to invest in road maintenance across this country is an indictment. Once again this government is not listening to the Australian people. They are much more interested in achieving political results than actually servicing the communities that produce the wealth. Labor is all talk and no action. The budget paper show that only $2.86 billion has been allocated towards new infrastructure projects across the entire forward estimates. Catherine King talked a big game— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Order. Remember to use the full title of members opposite. Senator McKENZIE 207825 Minister King? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Thank you. Senator McKENZIE 207825 She was very vocal in her criticism of the delay between announcing projects and their delivery when we were in government. I quote her now: … 55 per cent of their newly announced infrastructure spend will be off into the never-never beyond the forward estimates. Guess what that number is in this budget? It's 82 per cent. She was complaining about 55 per cent when the coalition was in charge of the spend. She is now in control, and it has blown out to 82 per cent. This minister is hopeless and if this Prime Minister cared about infrastructure— (Time expired) Veteran Mentors 35 13:05 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Through the chair, Senator McKenzie, let me tell you what else is really happening here to our Aussie kids that the government isn't dealing with because it does not want to. But I'll tell you what, your LNP in Queensland are going to love this. You'll want to listen to this because if you get on this, you've got the election won. Not a day goes by without headlines about the surge in youth crime, the youth mental health crisis, teachers being assaulted, and the dire state of our child protection system in this country. Youth crime is up all over Australia, with communities from Queensland to Melbourne to Tasmania demanding action. Debate across Australia is raging over bail laws, with youth justice advocates pointing to a lack of family stability and children growing up with violence as the norm. Just last week a new study from the University of Sydney's Matilda Centre found the childhood trauma is responsible for nearly half the number of common mental health conditions including anxiety, depression, substance abuse, self-harm and suicide attempts. What's the answer? Some in this place suggest building more detention centres for our kids. Get a life! I've been very clear on this: putting kids in jail makes them better criminals. It does not break the cycle. In 2016, a veteran called Matt French, with his great mates who have served alongside him, Glenn and Troy, decided to try something new to make a change for these kids and continue to give back to their country. Matt had a rugged childhood himself. He spent his early years living with domestic violence and doing everything he could to protect and help his mother as well. His teenage years were messy as well, but Matt got it together and joined the Army when he was 25. After his service, Matt started to think about how he could give back. He wondered if the structure and discipline that worked so well for him in the armed forces would help other kids like him. In 2016, Matt—or Frenchy, as the kids love to call him—started a plan with his partners. In 2017 Veteran Mentors was born. Matt decided not to ask for government help until he could demonstrate and prove that the Veteran Mentors program worked. They have been very successful. In fact, they have been so successful, they have an 80 per cent success rate for getting these kids back into school, back on their feet and back into a normal life. They probably don't need government funding—they're really not interested—but boy oh boy do the country and the government need them. Matt directly recruited veterans, including Indigenous veterans that he knew were highly professional in the military, high achievers in the civilian world and fellow veterans who could join this mission and share his vision. Currently 65 veterans share Matt's vision. These men and women aren't just veterans; they are firefighters, pharmacists, elite athletes, medical specialists and team leaders in mental health. The Veteran Mentors program is for kids aged between 12 and 17 who show poor behaviour like low self-esteem, aggression, lack of respect, anxiety, depression, self-mutilation, tech addiction—you name it, they'll fix it. The Veteran Mentors are national. They work with children from every corner of this country. A lot of these kids have been in the mainstream mental health system for years with zero results. Their schools and their teachers can no longer control them, and their parents are at their wits' end. In January this year, I joined the Veteran Mentors Junior Leader Program in Kangaroo Valley for 10 days, and I saw the transformation for myself. It was amazing seeing for myself what these veteran mentors are doing for these kids most at risk. It is not just about military discipline. Programs include group therapy, truth telling, active outdoor challenges, healthy eating, conflict resolution and leadership lessons. The veteran mentors share their own stories to help the kids to be comfortable sharing vulnerabilities. They even teach the children to meditate. In Matt's words, 'These children came to us with an empty toolbox and only know counselling and medication.' The amount of medication those children are on is absolutely mind-blowing. You should have seen the blister packs. It would bring tears to anyone's eyes. It is more than what I see in aged care. In many cases, for the kids in the Veteran Mentors program the medication they are on is heavily reduced or they are taken off it post program. That's why there is a pharmacist there. The parents are involved as well. Veteran Mentors run an eight-hour full-day parenting workshop. I believe it is absolutely crucial to have the parents involved. Every child is assigned a veteran mentor to stay in touch with them for two years. This is really special. It's a program that actually gets results. Over 3,000 kids have taken part in the Veteran Mentors junior leadership program, and 80 per cent of those kids are back on the right path. There are three Veteran Mentors junior leadership rounds coming up. I ask the government members who are in Queensland to get up there and look at them. These are part of your answer. (Time expired) Budget 36 13:10 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Last night Jim Chalmers delivered a budget for every— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Senator Green, use the correct title of your colleague. Senator GREEN 259819 You are a stickler for the rules, Mr Acting Deputy President! Last night, Treasurer Jim Chalmers delivered a budget for every single Australian. It is a budget that is all about striking a delicate balance between easing the strain on the cost of living and safeguarding against inflation. The core principles guiding our Albanese Labor government's third budget are responsibility, affordability and adaptability. Just like our previous budgets, this one is sensible, feasible and tailored to the needs of the hour. At its core, this budget is about addressing the immediate concerns of everyday Australians while laying the groundwork for future prosperity. It's about offering relief without making inflation worse—a task that's easier said than done. This budget is all about getting wages moving again but keeping more of those wages that you earn. In our regions, this is especially important. It's where the impacts and pressures of the economy and the nation are often felt the hardest. We are tackling this challenge with a three-pronged approach: relief, repair and reform. 'Relief' means that we have measures in the budget to help Australians cope with the rising cost of living without further inflating the economy. This includes tax cuts for every single taxpayer, providing essential breathing room for families grappling with increasing expenses. 'Repair' means focusing on mending our budget and supply chains to build resilience against future shocks. This is about cleaning up the financial mess we inherited, ensuring that the nation's fiscal health is restored. 'Reform' is about preparing for the future growth, innovation and productivity that this nation deserves. This includes significant investment in building more homes, reforming our universities, strengthening Medicare and the care economy and broadening opportunities across our country, especially in our regions. This budget is both responsible and restrained, providing more cost-of-living help, such as energy bill relief, for every household and a tax cut for every single taxpayer. We recognise the difficulties Australians are facing, which is why those measures are designed to ease the pressure without adding to inflation. All 13.6 million Australian taxpayers will benefit from this tax cut, with an average reduction of $1,888 annually, or $36 a week. Additionally, there will be $300 in energy bill relief for all households and $325 for one million small businesses. This energy bill relief, coupled with the Queensland government's measure, will mean that Queenslanders will be saving $1,300 on their electricity bills, potentially not spending a single cent on electricity until next year. We are ensuring that Australians won't have to pay more than they need to on their medications by freezing the cost of PBS medicines. We are waiving $3 billion in student debt so that three million Australians will have the chance to get ahead without falling behind. We are supporting nurses, teachers and social work students by introducing pay for pracs. Superannuation will now be paid on paid parental leave. Additional funding will be provided for emergency food relief. Higher wages are a provision for aged-care workers and early childhood educators, and the freeze on deeming rates for 876,000 income support recipients will be extended. Pushing aside the political noise that we'll hear from those opposite, the message of this budget is very clear. We're here to clean up the mess and chart a pathway forward, and we're doing just that. The Liberal National Party had us on track to exceed a trillion dollars of debt. But, because of our responsible economic management, gross debt will be significantly lower. We're getting the budget back in better nick, cleaning up the budget mess we inherited and aiming for the first back-to-back surplus in almost two decades. What will we hear from those opposite, particularly from Mr Dutton, when given a chance to respond to this budget? Will they say what they will cut? Will they call for us to stop spending? Will they call for us to spend more in areas that they consider important, like nuclear power reactors? Where will these nuclear reactors go? These are the questions that Australians will want to have answered by those opposite every time they get up to criticise this budget. We know this budget is a budget for all Australians, and we're proud to deliver it. 13:15 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria Acting Deputy President, I know you share my passion for the defence of Australia. What we've seen in recent documents, like last night's budget, the National Defence Strategy and the IIP document that accompanied it, is a problem that I foresee we really need to solve. That problem was highlighted in the 2020 Defence Strategic Update, where we were told that we no longer have a 10-year warning time before a major war. A 10-year warning time has gone, yet when you look at the budget, the IIP and what spending has been planned for not just by this government but by the previous government, the large platforms that make up the bulk of the spending are 10 years away. That's well outside the window of warning that we still no longer have. How do we reconcile the fact that Australia could be held at risk tomorrow? I trust we will not be, but in the very near future we could be held at risk by an enemy, and all our spending and the preparation of our ADF to protect us is off in the never-never. I know there was $5.3 billion across the forward estimates in last night's budget, and that's welcome. That will be spent on some interesting things. But, as a country, we face a dilemma. We have to find a way to fund the Defence capability and personnel that we need right now while still looking at funding the large platforms that we will need in the future. I'm not saying there is an easy answer to this; there's not. This is a very difficult problem, but it's a can that's been kicked too many times. I as an independent senator will try to hold the government and the bureaucracies to account such that we don't face these dilemmas any longer than we have to. We need to decide what we do now and in the short term. I was pleased that, in the Treasurer's budget speech last night when he talked about investing in a Future Made in Australia, he did actually mention strengthening our defence capabilities and economic security. Hopefully, some of the money set aside for Future Made in Australia won't just go on solar panels and other pet projects. I'm hoping that, between the Treasurer, the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Defence Industry, we can start looking at things that can be done now for the defence of Australia should—and I hope against hope it doesn't—the shooting war start tomorrow. Those large, expensive platforms that we are funding further down the track are going to be needed to keep open our sea lanes of communication. Why? We don't supply any munitions ourselves, so if we want to be able to fight a war, we need to be able to keep those sea lines open. Yet, at the moment, we can't. Why aren't we looking at manufacturing missiles and rockets here in Australia? We have on order 20 HIMARS. The last time I checked, there's a five-year wait for HIMARS. Imagine if there's a shooting war. We're not going to get the rockets and missiles that that system will launch. We have to be able to make them here ourselves. We have to be able to make rocket motors and 155 millimetre ammunition. The Australian defence industry is capable of doing that now. It's more than capable of standing up and getting everything else that we need done in time for a war. It has to start now. We can't leave pushing expenditure onto large expensive ships and submarines. We need to do those things too, but we need to look at how we support our sovereign Australian defence industry manufacturing base to be able to look after us should a war start in a very short time. Budget 37 13:20 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland In the reception area in my electorate office in Gladstone is a free community pantry. Every day my team and I fill it up with basics like cereal, tinned beans, pasta, rice and toiletries. Anyone is welcome to come and take what they need. We don't ask questions, we don't ask for their names and we don't make them fill in paperwork. It took a few months for word to get around the community, but now the pantry has become an indispensable service for many desperate and hungry people. And the need is growing. It's not unusual for people to be waiting outside our office when we arrive in the morning, hoping to grab something for breakfast. On Fridays it gets used really heavily, with people stocking up for the weekend. On Mondays, with kitchen cupboards cleaned out, the need is great again. When we first started we were topping the pantry up once a day. Increasingly, we are having to refill it several times. Young families, teens, older people, employed people, people looking for work, locals from right across the demographic spectrum come to our office every day for a handful of basic grocery items, because it's the difference between being able to eat a simple meal or going hungry. What did Labor's budget have to say to those people? What hope did it give them? None. 'A budget for all Australians', they said. 'Everyone gets a tax cut', they said. Labor was elected in part because it promised Australians that no-one would be left behind. Forgive me, but we must have missed the fine print where it said 'except people on income support and pensions, renters, first home buyers, university students, public school students and women escaping family and domestic violence'. Yesterday more than three million people lived in poverty in Australia. Today three million people are still living in poverty. Yesterday JobSeeker and youth allowance were poverty payments. Today they are still poverty payments. For years now experts, advocates and people with lived experience of poverty have been united in one single call: raise the rate. Even the government's own economic inclusion advisory committee, chaired by a former Labor minister, no less, has recommended for two years running that the single best method for tackling the cost-of-living crisis and alleviating poverty is to substantially raise the rate of income support. For two years running Labor has rejected that advice. Meanwhile, Labor is high-fiving itself for delivering a $9.3 billion surplus. We need to be very clear about what that surplus represents. It represents a decision by Labor, in the middle of a poverty crisis, to refuse to spend public money—our money—on helping the people who need it the most. Could Labor have increased income support payments? Yes, absolutely. Did they? No, they did not. In a cost-of-living crisis, a surplus isn't an achievement; it's an unmitigated moral failure that doesn't even stack up economically. A surplus won't help a young person pay their rent. A surplus won't help a struggling family pay their bills. A surplus won't help a young family who have to choose between seeing the dentist, buying their medicine or keeping a roof over their head. And a surplus won't do anything to help those hungry people who come to my office pantry in Gladstone every single day. Budget 38 13:25 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory As a community backed Independent, I am here to push hard for what the people who elected me want. I'll put forward solutions, be constructive and hold the government to account. While there are some good things in this budget, there is also a gaping hole at its heart. There's no increase to JobSeeker, youth allowance, Austudy or any other income support payment, leaving three million Australians in poverty. We have the expert advice that lifting this would not add to inflation, yet, despite having a surplus, the Labor government, who told us that they wouldn't be leaving people behind, have decided to do exactly that. We've seen the $300 energy bill relief, which, again, is very welcome but will also be going to people who don't need it—those in this chamber, who also get $4,500 off their tax this year. Some of the cost-of-living relief in health is welcome, but one of the things I've been hearing a lot about is mental health—the difficulty in getting in to services and the cost to get in. We saw the government slash the sessions from 20 to 10 and promise us that there would be things to make up the difference, yet we've seen the lowest Commonwealth investment in mental health since 2018. We know what has happened to mental health across the country through the pandemic and in the last couple of years. There was a 10 per cent increase in Commonwealth rent assistance, which, again, was very welcome, but that's less than $10 a week and only supports 40 per cent or so of renters. When you look at the median weekly rents, having increased by $49 in the last 12 months, you start to see how it's probably not the response that a lot of Australians were hoping for. A Future Made in Australia is very welcome, using our tax system to incentivise decarbonisation and building an economy for the future, with billions for critical minerals and hydrogen. But there is no funding for household electrification or solar. These are things that could permanently reduce power bills by as much as $5,000 per household per year, every year into the future. These are the sorts of ideas that we need Australian governments to be implementing. Disappointingly, there was no plan to address our GP shortages here in the ACT. This is something where we need an ACT-specific solution. We find it hard to attract GPs. We can't get international GPs to move here because of our rating, and that needs to change. There was no significant support for frontline community services. With 35 women murdered already this year, there is such huge disappointment that there wasn't more to combat men's violence. The $925 million to make the Leaving Violence Program is good, but more is needed. Here in the ACT, only 30 per cent of women who apply for it get that payment. We need more from the government. I'm really concerned this is a budget that bakes in intergenerational inequity, because it fails to take on these hard challenges and deal with the root cause of so many of them. The scale of the government's response doesn't meet the magnitude of the multiple crises that we face. The housing and homelessness sector is heartbroken today. Despite the headline, the budget doesn't deliver the funding increase they need to build the social and affordable homes they stand ready to deliver. Students have been massively short-changed. We saw an announced tweak in the indexation, but we're still charging students interest on fees that they've already repaid to the ATO, and we've left the Job-ready Graduates system in place. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU We will now move to two-minute statements. Migration 38 13:30 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland Last night's budget by the Albanese government again revised its migration forecast up to 395,000 people. This is well underneath the figures that we have already had come into the country this year. As of February, we've had net long-term visitor arrivals of 348,000 for the eight months; net short-term resident arrivals of 147,000; short-term visitor arrivals of 361,000; and settler arrivals of 107,000. We have had net long-term resident departures of 92,000. All up in the eight months of this year we have had over 800,000 people come into this country, yet the Albanese government wants you to believe that they are going to see net immigration of just 395,000 people this year. This figure is completely unsustainable and completely reckless. The Albanese government needs to explain why, over the last two years since they have been in government, they have dramatically increased immigration above the supply of new dwellings. A decade ago Australia was building close to 200,000 new dwellings a year. That would accommodate the approximately 200,000 people coming into the country and 100,000 natural increase. The current increase in immigration has been totally unmatched by the supply of new dwellings. Not only has the number of new dwellings failed to keep up with the extra demand but the number of new dwellings is actually now lower. They have actually declined to where they were 10 years ago. Immigration is too high. I ask you, why aren't the immigrants being used to build the houses? Until such time as the Albanese government can find a house for Australians, they need to lower the immigration rate. World Hypertension Day 39 13:32 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria 17 May is World Hypertension Day. High blood pressure—hypertension—is a common condition that affects one in three Australian adults. That's around 6.8 million people. It's a condition that I know all too well, sadly. I take every opportunity I can to raise more awareness in our community in the hope that it will help others to check and make sure that they are not also impacted by hypertension. I was in this very chamber back in 2022 when I began to feel dizzy and sensed that something was not right. Thankfully, with the help of the nurse here at Parliament House, I was able to get the help that I needed. It turned out I had very high blood pressure, once she measured me—dangerously high, in fact. After speaking with my GP I was subsequently diagnosed with high blood pressure. Now I am taking medication to ensure that my blood pressure remains within a normal level, and I have ongoing checks. I consider myself lucky that I was given a warning sign. Hypertension is termed the silent killer, because many people may not experience any symptoms and some have high blood pressure for years without knowing it until they have a stroke or a heart attack. If left untreated, it can be serious. In fact, high blood pressure is responsible for around 25,000 deaths a year. It's the leading risk factor for the country's top three killers: coronary heart disease, stroke and dementia. So to mark this World Hypertension Day I strongly encourage everyone, particularly my colleagues in the building here, to visit your local chemist or GP and have your blood pressure measured. It's important to know your risk and understand how you can lower your risk. People With Disability 39 13:34 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I would like to share the following statistics. Please remember that SA and DV are significantly underreported. The true figures are likely much higher. The disability royal commission found that disabled women were twice as likely to experience sexual violence over one year compared to their non-disabled peers. They are almost twice as likely to experience economic abuse by a partner. From the age of 15, roughly half of women with cognitive or psychological disability have experienced sexual violence compared with 16 per cent of non-disabled women. There are very tangible systems failings at play, informing the higher likelihood of these experiences. The DSP makes recipients more vulnerable to abuse through archaic partner rules that force disabled people to become financially dependent on their romantic partners. Segregated institutions put us out of sight of mainstream community, increasing our vulnerability to predators and barriers to reporting. It is exceptionally difficult to find accessible housing right now, and most DV shelters are physically inaccessible. All of these things are exacerbated by the lack of education around relationships, sex and consent that most disabled people receive. As policymakers, we could begin implementing changes immediately to correct these failures. We could make support payments fair. We could get rid of segregation, build more accessible housing and improve education around sex and consent for disabled people. What the hell are we waiting for? Grocery Prices 39 13:36 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales Australians are struggling now more than ever under this government. This is especially true when we pay for our groceries at the check-out. I had the privilege of recently sitting on the Senate Select Committee on Supermarket Prices, where we explored why prices are so high in an effort to find a solution. While the committee report came with diverse and often divergent views on the matter, we did agree on some very important things. The food and grocery code should be mandatory, to protect small agricultural growers and suppliers. I was deeply concerned to hear about how many farmers and small-business owners felt threatened or intimidated by our big supermarkets. The power imbalance is too great. Making the code mandatory is one step we can take in bringing fairness and transparency to grower and producer agreements with suppliers and retailers. Another thing we wanted to see was greater scrutiny of multinationals. Companies like Unilever and Nestle cover 80 per cent of the items on our supermarket shelves and in our cupboards at home. We heard evidence from both Coles and Woolworths that this power imbalance is a driver of price increases. We weren't afforded the opportunity to explore these claims in more depth, and I hope these issues may be referred to a separate committee for exploration. Another area we agreed upon was the need for price transparency so that everyone, from consumers to small-business suppliers, can understand price movements over time. This will give suppliers greater insight for contract negotiations and consumers a better understanding of cost changes for their staple products. The cost of groceries is one of the most noticeable expenses in the family budget, and the government must do more to bring down inflation, encourage competition and open barriers to entry in the supermarket sector. Road Safety 40 13:38 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania Governments across all levels and the broader community have their part to play in making sure that we get home safely, because road safety is a shared responsibility. The Albanese government is playing its part by taking urgent steps to respond to the unacceptable rising road toll. A major part of improving road safety is having accurate and accessible data to work from. That is why we have invested $21 million into the National Road Safety Data Hub—to provide a clear picture underpinned by data about where best to target road safety funding, which will save more lives. The Albanese government will look to improve data sharing from states for our upcoming federation funding agreement negotiations. We will also seek to negotiate an agreement with the states and territories that will create a provision for a nationally consistent dataset. This investment of $21 million will ensure that the hub can be used effectively by everyone, including decision-makers, and will continue the work of harmonising the important data provided by states and territories. This is the first opportunity our government has had to act on data through these intergovernmental agreements, and it comes after years of inaction by the previous coalition government. We've heard calls for more accessible and consistent national road-safety data, and we are acting. This agreement is a critical step towards making this happen. What this is all about, at the end of the day, is saving lives—stopping deaths on our roads. The road toll is not just a series of statistics; it's the lives of people who have been taken away from their families and loved ones. So I say again: road safety is a shared responsibility, and the Albanese Labor government is bringing all states and territories—everyone—together to share this crucial data, to make the most informed decisions, to help stop Australians being killed on our roads. Digital ID Bill 2024 40

Digital ID Bill 2024

13:40 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland The Australian people have spoken on Labor's dystopian digital ID legislation and firmly rejected it. Tomorrow I will table a petition signed by 65,724 people calling on the Senate to repeal this insidious legislation. I want to express my thanks and admiration for those Australians standing up for their privacy rights and the individual freedoms that this legislation seeks to undermine. I also want to acknowledge the courage of thousands of Australians who gathered in cities around the country on 5 May to protest this legislation. In contrast to the hatred and violence of the useful idiots on university campuses, these protests were peaceful and orderly, and they stood for Australian values rather than the genocide of Israelis. One Nation is committed to the repeal of this legislation—effectively, a joint effort by Labor and the coalition to monitor and control the Australian people. We know that the former coalition government spent about $600 million preparing for the national digital ID system. Shame! We know Labor has allocated another $288 million in the budget. We know this bill was rushed through the Senate with no debate and no scrutiny. We can safely predict that it will sail through the House of Representatives, perhaps even today. We know Labor says it will be voluntary, but we also know that this is a lie because the bill has provisions to make it mandatory in several circumstances. But, thanks to this petition, we also know that many Australians are opposed to it, and I call on the Senate to act accordingly. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Before I call Senator Brockman, can I just remind senators that the use of mobile phones for voice calls in the chamber is disorderly. Live Animal Exports: Sheep 40 13:42 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I'm a senator from Western Australia and I grew up on a family farm which, for most of my life, has been in sheep production—including for live export. And that is why I say: 'Keep the sheep.' Everyone from the city to the bush should say this loudly: 'Keep the sheep.' If you love a lamb chop on the barbie, you need a strong and diversified sheep industry; you need to say: 'Keep the sheep.' If you want to support all our hardworking farmers across Western Australia, say: 'Keep the sheep.' And if you want to stop Labor's attack on Western Australia, you need to say, loudly: 'Keep the sheep.' This attack on farming in Western Australia is an absolute disgrace. Even Labor's own report, the report commissioned by their department to inform them on the closing-down of this trade—and I do not support the shutdown of this trade—said that the industry needed eight to 12 years to phase out the live export component of this trade, to allow sheep flocks to be rebalanced away from an export focus. And how long have the Labor Party given? Four years—less than half the minimum time that the experts said was required. In terms of compensation, they have given a pitiful $100 million, when the close-down of the cattle trade for just 11 days—an 11-day shutdown, not a permanent ban—under the last Labor government cost that industry over a billion dollars. Tasmania: Dress for Success 41 13:44 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I would like to commence by commending the fantastic organisation in Tasmania known as Dress for Success. It's a wonderful organisation that helps women get back into the workforce by providing them with essential clothes so that they are ready for job interviews. They help them with their CVs. They help them with their job interviews. Then, when they are successful at getting that job, they allow them one whole week's worth of clothing to help set them on the path of success. This is a fantastic organisation that is independent. The other program that they run, which is very important for women leaving prison, is a welcome back program where they provide women with a backpack of essential toiletries and things that they need when they are leaving prison. It is a fantastic initiative. I wanted to do a big shout-out to that organisation because they are helping long-term unemployed women back into the workforce. That is good for those women, it's good for their families and it is good for our economy. They are also engaging with other volunteers, bringing them in to help this organisation to give women the confidence and skills that they need and, at the same time, providing a very good service to the community, one that most governments wouldn't be able to fulfil. I want to give a big shout-out to Amanda French, as the team leader there, and to all her volunteers that give their time for such an important sphere of our economy, where we need to assist women getting back into the workforce. I know my Tasmanian colleagues in the chamber at the moment would agree that this is a fantastic organisation that reaches out to the north, the north-west, the west coast and the east coast of the state. They also now have an outreach program which they operate out of Launceston. Congratulations to them. (Time expired) FIFA Congress: Middle East 41 13:46 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales On Friday, the 74th FIFA Congress will be taking place in Bangkok, with 211 member associations gathering to vote on key issues relating to the FIFA World Cup. The Palestinian Football Association has submitted a resolution calling for FIFA to adopt appropriate sanctions with immediate effect against Israeli teams, including national representative teams and club teams, citing the international law violations committed by the Israeli occupation in Palestine, particularly in Gaza. The resolution also calls for FIFA to address the Israel Football Association's violation of FIFA statutes and repeated failure to take decisive action against discrimination and racism. According to the Palestinian Football Association, at least 265 Palestinian sportsmen have been killed by Israel since October. We also know that around 15,000 Palestinian children have been slaughtered by Israel. So many of these beautiful kids probably loved playing football. Jibril Rajoub, head of the Palestinian Football Association, has said: Israel destroyed all sports institutions in Gaza and turned them into detention facilities similar to Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib prisons. There are reports of smaller facilities and dirt pitches being transformed into makeshift refugee camps, field hospitals and mass graves. And, yet, FIFA has failed to address the genocide in Gaza. The double standards are glaring. In 2022, FIFA banned all Russian teams from participating in international football due to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Here in Australia, Craig Foster has written to the Australian football association to support calls for a ban and to urge the Australian football community and fans around the world to show support. FIFA, as the governing body of the 'world game', cannot stay silent. No-one should be staying silent. Budget 41 13:48 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Cheap houses, cheap power bills, cheaper groceries and hope for the future—that's what a good budget should deliver. Treasurer Jim Chalmers's third budget fails to deliver on all of these issues. Once his short-term coupons expire, inflation will fire up. Handouts and subsidies don't bring inflation down; they just hide it temporarily. The Treasurer even admitted as much in his budget speech last night. He said: Electricity prices would have risen 15 per cent in the last year if not for our efforts— the Treasurer means his handouts— instead, they rose two per cent. Has there ever been a greater admission of failure of the net zero pipe dream? With the most wind, solar, batteries and green schemes on the grid in our history, actual power prices rose 15 per cent in just 12 months. When the last budget's power relief ran out, Australians would have faced that entire price rise in one hit. That's right: Treasurer Chalmers has been forced to extend another round of power bill relief. Australians would have rejected what the net zero lunacy has done to our once cheap power. Cheaper houses—with 2.3 million visa holders needing housing in the country right now, Australia is in the grip of a terrible housing crisis. Good working families, Australian families, are sleeping in tents, in cars and under bridges. Treasurer Chalmers tells us to prepare for another 280,000 migrants. Given his track record on immigration predictions, we should prepare for more. With no hope of building enough homes to house those new arrivals, rent, house prices and homelessness will only get worse. How about hope for the future? There is little hope. The Treasurer tells us to expect crippling, worse deficits for the next 10 years, starting with this year. A better way is possible with One Nation, by putting Australians first and using our natural resources to our advantage. Then we can again become the best in the world. Goods and Services Tax: Infrastructure 42 13:50 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania The GST is a lifeblood for small jurisdictions to be able to deliver essential services, and Tasmania is no exception. In last night's budget, delivered by Treasurer Chalmers—his third opportunity to present what Labor stands for in this country—he failed to do something Tasmanians have been asking for, and that is to exempt from GST calculations the funding being given to Tasmania to build a new waterfront stadium in Hobart. Two hundred and forty million dollars is being provided by the Albanese Labor government to help construct this facility. One thing that has been asked for by the Tasmanian Liberal government, recently re-elected, is that the funding for this stadium be exempt from GST calculations. To date, we've had nothing from this federal Labor government. They've completely thumbed their noses at the people of Tasmania. Mr Brian Mitchell, the member for Lyons, and Ms Julie Collins, the member for Franklin, who sits at the cabinet table, no less, and who probably turns up to the Expenditure Review Committee, have done nothing to ensure that Tasmania gets its fair share. By contrast, though, this Labor government have been able to secure an exemption from GST calculations for the Logan sports precinct in the electorate of Rankin, which is the seat of the Treasurer. How unusual that that electorate and that state have been able to secure an exemption from GST calculations for something worth a lot more than the stadium in Hobart! In fact, the full expenditure for the Olympics infrastructure in Queensland, $3½ billion, has been exempt from GST calculations—but, for Tasmania, no such love. Shame on Labor senators from Tasmania. Shame on Mr Mitchell, the member for Lyons, and Ms Collins, the member for Franklin. Do your job and exempt this funding from GST calculations. Mental Health 42 13:52 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory If budgets are about priorities, it's a sad day when we see $11 billion in fossil fuel subsidies and just one per cent of that going to new mental health funding—$111 million per year in new funding. That is the smallest investment in mental health funding since 2018. This is at a time when mental health problems are skyrocketing in our communities. The demand for services is huge, and there is not the support to keep up. Just this week the Victorian government reported that mental health presentations in their emergency rooms have hit a five-year high. One in three psychologists in Australia say that they have closed their books to new clients. It's pretty much impossible to get in to see a psychiatrist in any time frame. Community providers are scraping by, running on fumes. Fixing this should be a priority for the government. It should be a priority in any budget. The investments that have been made are good, but they are not on the scale that is required to deal with this around the country. The pathway to train new mental health workers is a long one. If we're not adding places now, we're going to have shortages year on year into the future. The government has also chosen not to support psychologists through their placements, like it has for nurses and teachers. Unpaid placements put enormous stress on students, tipping some of them well below the poverty line. If we don't want students to drop out of placements, then we need to ensure that they have the basics to get by. Let's get serious about this. Mental health is a precious thing. Tasmania: Hospitals 43 13:54 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania In most states, if the main hospital in their capital city cancelled life-saving surgeries because there were not enough beds available that day, people would probably be pretty shocked, but in Tassie it's just another day with our health system in crisis. A few weeks ago, the Royal Hobart Hospital cancelled elective surgeries, including open-heart surgery, because they hadn't enough beds for patients to stay in. It's a classic case of bed block. Medical professionals and the state government say a big part of the problem is people in palliative beds taking up space with nowhere to go. So here's a thought bubble. I've been travelling around Tassie a lot lately and noticed the number of community hospitals in rural and areas. They're small hospitals, usually with five to 10 beds available. They're located in places like Queenstown and Beaconsfield—areas that are a long drive away from the closest major hospital. These community hospitals are in a kind of limbo. They're drip-fed enough money to keep the doors open and the lights on but not enough money to properly staff and resource the hospital, so let's use them to their full potential. If there's nowhere for people to go when they leave hospital, let's create a place for them to go. Community hospitals could be used for palliative care. It will allow people from rural areas to spend their final months in their own community and not in a hospital two hours drive away from their family and friends. I've had family members in this situation, and I know what a difference this could make. People shouldn't have to worry about financial pressures, like fuel and accommodation, when they're concerned about a loved one. We need to work smarter, not harder. This is a way to use an existing resource better and continue to relieve pressure on our hospitals at the same time. Domestic and Family Violence 43 13:56 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia 'Repeat, repeat, repeat. Not response. Lacklustre. Underwhelming.' That was my response to reading and listening to the budget, and the sector is already saying the same thing. The budget failed to tackle inflation, and it will fail to tackle the key contributors to the domestic and family violence crisis. I have talked to nearly 100 representatives from the sector in the last few months. The sector has said that the intensity of violence is increasing and that key contributors are financial and household stress, drug and alcohol misuse, and recidivism of perpetrators. It was disappointing not to hear a mention of children in the Treasurer's speech. Children impacted by domestic and family violence are often silent victims—just like those people impacted by the removal of the cashless debit card. I've been to those communities. I didn't drop into Alice Springs on a Monday and Tuesday when there are no takeaway alcohol sales and then tell Australia, 'It's pretty quiet, to be frank,' as I cruised around with my security detail and the entourage—not being taken to the places that were critical to fixing the mess that was left behind as a consequence of the removal of those alcohol restrictions. I'm aware of the long delay it took you to put pressure on your Territory colleagues, and now the Australian taxpayer is paying for it. Of course we welcome the billion-dollar increase for the national housing infrastructure fund to better support women and children escaping violence, but that's in the future. They need some help now. We know you don't deliver on your promises, and we know that there are people affected by it. It's a big fail. Budget 43 13:58 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I rise to congratulate the Labor Treasurer in the Albanese government, the Hon. Jim Chalmers, for a budget that is attending to the real challenges that Australians are facing right now but is also building a platform for the future—the fourth significant change in our economy—to make sure that young people have great jobs to move into. Ignoring the current reality just doesn't meet the needs of Australian people, and that's why I am so pleased that it's a Labor Albanese government that is going to deliver HECS-HELP relief for students through this budget. In the duty seat that I have—the seat of Parkes—this change is going to make such a difference to 11,884 people with a HELP debt. The budget by our outstanding Treasurer, Dr Jim Chalmers, and Mr Albanese's Labor government will affect every single one of those 11,884 young people's lives. They have a future that is enhanced by Labor policy and investment in them. The PRESIDENT 112096 It being 2 pm, we'll move to question time. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 43 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Budget 43 14:00 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. The following are some of the reactions from economists to the government's latest budget: This is the most irresponsible budget in recent memory. The government set itself a simple standard: not to make the Reserve Bank's job harder. Michele Bullock may just choke on her cornflakes. HSBC's chief economist, Paul Bloxham, said that core inflation is likely to be higher in a world with subsidies than one without and, 'There is a growing risk that rates remain higher for even longer.' Chris Richardson said: 'My big ask of the budget was that it didn't poke the inflationary bear. I don't think it passed that test.' Minister, given the reactions of independent economists, aren't the Reserve Bank's inflation assessments far more credible than the Albanese Labor government's? 14:01 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I welcome the question from Senator Birmingham and the opportunity to talk about the fantastic budget that the Albanese Labor government delivered last night. I note in the question there was reference to the energy subsidies that were included in the budget as a way of putting downward pressure on inflation, which I thought I heard in the media reports that you were all supporting. I think that's what I heard, or are you now saying that you don't think that is a way to put downward pressure on inflation and help people with the cost of living? This budget, which we delivered last night, has a focus on easing some pressure on people around the country. That goes to the cost-of-living relief. It looks at how we can repair the budget over time from the one that we inherited from those opposite. I know it must absolutely kill you to know that we're going to deliver the second surplus—the first government in 16 years to achieve that—that we've got lower debt than we inherited, that we've got lower deficits than we inherited, that we're paying less interest on that debt and that we've managed to find savings, something that seemed to elude those opposite in their budgets. We've been able to find savings, pay down debt, lower interest rates, have smaller deficits and have two surpluses at the same time. Whilst we're doing all that, we've got an eye on the future: what role should Australia play in the global economic transformation that we're seeing at the moment? What do we hear? We hear that those opposite are going to vote against a Future Made in Australia. Why would you think that was okay? It's against Australian jobs, against Australian industries and against a tax system that works to incentivise production to play a real role in the economic transition to net zero. What a surprise! Those that can't stop saying no say no to even a Future Made in Australia. (Time expired) 14:03 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia The budget papers confirm the unprecedented increase in net overseas migration under the Albanese government, with 1.67 million new migrants coming to Australia over five years. At the same time, Labor's budget shows there will be zero growth in housing construction next year, after two years of falls. Will you admit the Albanese government's bad decisions over three budgets have actually added to pressures in the housing market? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, I have not called you. I'm waiting for order across the chamber. Senator Cash, it does include you when I call senators to order. Senator Wong! 14:04 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory My apologies, President, I was too quick out of the seat! I might start where I was interrupted. How audacious is it that Senator Birmingham, who was a senior member of the former government, which did nothing in the area of social or affordable housing or working with the states and territories on increasing housing supply, would wander in here and try and absolve them from any responsibility for the fact that we don't have enough houses in this country. The Commonwealth government, when they were in power, removed themselves from any involvement—outside of trying to ransack people's super to pay for housing—to actually deal with the fundamental issues of low affordable housing supply in this country. There is no government other than the Albanese Labor government that has lent in more heavily in this space to increase supply and deal with the housing challenges that exist across the economy. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, a second supplementary? 14:05 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Minister, both you and the Treasurer have tried to claim an emphasis on spending restraint, yet how is this a case when, compared with the last budget update in MYEFO, tax receipts have gone up again in each of the forward years but so have deficits forecast compared with MYEFO? Isn't it clear that you are spending faster than even your record revenue intake is growing? 14:05 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Again, I think the Treasurer and I have been extremely honest about the pressures that are intensifying on the budget in those five key areas: NDIS, defence, health, aged care and paying the interest on the trillion dollars of Liberal debt that we inherited when we came to government. I might say, this budget shows that we are paying $80 billion less in interest costs on that debt because of the work we've put in to lowering the requirements for debt to fund the budget. The second point I'd make is the fact that, over the past two budgets, continued in this, we are cleaning up the mess of a former government that never budgeted in an honest and complete picture, so we have terminating measures. What about myGov? Do you think myGov is a program that only operates for one or two years? That's how long it was budgeted for; we are now providing that funding. Two-thirds of the net spend in this budget is unavoidable spending, most of which we inherited from those opposite. Budget 45 14:06 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. In the Treasurer's budget speech last night, it was clear that the No. 1 priority of the government and the budget is helping Australians with the cost of living, while also laying the foundations for future prosperity with the Future Made in Australia. Can the minister update the Senate on how the budget delivers for every Australian? 14:07 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator O'Neill for that question and indeed for the focus on the budget on behalf of the constituency she represents in the beautiful state of New South Wales. The budget that the Treasurer handed down last night does deliver for every Australian—as Senator O'Neill pointed out in her question—from a government that is working for all Australians, with a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer from 1 July 2024 and a further package of cost-of-living relief, including $300 in energy bill relief for every household and a little bit more than that, $325, for eligible small businesses. The budget will see us invest in more homes in every state and territory across Australia. It'll provide more support for parents; wages growth in every industry—and we saw, again, good WPI numbers released today showing that wages continue to grow under this government—investments in TAFE and universities; and investments in women's equality and safety, and in opportunities for women. It will provide energy and industry policy to invest in a Future Made in Australia and creating jobs across the country. It will provide stronger Medicare and commitments to strengthen the care economy—another area where we saw underinvestment and undervalue placed by the former government. Strengthening our defence capability and in support for small business, this budget has so much in it in terms of the challenges we're dealing with but also with all the opportunities that we see ahead. It's a very different budget to the budgets that we've seen from coalition governments, including that famous slash-and-burn budget of former prime minister Abbott that the Liberals handed down 10 years ago. We're not here to cut health and education, which we saw under the Liberals. Our plan is about maximising the economic and industrial benefits of the move to net zero, something that opposite don't even believe in, and securing Australia's place in a globally changing economic and strategic— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Neill, first supplementary? 14:09 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Thank you very much, Minister. I know there isn't enough time in these answers for you to tell us all the amazing things that are in the budget, but it is indeed great to hear that the budget will provide further cost-of-living relief while also laying the foundations for future prosperity. Can the minister provide further detail about how this budget is underpinned by responsible economic management and why this is in the interest of all Australians? 14:10 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator O'Neill for giving me the opportunity to talk about our responsible approach to budget and economic management. This budget strikes the right balance between keeping pressure off inflation and delivering cost-of-living relief at the same time, whilst keeping an eye on the future and future growth opportunities and, at the same time, strengthening public finances. The improvements in the budget that have occurred since we took office are a result of our decision-making and our focus on being fiscally responsible. After delivering the first surplus in 15 years, we're projecting the first back-to-back surplus in nearly two decades. We're expecting a stronger fiscal outcome in every year compared to when we came to government, saving around $80 billion in interest costs over the decade. We've found $77 billion in savings and reprioritisation since coming to government. We're banking 96 per cent of the revenue upgrades this year, keeping pressure off inflation while it's above band, and we're doing this while we're spending on unavoidable— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Neill, second supplementary? 14:11 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Thank you very much, Minister. With the nation's books in good shape, can you please outline how last night's budget will directly reduce inflation and build on the government's existing policies, which are easing cost-of-living pressures for Australians? 14:11 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory This government's budget is an inflation-fighting and future-making budget that strikes the right balance, one that is fit for the times. It is putting downward pressure on inflation, not upward pressure. The targeted cost-of-living measures announced in the budget are expected to reduce inflation, with energy bill relief and Commonwealth rent assistance expected to directly reduce inflation by half a percentage point in 2024-25. This is on top of the government's existing inflation-fighting investments—policies opposed by those opposite. The existing energy bill price relief, the cheaper child care and the boost to Commonwealth rent assistance are expected to take three-quarters of a per cent off inflation in the 2023-24 fiscal year. Treasury is now forecasting that we could see headline inflation return to the target band by the end of 2024, slightly earlier than was expected at MYEFO. Budget 46 14:12 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. In these uncertain economic times, Australians needed a budget that restored their standard of living—that restored prosperity and created opportunity and restored budget discipline and honesty. Instead, Australians got a budget that will leave interest rates higher for longer, costing mortgage holders and renters thousands of dollars. Labor came to government promising that Australians would be better off. They said you would feel a change of government in your pocket. But isn't it true that, after two years and three Labor budgets, real wages have gone backwards by 7.5 per cent and the average Australian household with a mortgage is $35,000 worse off? 14:13 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory What the Australian people have got with the election of an Albanese Labor government is a government that's not only directly focused on cost-of-living pressures for them but also dealing with the challenges that were ignored by those opposite for a decade. So we're dealing with issues like housing. We're dealing with energy policy. We're dealing with the net zero transformation. At the same time we're doing all of that—something that those opposite couldn't even reach agreement on themselves let alone lead a policy discussion on across the country—we're investing in the care economy, we're investing in universities and future skills and we're investing in women—remember that little problem? Remember that problem where women felt completely abandoned by the former government? We're dealing with issues like that. So, when you talk about all the spending that we shouldn't be doing, is it the investment in women's safety that we shouldn't be doing? The leaving violence payment that you only funded for two years: is it that we shouldn't be funding? Should we not be putting super on PPL? Is that an area that you wouldn't prioritise? We are building in substantial support for people, not only so that it assists them in their pockets— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Hume, you've asked the question. Senator GALLAGHER ING but so that it sends a message about the value, in this case, of women and women's economic security and the drive for equality across the economy. So we are doing a lot of things. We're addressing long-term challenges, we're dealing with short-term cost-of-living pressures, and we're laying down the foundations for future growth. That is what the Australian people expect their government to do. It will pay benefits. The wages that we've got moving for the first time, again, in a decade—good results today are showing that wages are moving and we are seeing real wage growth. Again, that is important in terms of the support people get around the household. But we recognise there's more to be done. That's why we changed the tax cuts that you voted for, and that's why we're bringing forward energy bill relief in this budget to everyone as well. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, first supplementary? 14:15 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria After the budget, independent economist Chris Richardson said: My big ask of the Budget was that it didn't poke the inflationary bear. I don't think it passed that test. The government said it would be careful not to frontload its new costs. But that's exactly what it did—and its new dollars are both big AND fast. Why is this government spending an additional $315 billion instead of reining in spending to actually address its home-grown inflation and deliver real cost-of-living relief to ordinary Australians? 14:16 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I just want to take up Senator Hume on her use of a new figure, I think, which is now over $300 billion. On that, Senator Hume, are you no longer going to index the age pension? Is that what you're not going to do? You're not going to index JobSeeker? You're not going to pay veterans the compensation they need—the compensation that veterans need? Is that right? The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister, please resume your seat. Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, that's the number you're using. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my left! Senator Hume, you've asked your question. It's now— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, don't speak back to me. You're not in a debate with me. I am trying to establish order in the Senate and I am asking you to refrain from disorderly interjections. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING All I can take from the question I was asked that raises the figure that Senator Hume used is that the opposition have now decided that indexing the age pension or providing support to veterans is wasteful spending. That is the argument they are putting. In addition to that, I can list a range of services that were not funded properly, underinvested in or not funded at all in an ongoing way, including palliative care services and chronic healthcare services, and we are fixing all of that up in this budget. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, first supplementary? 14:17 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Australians needed a budget that restored discipline and spending restraint. It needed a government that restored the fiscal guardrails, but instead this government refuses to show economic leadership and take the hard decisions to reduce spending and get inflation under control. Minister, can you confirm that for every dollar of savings you have spent four? 14:18 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Hume for the question. I can confirm that every dollar of savings—$77 billion since we came to government—is $77 billion more than the opposition ever saved. Certainly their last budget had zero savings. So it's $77 billion more than you ever put forward. In terms of fiscal responsibility, we have shown spending restraint. Real spending growth is in the order of 1.4 per cent, which is half of what it was under the former government. We've got gross debt hundreds of billions of dollars below what was forecast when we came to government. We're paying less on our interest bill because of that. We have reduced the deficits that we inherited and we have delivered and are on track to deliver two surpluses. If it's all so easy, why wasn't it possible for those opposite to ever do that—why wasn't it—when we saw deficits and debt increasing even before the pandemic hit? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, second supplementary? I beg your pardon; I nearly gave you a free one! I'm trying to help! Senator Hodgins-May. Budget 47 14:19 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria This is not my first speech. My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister. This weekend I'll be doorknocking in my home area of St Kilda and I will hear from community members about the Albanese government's decision to prioritise budget surplus over helping them. I'll hear about your decision to have the budget pump almost $50 billion into subsidising fossil fuels over the next 10 years when we are veering towards environmental and climate collapse because you prioritise your corporate mates over the people who voted you in. Minister, what should I tell my community when they ask me about this government's betrayal of those doing it tough and selling our kids' futures to big coal and gas companies? 14:20 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank the senator and congratulate her on her first question and to her swearing in in this place. If I may hasten to add, I suspect that you are doorknocking but I suspect that you are also putting a view in that doorknocking, which was expressed in the question. What I would say to them is this is the only party that is offering energy price relief. This is the only party which is offering rent assistance—on the back of the biggest increase in many years, another increase. This is the only party that is actually offering a transition to the clean energy future that will be implemented, because—with respect, Senator—your party thinks you can do it by press release and slogans. The hard job of transitioning what has been a fossil fuel dependent economy to a renewable energy economy is one we understand. This budget invests in a future made in Australia. Do you know what that is about? It is about grasping the opportunities of net zero. It is about recognising that if we want to ensure jobs for our kids and also to deal with the crisis that we see in climate then we have to transition our economy. That means governments have to do what we are doing in this budget, which is giving the signal to the markets and investing to ensure that we drive investment into green hydrogen, into renewable energy, into those industries which are necessary for the clean energy economy. You can tell them this is a government focused on equity now, fairness now for Australians, but also a future which has more opportunity and which grasps the opportunities of a clean energy economy. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hodgkins-May, first supplementary? 14:22 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria Members of my community saw the Albanese government release its Future Gas Strategy and its push to sell coal and gas beyond 2050. They then witnessed the highly coordinated display of faux outrage from government MPs in marginal seats right across the country. These same MPs didn't even bother to turn up to the other chamber yesterday to vote on this issue. What is your message to my community about why they failed to vote to oppose expanding coal and gas beyond 2050 and locking us into climate and biodiversity crises? 14:23 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I previously suggested the Greens might be involved in a bit of electoral politics when it comes to some of these policies. I think that was demonstrated by that question, where you asked about specific members of parliament exercising their vote or not. With all due respect, Senator, I don't actually watch all the proceedings in the House of Representatives. I've got a few other things that I try to be working on, so I will take as read what you have put to me. But can I make some general comments about gas. I find it disappointing— Senator Shoebridge 169119 You love gas! Senator WONG 00AOU I will take the interjection from the senator. What is problematic about this discussion is that it becomes a discussion about emotion and identity and politics and not about facts. That is what happens. The fact that I have just been told 'You love it' is a demonstration of that. It's not about what you love or don't love; it's about what is the best way to make a transition. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hodgins-May, second supplementary. 14:24 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria When defending the Future Gas Strategy, the Prime Minister said not a cent would be spent on gas companies. So why does the budget include $33 million for Santos's sea dumping infrastructure on top of the $1.5 billion for the Middle Arm gas and petrochemical hub in Darwin? Is the Prime Minister mistaken about the fossil fuel subsidies in the budget? 14:24 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Again, I think there are some factual issues with the question. I'll take, for example, Middle Arm. I know there's been a campaign against Middle Arm from the Greens political party. The Australian government's investment in Middle Arm's Sustainable Development Precinct is an investment to support industries critical to meeting our commitment to net zero, including green hydrogen, the manufacture and export of lithium batteries, and renewable energy. The government's investment in Middle Arm is not an investment in gas or an investment in fracking. Those who continue to peddle this conspiracy are failing to engage in the detail of the proposition on Middle Arm that the Australian government has put to the Northern Territory government. We have a view that we want to transition what has been a very fossil-fuel dependent economy to an economy that is a renewable energy superpower, and we know there is work required to do so. (Time expired) Budget 48 14:25 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Minister Wong. Given that helping Australians with the cost of living is our government's No. 1 priority, can the minister please inform the Senate how the Albanese Labor government's budget delivers for all Australians, and can the minister please provide some details on one of my favourite measures, which is the tax cut for every taxpayer, and any other key measures within that? As well, could you please touch on the energy bill relief for every household, less student debt and an increase to rent assistance for nearly a million households? 14:26 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you to Senator Grogan, from the fantastic state of South Australia. Thank you for having such a close interest in the budget measures. As the Treasurer and Minister for Finance and Prime Minister have made clear, our first priority in this budget was to deal with cost-of-living pressures and to do so in a way that didn't add to inflation, at the same time as charting a course for the future. In relation to the cost of living, we understand the extent to which Australians are doing it tough, it is so important for the government to do all we can in a responsible way to assist with the cost of living. It's the big challenge, not just here but in every household in Australia. How is our budget helping? The first way is through tax cuts—tax cuts, for every Australian, that are geared far more to those on middle incomes and lower incomes and far less to high-income Australians than was proposed by those opposite. These are tax cuts which deliver to 13.6 million taxpayers across the country. Then, of course, there is electricity bill relief for every household. We understand that energy prices mean that people are doing it tough, and a centrepiece of this budget is a $300 rebate for every Australian household. Of Australia's 13.6 million taxpayers, everyone will get a tax cat. The average tax cut will be $1,888. On top of that, as I said, there will be a $300 electricity bill rebate for households, and $325 for eligible small businesses. This extends and expands the energy bill relief rolled out last year. On top of that is a 10 per cent increase to Commonwealth rent assistance. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Grogan, your first supplementary? 14:28 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Thank you, Minister, that was a great response. In my home state of South Australia, many of the people I speak to want affordable housing, and I'm sure that's the case across the country. Can the minister please tell the Senate what the Albanese Labor government budget will do for people who want to buy a home and for people who are renting, and, more broadly, what the government is doing to deliver more homes for more homebuyers and renters? 14:29 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Grogan. I know, from not only your priorities in the parliament but also your work outside of the parliament before you were sworn into this place, that you understand deeply the importance of housing supply and of social and affordable housing. Unfortunately, as Senator Gallagher said, we have had 10 years of neglect from the other side. Actually, it was more than neglect; it was an active decision not to take any responsibility for housing supply. Now they come in here and have a go and say, 'Where's the housing supply?' as if the last 10 years of vacating this policy area can be hidden. The budget includes $6.2 billion in new investment to build more homes quickly, bringing the government's new housing initiatives to $32 billion. That's $32 billion for more social and affordable housing, for more infrastructure, for the removal of red tape, for better transport and for increased student housing. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Grogan, second supplementary? 14:30 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Could the minister please explain how the spending in this budget is responsible and carefully calibrated so that it can deliver responsible cost-of-living relief and ease pressures now without adding to inflation? 14:30 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The government's budget balances relief, restraint and renewal and is delivering a cost-of-living package that is both substantial and responsible but which is in the context of a forecast second surplus and inflation returning to the band during the calendar year under the Treasury's estimates. I would make this point. We've heard a lot from those opposite in this question time and in response to the budget about why we need more spending restraint and why too much is being spent. Tomorrow night is Mr Dutton's third budget reply. So far it has been all negativity and no plans. That dance is going to have to come to an end. That is going to have to come to an end. At some point you're going to have to front up and tell people what you're going cut. Are you going to do it tomorrow night? (Time expired) Middle East 49 14:31 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Considering Gaza has been effectively controlled by a genocidal terrorist group which invaded Israel and murdered more than 1,200 innocent people last year, how is Australia's support for Palestine's membership of the United Nations compatible with article 2, parts (3) and (4), of the United Nations Charter, which state: 3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. 4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state … Please explain. 14:32 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank Senator Hanson for the question. I would make the point to her, first, that the government unequivocally condemns the actions of Hamas. I have said publicly on many occasions that Hamas is a terrorist group and that Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of the State of Israel and to the destruction of the Jewish people. Hamas has no place in the future governance of a Palestinian state, and we have consistently called for Hamas to release hostages. The resolution that you are referencing was a resolution supported by some 143 countries which was fundamentally about how the world was trying to overcome the cycle of violence in the Middle East and create momentum for a two-state solution. I want to make this very clear: Hamas does not support a two-state solution. Hamas supports the destruction of the State of Israel. That is clear. People might have different views about whether we should have a two-state solution, but it is wrong to say that voting for a resolution that supports a two-state solution is somehow supportive of Hamas. It is contrary to their views. I believe, after having visited the Middle East and engaging with both Israelis and Arab leaders, that the only pathway to long-term security for the State of Israel as well as for the Palestinian people—the only path, ultimately, to ending the cycle of violence which has dogged so much of our lives and has worsened post the atrocities of 7 October and the events since then—is to work towards that two-state solution. That is the spirit in which we supported a resolution which extended more rights as an observer— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, first supplementary? 14:34 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Sorry, Minister—you didn't answer the question at all. You avoided it. If this so-called Palestinian state chooses a Hamas terrorist to represent it at the UN, will your government continue to support its membership? 14:34 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Firstly, the resolution extended additional rights as an observer. Membership of the United Nations General Assembly can only be granted by the UN Security Council. The resolution that was negotiated through the week reflected those provisions of the UN Charter, which is the power of the UN Security Council to grant membership. So what we did support was additional rights. In relation to the question about who represents the Palestinian mission at the United Nations, it is the Palestinian Authority. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, second supplementary? 14:35 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Minister, you never even touched on answering my question at all. We will try for a third one. An editorial in the Australian newspaper two days ago reported Hamas has welcomed the resolution that your government supported in the UN last week. Would you please explain to the Australian people why your government has done the bidding of terrorists who have committed the greatest atrocity against Jewish people since the Holocaust? 14:36 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I don't agree with your assertions, Senator Hanson. I don't propose to repeat them, but I don't agree with them. I have explained to you that a vote for two states is not a vote for Hamas. In fact, it is precisely the opposite of what Hamas wants. I would make the point, now that they have made clear their intent, that what we as an international community have to do is look at how we might bring momentum to security for both Israelis and Palestinians. That is what we are doing. I appreciate you don't agree with it, Senator Hanson, but that is our motivation. I think it is wrong to make the assertions that you are making about why we took that decision and why we voted as we did. As I have said publicly, I would make the point that our special strategic partner Japan, the Republic of Korea and New Zealand all took the same decision. (Time expired) Budget 50 14:37 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Can the minister confirm that a multimillionaire with a main residence and two holiday houses will receive the $300 energy rebate announced in last night's budget for each of their properties for a total of $900? Why is the government prioritising energy rebates to those with multiple properties instead of Australian families who are doing it tough right now under Labor? 14:37 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory It is interesting to hear that the line of questioning that I'm getting from the opposition seems to indicate that they are not going to support the energy bill relief that we have in the budget despite the Leader of the Opposition saying they would. I think the shadow Treasurer said they would. Now I am clearly getting the vibe that something has happened on the Senate side to say that they are not supporting it. Cost-of-living relief has been an important part of this budget, and it was an important part of the previous two budgets. We have looked at ways to provide assistance to people, including those who aren't on existing concession arrangements. The success of the energy bill relief last year showed that we could put downward pressure on inflation. I would remind those opposite that inflation, when we came to government, had a '6' in front of it. It now has a '3' in front of it. The forecast of Treasury has us reaching an inflation rate with a '2' in front of it through this year. Senator Cash I0M President, I have a point of order in relation to relevance. With all due respect, the question was: why are you giving $900 to millionaires and billionaires and not focusing on the people who are actually doing it tough under Labor? The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! The minister is being relevant, and I will continue to listen. A government senator interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order, Senator McKenzie! On this side, I'm assuming it was Senator Watt. I am asking you both to come to order. Senator GALLAGHER ING Some of our cost-of-living relief is broad based and some of it is targeted. So our tax cuts are for every taxpayer; our energy bill relief is for every household. Our focus has been on people who are doing it tough, particularly those on concessions, and that's why you see, with medicines and rent assistance, that they particularly target those households. But the most efficient and effective way to deliver energy bill relief above the concessions threshold, for a short period of time, over the next calendar year, is to apply it to every household. Now, our focus is on those households that are on the concessions, on fixed incomes, and those in Middle Australia. We make no secret of that. But the most efficient and effective way to deliver this program through the states and territories and through electricity retailers is to make the program broad based. Every household will receive that assistance, and it recognises that the cost-of-living pressures are up and down the income threshold. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister. Senator Cash, a first supplementary? 14:40 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Can the minister guarantee that the energy costs of Australians will actually be lower next year and that the $300 rebate will not simply be used to offset another increase in energy prices—increases that are now the hallmark of the Albanese government? 14:41 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I would remind Senator Cash that, when they voted against energy bill relief in the last budget, electricity prices, without that relief, would have been 15 per cent, and, with the relief, they were two per cent. So I would just remind those opposite: when they voted against energy bill relief in the last budget— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order. Senator Cash, order. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath. Senator GALLAGHER ING you voted for higher power prices. You are now indicating to me, through your line of questioning— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash! Senator GALLAGHER ING that you don't support energy bill relief to every household in Australia, so you are therefore— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Order on my left, particularly Senator Cash and Senator McGrath, who I called. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING And we are providing short-term relief for those energy increases that we've seen— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING Again, on the amnesia that is taking hold over there: just remember the energy crisis we inherited from you the day we came to government. Remember how you hid the price increases? You hid the price increases before the election. We provided energy bill relief. We will continue to do so, as we transition to a net zero economy, which will continue to put downward pressure on energy prices. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, a second supplementary? 14:42 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Will the minister finally concede that the Albanese government has broken its key election commitment and that Australians have not saved and will not save $275 a year on energy, but are, in fact, paying much more under the Albanese government? We always said life wouldn't be easy under Mr Albanese. And guess what? That's right. 14:42 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I can confirm that energy prices are lower under this government, without the assistance of the opposition. You voted against energy bill relief. Remember that? Have you forgotten that? You forgot that? You forgot the old hot— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Order on my left. Order! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, I've called, 'Order.' That applies to you. I should not have to name you. Minister Gallagher. Senator GALLAGHER ING We inherited an energy crisis; we had inflation running at six per cent; we had deficits; we had debt as far as the eye could see. We have turned it around, and we are providing cost-of-living relief, where it's affordable and responsible to do so, to take some of the pressure off those bill increases that we've seen. That's what a responsible government does. That's what a government does that puts the people at the centre, as opposed to the politics. And I will be looking forward to the Leader of the Opposition's budget in-reply speech, to see what he actually says about these energy bill rebates, because it seems to me there's a mixed view amongst his team about whether or not you're going to support them. And, if you're not going to support them, you can go and explain why energy bills should be higher than they would otherwise have been without this subsidy. Budget 52 14:44 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher, and will reference Budget Paper No. 4: Agency resourcing, page 186, department expenses table. The government has been conducting a program of reducing spending on external providers—contractors; consultants—and hiring employees directly instead, to perform those duties, and One Nation supports that. These conversions, from external providers to employees, save taxpayers money, being the difference between paying a public servant to do that work and paying a consultant, partly balanced out by the increased costs of office expenses, travel and so on. Minister, how much has this program saved in 2023-24, and how much will it save over forward estimates? I note that, as I understand, the budget papers have another 2,502 conversions projected. 14:44 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thank you for asking me a question about Budget Paper No. 4. That is the budget paper that Finance has responsibility for. We have worked hard to make conversions, as you say, and to reinvest and put increased capability into the Public Service. What we did find out from the audit on employment was that the real size of the APS when we came to government was much larger than had been publicly reported, so we are taking steps to rebalance it and to put public servants into jobs that labour hire had done. In the last budget, I think the savings were in the order of $800 million in terms of the conversions that were being made. In this budget we're finding a further billion dollars in reductions to agencies' departmental expenses because of the investments we're making in the Public Service. Obviously, we are making additional investments in the Public Service for additional responsibilities that they have, but what we're doing is painting a very honest picture of the price of delivering improved services. Those opposite, I know, are going to do what they always do and say they want a smaller Public Service, but they should then explain why 41,000 veterans who didn't have their claims allocated now have their claims allocated and now are getting access to pensions. It's a direct result of our investment in the Australian federal Public Service. We weren't seeing those results, whether it was in Immigration, DFAT, Services Australia or Veterans' Affairs. We see that on the payments side now because veterans are getting access because they are being dealt with. Because they've got public servants dealing with their claims, they are getting access to the money that they deserve. So it's a piece of ongoing work, Senator Roberts. If there's further information I can provide to you, I will. But we are finding savings from the program at the same time that we're making additional investments. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 14:46 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The table shows many departments costing less to run in 2027-28 than they do today, despite ongoing inflation, and rents, electricity and expenses far exceeding the savings from operations. The department of infrastructure is down from $554 million in this budget to $452 million in 2027-28; Health and Aged Care, $1.6 billion down to $1.1 billion; and Services Australia, $5.7 billion down to $4.5 billion. Minister, please explain from where these huge claimed projected savings will come. 14:47 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory In terms of the savings that we've applied through this budget, it's an extra billion dollars onto the $3 billion that we had built into the budget, so that gives you a total of $4 billion. There are additional savings that come through the conversions of expensive labour hire into permanent Public Service work, and so that is part of it. I think it's probably a question we can go through at estimates, as well, because I don't have that page in front of me. But there are savings, and we take that money from departments; they don't get that funding. So that is a saving that is realised at the time that that budget decision is taken. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 14:48 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The $155 billion provided in the budget as departmental expenses in 2024-25 is projected to grow to $169 billion in 2027-28 almost entirely from increases in defence and the NDIS. How could your forward projections show flat or reduced costs for, in effect, the entire government except the NDIS and defence when the budget puts inflation over that period at 13 per cent? Does your budget dramatically understate projected deficits? 14:48 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory No. The budget papers, as they're released—Budget Paper No. 1, which goes to providing the UCB, is based on all of the information that runs through all of the budget books, and that would include departmental expenses. There is extra investment going into defence and into the NDIS. As you would expect, they are two of the five fastest growing areas of the budget. The NDIS is the second, and I think defence would be the third or fourth, and so they would be seeing increases. But the budget UCB takes into account all of those decisions. It may be reported slightly differently in different tables, based on different accounting standards, but the UCB is an honest reflection of the state of the Commonwealth's finances. Budget 53 14:49 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Women and Minister for Finance, Minister Gallagher. Last night the Treasurer delivered a budget that put women at the centre of the government's policies to deliver cost-of-living relief for all Australians and to build a future made in Australia. As Minister for Women and Minister for Finance, you were central to the development of these policies. Can you outline why the Albanese Labor government believes prioritising women is good policy and explain how the government has supported women's economic security and assisted them in managing the cost of living? 14:50 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Payman for the question and for all the work she does supporting women, particularly women in WA and particularly young women, with all of the hard work that she does. We've made it clear since day one that women's safety, women's economic equality and women's equality more generally were at the centre of this government's thinking and its decision-making. In relation to women's safety, there are additional investments towards funding the national plan, including the leaving violence payment and some smaller investments looking at preventing violence. We are building on the 10 days paid domestic and family leave, and we are implementing all the recommendations of Respect@Work. In relation to housing for safety, there are some important announcements in the budget for new investments directed to housing for women and children who are leaving domestic violence and for young people. Of course, some of the national agreements on housing that we have been making with the states will have an impact there. Our tax cuts will benefit every woman taxpayer, with 90 per cent of women better off. Women, unsurprisingly, are the largest group receiving Commonwealth rent assistance, so they will benefit from those additional investments as well. We're also building on our effort to close the gender pay gap, and we are seeing progress there. The gender pay gap is the smallest it has been on record. We're really pleased with that. That of course comes with recognising the economic value and the investment made in aged care and some of those other care workforces where we know it is predominantly a female workforce. Importantly, we have $1.1 billion going into super on PPL. Those opposite are trying to undermine super constantly; we are trying to improve it and improve it for women, making sure that women don't retire with the gap— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payman, first supplementary? 14:52 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia Clearly those opposite are not interested in women's policies. Women's safety has been a key focus for the Albanese Labor government, and support for women's economic security is also critical for women's safety. Can the minister please outline how the Albanese Labor government has supported these issues since coming to government as well as in last night's budget? Honourable senators interjecting— 14:52 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory (—) (): I thank Senator Payman. It is a bit hard to hear at the moment. We have put in place the leaving violence payment, which I referred to in my earlier answer. Also, importantly, there is appropriate indexation of the National Legal Assistance Partnership and the family violence prevention legal services as we consider the review and the report that's been done. That's urgent funding because those roles were not indexed properly—surprise, surprise—under the former government in the legal assistance partnership. There's some extra money to establish a national student ombudsman to help eradicate gender based violence from universities. There's some funding to establish a national higher education code to prevent and respond to gender based violence. We have some investments in providing policy advice to government to prevent gender based violence, particularly as it relates to research in perpetration, and we have targeted investments to support refugee and migrant women, First Nations family dispute resolution pilot— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payman, second supplementary? 14:54 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia As with every Albanese budget, last night's budget was accompanied by the Women's Budget Statement. Can the minister outline why the Women's Budget Statement is an important tool for policymaking, and could you please highlight the key elements of the statement this year? 14:54 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Senator Payman. As we know, we have reintroduced the comprehensive Women's Budget Statement to show in detail all of the policy decisions as they relate to women. But it also gives those who are interested in women's policy all of the matters in the budget in one place. The Women's Budget Statement certainly provides a lot of detail about women's safety—the work that's underway and the investments that are made. But it also goes through the paid and unpaid economy, so it looks at how we can pay for prac placements for nurses, teachers and social work students, and it looks at extra investment for aged-care workers and for our early childhood education and care workers, who are looking to their decision from the Fair Work Commission relatively soon. We've made some changes to the carers payment. We're making some investments for young parents and dads to build up parenting skills. So this is a very comprehensive analysis of what's in the budget. We take women's policy seriously under this government. Budget 54 14:55 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. After three budgets, Labor has added $315 billion of spending, adding fuel to the inflationary fire. Analysis by Deloitte says the result is a relatively large increase in government spending over the next four years, potentially putting further upward pressure on inflation. Ratings agency Standard & Poor's have confirmed that the result of this year's budget is almost no chance of an interest rate cut for struggling families this year. Will the minister admit that Australian families face higher interest rates for longer because of Labor's bad decisions and wrong priorities? 14:56 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory No. I completely reject that question that's been put. I would remind those opposite that inflation had a six in front of it when we came to government; it now has a three in front of it. It's been moderating. The highest quarter of inflation happened on your watch. The first interest rate increase happened on your watch. This is the budget and the economy that we inherited— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Order across the chamber, but particularly on my left. Minister Gallagher, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING Again, Senator Davey uses the $300 billion figure. So you are not going to index the age pension, then? You see that as wasteful spending? You're not going to make sure that veterans get their compensation? You see that as wasteful spending? You're not going to index other payments and income supports? You know how big they are in the budget, so you go out and you try and incorrectly accuse us of allocating new spending in that area, when you know exactly what that means. If Mr Dutton uses that figure tomorrow night, we know that you are not going to index age pensions, and we will be making it clear to every age pensioner that you see that— Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, be accountable for the figures you use, Senator Birmingham. If you're going to use that figure, then it is clear that you do not support indexation of payments. Inflation is moderating. Real spending growth is half of what it was under your government. We have lower debt. Our interest on our debt is lower. We've had a surplus and we are shooting for a second. All of that shows exactly how responsible we've been with the budget and shown restraint but how we've also been able to find room for priorities. I know you don't support them all, but these are priorities that we believe are the right decisions for people's cost-of-living pressures right now and to put down the foundations for growth into the future. Senator McKenzie 207825 Get the narrative right! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, I have constantly had to call you to order for the last hour. You are being incredibly disrespectful. I'm going to ask you, for the remaining two questions, to sit in silence. Senator Davey, first supplementary? 14:58 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales Alan Kohler has written in the New Daily that 'the budget brought down on Tuesday is worth two more rate hikes'. At the very least, interest rates will be higher for longer due to Labor spending. Minister, why are Australian families paying the price for the Albanese government's weak economic leadership? 14:59 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The position that Mr Kohler puts and that is supported, presumably, by Senator Davey is not the advice to government. You've seen that reflected in the budget papers in the Treasury advice on the forecasts for CPI, on what they expect. They make a forecast or an assumption about what the cash rate will be. All of the advice to government does not support the argument that Senator Davey is putting. We have been very restrained with our spending. We have been cleaning up the mess, dealing with terminating measures, paying down debt, delivering surpluses, restraining real spending growth and saying no to more things than we say yes to in this budget. What we've tried to do is to find a balance between short-term cost-of-living relief that doesn't add to inflation—in fact, it puts downward pressure on inflation and knocks off half a percentage point—and, at the same time, looking forward, as growth slows because of those interest rate increases and global challenges, at how we drive future economic prosperity. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Davey, second supplementary? 15:00 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales Under Labor's budget to date, the typical Australian household with a mortgage is already more than $35,000 a year worse off. Now Mr Albanese wants to spend $13.7 billion on tax credits for billionaires at a time when ordinary Australians are struggling. How much worse off will Australian households be if underlying inflation and interest rates stay higher for longer under Labor? 15:01 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory What the government is doing is making sure that we're providing cost-of-living relief where we can, where it's affordable and responsible to do so. We've got wages moving again to provide support for household incomes so that they get the appropriate wage increases that they were denied under 10 years of wage stagnation, a deliberate design feature of the former government. In relation to the production tax credits that you raised in the second half of your question, it's interesting but not surprising to see that the opposition, who say no to everything, are still in denial about the transition that's happening around us, the net zero transition that's happening globally. You still haven't reconciled that, and you are now saying no to future economic prosperity for this country. That's what you're saying when you're dressing it up like that. We don't agree. It's obviously a fundamental difference. You want to vote against a future made in Australia. We want to support and build a future made in Australia. Budget 56 15:02 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania My question is to the Minister for Trade and Tourism, Senator Farrell. The Albanese Labor government's Future Made in Australia plan was a key part of last night's budget handed down by the Treasurer. I refer to comments made last night by the Treasurer. He said, 'Our $22.7 billion Future Made in Australia package will help make us an indispensable part of the global net zero economy'. Could the minister please outline Future Made in Australia? How will it create more trade opportunities, create more jobs for Australians and help ease the cost-of-living pressures for Australian households? 15:03 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Polley for her question. Her questions are always excellent. I know she is very interested in Future Made in Australia, as is the Albanese government. Our plan is about maximising the industrial benefits for Australia as we move to net zero while securing our place in the new global economy. Our government's $22.7 billion Future Made in Australia package is all about promoting growth of new export industries by leveraging our world-class resources and advantages in renewable energy because the transition to a renewable economy means more well-paid, secure jobs in the energy sector. It means Australian workers can power the nation while helping to meet our commitments to net zero. We will continue working with our trading partners to ensure that we remain an indispensable part of the global economy by building new clean energy industries and supply chains in renewable hydrogen, green metals, batteries and critical minerals processing, just to name a few. We've committed $520 million to deepen trade in net zero industries through stronger engagement in our region to help us to become a renewable energy superpower. We'll launch new efforts to improve our competitiveness on the world stage by working with trade partners to support global rules on unfair trade practices and negotiate benchmarks to boost trade in our critical minerals, because this government, the Albanese government, knows that a future made in Australia will create more trade opportunities with our partners, and more trade means more jobs and higher wages for Australian workers. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Polley, first supplementary? 15:05 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Thank you, Minister, for that informative answer. I apologise for those opposite, who obviously aren't listening. Last night the Treasurer also spoke about how the budget will help Australia seize the opportunities presented by the transition to net zero. Could you outline how the government's Future Made in Australia plan will attract more productivity, foreign investment in Australia— (Time expired.) 15:05 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Yes, I can answer that question, Senator Polley. The government welcomes foreign investment, especially in renewable energy. Our Future Made in Australia plan involves creating a new front door for foreign investors with major transformational investment proposals, making it even easier to invest here in Australia. We're also delivering important changes to streamline and strengthen Australia's foreign investment framework. These changes deliver a stronger, faster and more transparent approach to foreign investment, helping attract the game-changing projects, jobs and capabilities that we need to build a future made in Australia. Attracting investment is also an important part of our ambition to become a renewable energy superpower. More investment in renewable projects means more national income and more well-paying local jobs for Australian workers. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Polley, second supplementary? 15:06 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Can the minister also explain to the Senate how the Future Made in Australia package will help Australia move up global supply chains to contribute to creating more value-added diverse, resilient and sustainable industries here in Australia and particularly in my home state of Tasmania? 15:07 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Yes, I can, Senator Polley. The Future Made in Australia package will help build a stronger, more diversified and more resilient Australian economy powered by clean energy. The package will give our country and workers a leg-up in industries where we have a comparative advantage, while also supporting our goals of decarbonisation and supply chain resilience. For example, the new critical minerals tax production credit will move us up the global value chain while incentivising more investment in critical minerals for solar panels, batteries and high-tech manufacturing. Peter Dutton, on the other hand, thinks there's no point— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Farrell, please refer to those in the other place by their correct titles. Senator FARRELL I0N The Leader of the Opposition thinks there's no point investing in a future made in Australia. And that's— (Time expired) Senator Wong 00AOU I ask that further questions be placed on notice. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 57 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers To Questions 57 15:09 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given to questions without notice asked by coalition senators today. Last night there was a coronation: the crowning of Dr Jim Chalmers as the king of wishful thinking! Over the last few days Jim Chalmers went out and told the Australian electorate that the government's predictions, supported by the Treasury, would mean that inflation in this country would fall to 2.75 per cent, within the RBA's range of two to three per cent, by December this year—wow! He said that before the parliament and the electorate got an opportunity to read the budget papers last night. What is the political ploy that the king of wishful thinking is casting over the Australian electorate? He is setting up a new villain in the minds of Australian families and households. Can you guess who that new villain is about to be? It's none other than the new governor of the RBA. Dr Chalmers is out there saying, 'Inflation's coming down to 2.75 per cent before the end of the year.' He's out there splashing $315 billion of new money around the Australian economy, and then he says: 'If interest rates don't come down, don't look at me. Look at the RBA.' That is the cynical ploy that underlines the political strategy in this budget. You cannot bring inflation down in this country when you are spending an additional $315 billion at a time when you're not growing the economy. You can't bring inflation down when you have wasteful government spending. The government says it's saving. As Senator Hume highlighted in question time, it saves $1, but it spends $4. Who pays the price? The price is being paid today by Australian businesses and families, with the cumulative effect of 12 consecutive interest rate rises on household budgets. This is at a time when the government says: 'We're going to spend an extra $315 billion. By the way, that's about $30,000 extra for every Australian household.' Dr Chalmers is out there saying, 'Have no fear because inflation will come down by December.' He's silent on interest rates. The test for this government is inflation and the inflation rate—there's no doubt about that—but the most important test is what happens to interest rates. This government is trying to create a great distance of responsibility between its actions and those of the RBA when it is forced to raise interest rates and to keep interest rates higher for longer because the government has taken its hands off the economic wheel. The government is recklessly driving this budget. At a time when our terms of trade are at 100-year highs, at a time when our unemployment rate is at a 50-year low at 3.8 per cent and at a time when the Treasury coffers are overflowing with tax receipts on the back of personal income taxes because the government chooses to do nothing about bracket creep and are overflowing on the back of prices for coal, iron ore and other commodities, this is an irresponsible budget. It shows no restraint. We're now in the window of the next election. This is an election that will absolutely be fought on inflation and on interest rates. The government cannot avoid being responsible for the interest rate decision that the independent bank will be forced to make because the government has acted recklessly with such a high level of government spending. 15:14 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I quite enjoy the company of many of my colleagues in this place, whether they're on this side of the chamber or the other, and I know we bring our particular beliefs. But what we just heard from the senator then was one of the most miserly views of what could possibly happen for Australians. Added to that was a discussion about politics and elections, as if those are the only things that matter. The reality is we have to attend to what's going on right now in Australians' lives and responsibly manage how we plan and shape the future. We want to talk about tax relief for Australians, which was completely ignored in the contribution of Senator Dean Smith, who was just on his feet. The fact is that 13.6 million Australian taxpayers are going to get a tax cut, with an average cut of $1,888 a year. That's going to help Australians at a time when we know they are under pressure. But we heard a whinge about that. We've heard nothing but whingeing embedded in the questions that have been asked of the government today. The one thing they seem to whinge about in chorus, including in the question from Senator Cash, is the $300 energy bill relief action for all Australian households. As Senator Gallagher said, the opposition are saying, 'We'll support it,' except every question they asked here in the Senate today indicated they don't want that to happen. If they don't want that to happen, I'm sure they also don't want the $325 electricity bill assistance for the one million small businesses that are eligible. This is a tale of two very different versions of Australia. One is the miserly, negative view that says any help being given to Australians now is irresponsible spending—this from the government that never delivered a surplus, as opposed to the Labor government that absolutely has. Those opposite have opposed so much in this budget. The reality of our investment in Australians at a time when they need help is very clear to me as a senator for New South Wales, and it's very, very clear to 67,000 workers and businesses in the Riverina. Every single taxpayer in the Riverina electorate will receive a tax cut of $1,425 on average. There'll be 13,959 people with a HELP debt in Riverina who will be advantaged by our government's investment, cutting $3 billion in student debt for more than three million Australians. In the Riverina, we are making sure that people who need medicines, particularly those on pensions and concession cards, are going to pay no more than $7.70 for their PBS medications. That's not just for the short period of time until the next election. Senator Ciccone 281503 How much? Senator O'NEILL 140651 They're only going to pay, Senator Ciccone, at most $7.70 for the vital medicines they need, and we've committed to that for five years. Senator Ciccone 281503 Wow! Senator O'NEILL 140651 It's a very significant cost-of-living pressure relief for those individuals. But it's not just an amorphous mass of 13.6 million Australians who are getting the advantage of the tax cuts; it's down to every individual. In the seat of Lyne, a beautiful coastal part of New South Wales, 57,000 individuals are going to get a tax cut. In Farrer, the seat of the Deputy Leader of the Liberal National Party, 76,000 Australians will receive a tax cut because of Labor's sensible policies. In the seat of Calare, 71,000 Australians are getting the advantage of the tax cut that is coming their way on 1 July. In the division of Hume, the shadow Treasurer's seat, 79,000 Australian taxpayers are set to benefit from this Labor government's investment in you, funded through the budget that came down last night. And in the seat of Parkes, which I will be visiting in coming days, 62,000 taxpaying Australians will be benefiting from Labor policy. It's a good budget, it's a fair budget, and it will help Australians. 15:19 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I want to first respond to Senator O'Neill's point with respect to the $300 household electricity rebate. I want to quote from something an outstanding Australian sent me. This is an Australian who does a lot of things for his community, and I am privileged to call him a very close friend. This is what he sent me in the aftermath of the budget: 'Why give everyone $300? They should give that money to those most in need.' That underlines the issue that we have in relation to the household electricity relief. I am going to get the same money as someone who is, say, 21 years old—renting, trying to buy a new house and trying to get ahead. I'm going to get the same benefit of the $300 as that person who needs it more than me. There's something inequitable about that, especially at this point in time when people are struggling. That's the objection that Senator Cash was raising with respect to the equity of that $300 payment. It's even worse in Queensland, because the state government is doing exactly the same thing. I'm getting money from the state government and I'm also getting it from the federal government, so there's a compounding effect. I don't know if the Treasurer was inspired by the Queensland government in that regard, but there is that compounding effect. Those listening to this debate have heard from the senators, the politicians. I want to quote to you what the economists, the experts, say about this budget. This is what Assistant Professor of Economics Steven Hamilton said about the budget. This is not a politician; he's a professor of economics. 'This is the most irresponsible budget in recent memory. The government set itself a simple standard: not to make the Reserve Bank's job harder. Michele Bullock, the Governor of the Reserve Bank, may just choke on her cornflakes.' That's what Assistant Professor of Economics Stephen Hamilton said. I don't know if Michele Bullock eats cornflakes or Weet-Bix or what she has for breakfast. But there is a lot of truth in that statement from that professor of economics. This is what HSBC's chief economist, Paul Bloxham, said about the budget—again, not a politician but an expert economist: 'Indeed, core inflation is likely to be higher in a world with the subsidies than one without.' These are the subsidies which are being handed out hand over fist by this government as part of $315 billion of additional spending. He said, 'There is a growing risk that rates remain higher for even longer.' We know that the cash rate target rate at the moment is 4.35 per cent. The quarterly inflation rate is 3.6 per cent. The Reserve Bank, in its last announcement, actually raised the fear that inflation is likely to remain higher and is falling more gradually than expected. That's what the Reserve Bank said before this budget. Then after that statement we have an inflationary budget. So that is bad news for interest rates. It's bad news for those struggling to make mortgage payments. This is the wrong budget for the current times. Now I want to quote Chris Richardson, a well regarded economist. This is what he said before the budget: If the government wants to do something about the cost of living, then more than anything else it wants something to be done about inflation. So, if you want to do something about the cost of living, you need to do something about inflation. That's what he said before the budget. This is what he said last night after the budget: So my big ask of the budget was that it would not poke the inflationary bear. I don't think it passed that test. That is what expert economists are saying about the budget, not senators and not MPs—not people belonging to political parties with their narratives. This is what the expert economists are saying. This is bad news for the Australian people, because, as at this point in time, the average household with a mortgage is $35,000 a year worse off because of those interest rates. That's the impact of those interest rates. And if you're renting—we're facing net overseas migration over a five-year period of 1.67 million people, and in the context of housing construction rates— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Thank you, Senator Scarr. Senator Walsh. 15:25 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Despite all the gloom and doom from my colleague opposite, this is a budget that will provide the cost-of-living support that Australians need. This is a budget that will look to the future and build the jobs and the economy that Australians need. We will implement this budget with the discipline that is required to put downward pressure on inflation. Mr Dutton has the chance on Thursday night to put his alternative vision to the people of Australia, and I'm genuinely looking forward to hearing what he has to say. What will his grand solution be? Is it going to be the long-promised nuclear reactors dotted around the country after 22 failed energy policies over the 10 years when the Liberals had the opportunity to do something about energy in this country? Is it going to be the fantastic opportunity for Australians to raid their own super for housing? Is that what Mr Dutton is going to present on Thursday night, after 10 years of failing to build the houses that Australians need and failing to build the housing supply that Australians actually need to deal with the costs of housing? The opposition can get on with their fantasy solutions to the challenges that Australians face. We'll get on with the real solutions that are in our budget. Helping Australians with the cost of living is our No. 1 priority in this budget. That's why the budget provides a tax cut for every single Australian taxpayer—an average of $1,800 for each taxpayer in the country. We are providing much-needed energy bill relief of $300 for every single household. We're providing more rent assistance for a million households, the people who need it the most. We're providing student debt relief and so much more to help with the cost of living today, including more homes and more Medicare as well. We are dealing with the challenges that people face today at the same time as looking to the future and building a strong economy for that future, because this budget invests in the people of Australia and their future. The budget will bring new jobs and new opportunities to Australians across the country in every part of our country. Our Future Made in Australia plan will make the most of our potential and make sure that Australians get the benefits of our rich natural resources. This plan is going to put us in the global race. We will take our place in that race and bring the opportunities that Australians need to see for the jobs of the future with the energy of the future as well. I'm really pleased that this budget will invest in our care economy as well. They are also the jobs of the future in this country. We'll provide for further wage increases for our essential aged-care workers, a workforce that the coalition refused to see and refused to invest in. We'll provide for a pay rise for our essential but undervalued early childhood educators as well, because we want to see wages moving in this country—and they are. Real wages growth is back in this country after 10 years of the Liberals just loving low wages. Real wages growth will continue in this budget because we believe in good, secure jobs for all Australians. We heard a lot about inflation in this Senate question time. Like our previous two budgets, this is a budget that is responsible for the times. It is a budget that will put downward pressure on inflation. We are forecasting the first back-to-back surpluses in nearly two decades, and you couldn't produce one. We are banking the revenue upgrades and putting them back to the bottom line. We are putting downward pressure on inflation by reducing energy bills, and we know that that is going to work to bring inflation down. We know that further support for renters will help to bring inflation down as well. What we know about the Liberals is that the only thing they know how to do is to slash and burn the programs that people rely on and to come up with fantasy solutions to the problems that people actually face. They know how to get the mugs made; they know how to puff on their cigars; they know how to pat themselves on the back; but they don't know how to get the job done. We will get the job done. 15:30 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia I am always intrigued when I listen to those opposite talk about the great numbers in this budget, because, as far as I can tell, the only good news story out of this budget is the performance of export of minerals—coal, gas and the like—and the positive impact that has on the budget bottom line. We talk about surpluses. Imagine where this country would be if we didn't have the mining industry and the oil and gas industry—although, if we have another term of this government, that may well become a reality. It always intrigues me that those facts seem to get overlooked. I actually rise to take note of the answers during question time in relation about inflation. That is the key issue for Australians in this time. They do say that the third time is the charm in life, but we can safely say that is not the case with respect to this budget. This is the third Albanese Labor government budget, and what it has done, in truth, despite the flourish and rhetoric from the other side, is add spending. We heard today that $315 billion of spending has been added to add fuel the inflationary fire, yet all we've heard over the last hour and a half or so is what a great job they're doing. That's not the view, by the way, of Deloitte, who are actually experts in the area as opposed to those in the political domain. Deloitte have said about the budget: The result is a relatively large increase in government spending over the next four years, potentially putting further upward pressure on inflation. You would think that a government faced with already crippling inflation, in the form of double-digit numbers in relation to some essentials, would be doing more to step on it. It's no just Deloitte, of course, though. Ratings agency Standard and Poor's have said that the mechanisms this government has used to create this incredible budget that we're hearing about actually leave an almost zero chance of an interest rate cut. Let's see how that plays out. We heard today, earlier on during question time, that even the government's journalist allies in the New Daily, have said, 'The budget brought down on Tuesday is worth two more rate hikes.' So nobody, it would seem, be they the commentariat, the political class or the economists—the people that actually know—has any confidence that we're going to see anything other than upward pressure on inflation. Let's break this down in real terms for Australians and households. This budget means $30,000 of extra spending for every single Australian household, on top of what we're seeing already. How can this government have possibly not understood that this would create a further inflationary pressure cooker and lead to interest rate hikes? Australians understand this, though. People understand, out there in the real world, outside the rarefied air of this building. It's a building where the response from those opposite seems to have been performance art in the form of TikTok videos, which we saw floating around on social media of Senator Stewart and Mr Burns MP, who were out there kicking up their heels yesterday—'It's budget week. Put out a video.' If ever you want to see a reflection of what this week means to those in the special, rarefied air of this building, have a look at that. No, don't bother; some things you can't unsee. Anyway, no amount of TikTok videos are going to fool the Australian people. They're the ones out there who understand the reality of the situation. Housing is up 12 per cent. Rents are up 12 per cent. Gas prices are up 25 per cent, electricity is up 18 per cent and insurance is up 26 per cent. These are real-life examples of what is actually happening. This budget is nothing more than a cost-of-living con job. What we actually needed in this budget cycle was economic management. What we needed was a restraint on spending, downward pressure on inflation and some fiscal guardrails to protect Australians from this overreach. This third ALP budget shows that the government has no clear path to understanding the job, particularly in relation to the inflationary crisis. What Australia needed was responsible management. That's what they would get from a Dutton led coalition government. Question agreed to. Budget 60 15:35 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to questions without notice I asked today relating to fossil fuels. I note for the chamber that this is not my first speech. When Labor announced its gas industry expansion plan last week, to keep pumping out coal and gas beyond 2050, it confirmed beyond doubt that gas corporations control the Australian Labor Party. The Albanese government claims to be acting on climate, yet its future gas expansion plan has again revealed that backing gas corporations is much higher on its agenda than protecting the future of our kids and of respecting the wishes of traditional owners right across this country. Over the next decade, a critical decade for our climate and our planet, this government will pump almost $50 billion into subsidising dirty coal and gas projects—this at a time when we are veering towards ecological and climate collapse. Members of my community in Victoria were rightly surprised by the Albanese government's direction to open up new gas fields for the future when they know, and we know, that cheap, clean, renewable energy generation and storage is the best way forward. Instead of reducing our gas use, the government is choosing a fossil fuel expansion plan that stretches long into the future, long after many people in this place will have moved on and will no longer be here to clean up the mess that the government has created for our kids. The consequences of this betrayal for our communities and planet cannot be underestimated. We cannot forget what's at stake and what this means for Australia's efforts to meet our climate targets. Any climate focused efforts, programs or initiatives touted by the government will be absolutely dwarfed by the emissions generated by their fossil fuel expansion plan. We are living through a climate crisis. People and communities on the front lines of climate change are fighting for their survival. Floods and fires are becoming more intense and frequent. Storms and sea-level rise are hitting coastal communities with increasing force. Tragically, our Great Barrier Reef is bleached and dying. Australia is one of the biggest exporters of fossil fuels in the world, and now the Labor Party is going to spend public money expanding gas production beyond 2050—gas production, by the way, that produces methane, which is 80 times more potent in warming the planet than CO2. Then the government lets these gas corporations get away with paying little to no tax. The Treasurer's budget speech last night barely mentioned coal and gas and only once name-checked the climate. But, despite the minister's speech, this budget retains billions in fossil fuel subsidies, including $1.5 billion for the Middle Arm gas precinct. What Labor is trying to hide is that a Future Made in Australia is actually a future for coal and gas past 2050. When Labor announced its gas industry expansion plan last week, members of my community in Victoria were surprised by the chorus of Labor MPs who spoke out at the same time. If Labor backbenchers don't vote against the future gas strategy, they cannot claim to be doing everything they can. They are simply grandstanding. Claiming that they were blindsided by Labor's position on coal and gas is frankly not credible. It's betrayal. Community members in places like Macnamara, Wills, Higgins and Cooper, in my electorate, and across Australia, from Richmond over to Perth and Fremantle, and from Sturt up to Moreton, will not forget this betrayal. They will not be further deceived by this government prioritising dirty fossil fuels over their futures. At every hurdle, Labor has comprehensively caved to pressure from fossil fuel corporations. Australians deserve better. Our planet deserves better. The Greens will continue to fight alongside our communities against gas expansion and for a safe climate future. Question agreed to. NOTICES 61 NOTICES Presentation 61 BUSINESS 63 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 63 15:40 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to the following senators: (a) Senator McCarthy for 14 May 2024, for personal reasons; and (b) Senator Ayres for 16 May 2024, on account of ministerial business. Question agreed to. NOTICES 64 NOTICES Postponement 64 COMMITTEES 64 COMMITTEES Public Works Joint Committee 64 Reference 64 15:41 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable: Department of Finance—Proposed fit-out of new Commonwealth Parliament offices at One Festival Tower, Adelaide, South Australia. I table a statement in relation to the work. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 64 BUSINESS Rearrangement 64 15:42 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory At the request of Senator Chisholm, I move: That— (a) the provisions of standing order 115(3) not apply to the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2024 and related bills; and (b) on Wednesday, 15 May 2024 the routine of business from after the consideration of proposals under standing order 75 till 7.30 pm be: (i) consideration of the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2024 and related bills, and (ii) government business only. 15:42 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 That's very short. Thank you, President. The coalition opposes this motion. We have on the agenda today two business of Senate items that will not be able to be debated this afternoon if this motion passes. It reflects the brave new world of the Labor-Greens government in this country, which is why we are opposing this. It is actually stifling democracy to do this little deal and stitch things up the way you are, like you will on a number of bits of legislation. It's just a shame. Democracy can go bye-bye as a result. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that government business No. 2 standing in the name of Senator Chisholm and moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:47]
(The President—Senator Lines)

36 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 29 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

COMMITTEES 65 COMMITTEES Social Media and Australian Society Joint Select Committee 65 Appointment 65 15:49 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: (1) That a select committee, to be known as the Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society, be established to inquire into and report on the influence and impacts of social media on Australian society, with particular reference to: (a) the decision of Meta to abandon deals under the News Media Bargaining Code; (b) the important role of Australian journalism, news and public interest media in countering mis and disinformation on digital platforms; (c) the algorithms, recommender systems and corporate decision making of digital platforms in influencing what Australians see, and the impacts of this on mental health; (d) other issues in relation to harmful or illegal content disseminated over social media, including scams, age-restricted content, child sexual abuse and violent extremist material; and (e) any related matters. (2) That the committee present an interim report on or before 15 August 2024, and its final report on or before 18 November 2024. (3) That the committee consist of a total number of 12 members, as follows: (a) four nominated by the Government Whip or Whips in the House of Representatives; (b) two nominated by the Opposition Whip or Whips in the House of Representatives; (c) one nominated by minor party and independent members of the House of Representatives; (d) two nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate; (e) two nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate; and (f) one nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate. (4) That every nomination of a member of the committee be notified in writing to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives. (5) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that not all members have been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy. (6) That the members of the committee hold office as a joint select committee until presentation of the committee's report. (7) That 5 members of the committee constitute a quorum of the committee, provided that in any meeting of the committee, one member nominated by the Government and one member nominated by the Opposition shall be present. (8) That the committee elect as chair a member nominated by the Government Whip or Whips, and as deputy chair, a member nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate. (9) That the deputy chair shall act as chair when the chair is absent from a meeting of the committee or the position of chair is temporarily vacant. (10) That, in the event of an equality of voting, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote. (11) That the committee have power to: (a) call for witnesses to attend and for documents to be produced; (b) conduct proceeding at any place it sees fits; (c) sit in public or in private; (d) report from time to time; and (e) adjourn from time to time and to sit during any adjournment of the Senate or the House of Representatives. (12) That the committee be provided with all necessary staff, facilities and resources and be empowered to appoint persons with specialist knowledge for the purposes of the committee with the approval of the President and the Speaker. (13) That the committee be empowered to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it, and a daily Hansard be published of such proceedings as take place in public. (14) That a message be sent to the House of Representatives seeking its concurrence in this resolution. 15:49 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria by leave—I move an amendment to the motion as circulated in the chamber. The PRESIDENT 112096 Could you maybe outline the key points of the amendment? Senator HENDERSON ZN4 The amendment has been circulated. It's an amendment to paragraph 1 of the motion, to include after: (1) That a select committee, to be known as the Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society, be established to inquire into and report on the influence and impacts of social media on Australian society, with particular reference to: an additional line as 1(a): 1(a) the use of age verification to protect Australian children from social media The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you for that explanation. 15:51 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Is leave granted? Leave is granted for one minute. Senator GALLAGHER ING The government will support the amendment. We think it's covered in other parts of the terms of reference, particularly under (e) and (f), but I think it's certainly something we would have expected to be covered in the terms of reference. Question agreed to. Original question, as amended, agreed to. DOCUMENTS 66 DOCUMENTS Research Supply Icebreaker Project 66 Order for the Production of Documents 66 15:52 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania by leave—I amend general business notice of motion No. 514 relating to an order for the production of documents in the terms circulated in the chamber. I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than midday on 22 May 2024, a copy of the following documents as noted in 'Appendix E: List of Documents Reviewed' of the February 2024 Assurance Review into the Research Supply Icebreaker Project, denoted as document number 2024-000928 and tabled in the Senate on 25 March 2024: (a) 1.10—Risk Register—Operation and Maintenance—RSV Nuyina - December 2023; (b) 3.9—Information Brief—Chief Finance Officer (August 2023); (c) 3.10—Brief—Nuyina Tasman Bridge 16 October 2023; (d) 5.27—29/07/22—SER-2020-045-L—Nuyina Vulnerability Assessment; (e) 5.114—11/08/23—AAD-L-2023-024—Earth Fault—D&B Defect Claim; (f) 5.136—17/10/23—AAD-2023-36—COVID policy compliance; (g) 5.146—06/12/23—ADD-L-2023-041—Unavailability of Mission Systems Voyage One 2023-24.pdf; (h) 5.147—01/12/23—NA—2023 RSV Nuyina Crewing Model Review—AAD Discussion Paper.pdf; (i) 5.151—25/01/24—AAD-L-2024-002—Notification of Relief Event and Force Majeure Event—Without Prejudice.pdf; (j) 7.18—Detailed Gap Analysis Report: Hobart Port Interface; (k) 7.22—Detailed Gap Analysis Report: RSV Nuyina; (l) 7.23—Detailed Gap Analysis Report: Science Systems Interface; (m) 7.25—Detailed Gap Analysis Report: Station Interface; and (n) 8.1—DBOM Contract. Question agreed to. Esso/ExxonMobil West Kingfish Pipeline Rupture 67 Order for the Production of Documents 67 15:53 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania by leave—I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than 10 am on Tuesday, 28 May 2024: (a) any email communication and documentation, including images, spill modelling graphs and written briefings, provided to the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) by the Australian Marine Oil Spill Centre related to the Esso/ExxonMobil West Kingfish pipeline rupture in Bass Strait first reported on 6 April 2024; and (b) any email communication, written documentation, briefing notes and images provided to the Office of the Minister for Resources and/or the Minister for the Environment and Water by NOPSEMA related to the West Kingfish Esso/ExxonMobil pipeline rupture in Bass Strait first reported on 6 April 2024. Question agreed to. National Competition Reform 67 Order for the Production of Documents 67 15:53 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania by leave—I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) the Minister representing the Treasurer has failed to comply with order for the production of documents no. 495 relating to national competition reform, which was agreed to by the Senate on 20 March 2024, and (ii) on 5 April 2024, the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury advised that he expects 'to be able to respond to the Order by 26 April 2024'; however, as at 10 am on Tuesday, 14 May 2024 the order has not been complied with; and (b) requires that the Minister representing the Treasurer comply with the order by no later than midday on Thursday, 16 May 2024. 15:54 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Is leave granted? Leave is granted for one minute. Senator GALLAGHER ING The OPD requires tabling of documents relating to cross-Commonwealth, state and territory matters. To ensure full compliance with the OPD, the Commonwealth is required to obtain approval from state and territory treasurers before tabling. The government will table relevant documents to the Senate as soon as practicable following feedback from those treasurers. Question agreed to. BILLS 68 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Extending the FBT Exemption for Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles) Bill 2024 68

Treasury Laws Amendment (Extending the FBT Exemption for Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles) Bill 2024

First Reading 68 15:55 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Treasury Laws Amendment (Electric Car Discount) Act 2022, and for related purposes. Question agreed to. Senator VAN 283601 I present the bill and move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 68 15:55 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill. Leave granted. Senator VAN 283601 I table an explanatory memorandum and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. The speech read as follows— As climate change and environmental degradation loom over the future of our planet, Australia stands at a critical crossroads. We face a clear choice: embrace sustainable transportation and chart a course towards a cleaner, greener future, or continue down the path of fossil fuel dependence, leaving behind a trail of pollution and missed opportunities. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Extending the FBT Exemption for Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles) Bill 2024 seeks to extend the existing Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT) exemption for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) until 1 April 2030. One of the fear mongering myths whipped up against electric vehicles (EVs) is range anxiety—the concern that EVs lack sufficient range and power for weekend getaways or long trips. PHEVs bust this myth with the convenient blend of efficient, clean electric driving for everyday activities like school runs, shopping trips and commutes while still providing the reassurance of petrol backup when the electric charge runs low. They are the perfect hybrid solution, offering an accessible gateway for consumers hesitant to fully commit to battery electric vehicles. Our greener coloured colleagues will argue that all fossil fuel vehicles should be off the road immediately. And while I agree with their sentiment, the utopia of completely clean transport in Australia is not yet a reality we are ready for. The narrow range of Electric Vehicles, the price point disparity and insufficient infrastructure are the reality Australia needs to resolve before we can adopt the hardline stance of the Greens. There are more and more solutions to these challenges and I congratulate the projects and innovators that bring the future of EVs closer. But the ability to sustain a clean fleet is not complete or anywhere near capacity to handle 100% Electric Vehicle take up at this time. A realistic stepping stone is to extend the financial incentives which will in turn encourage more drivers to choose an EV for their family car. Effectively, this Bill opens the gate to increased use and purchasing of EVs, speeding up the process of cleaner transport in Australia. Beyond the undeniable environmental benefits, this Bill is a testament to the economic potential that sustainable transportation holds. It would be fair to say Australia has lagged behind in contemporary emissions control when it comes to our transport fleet. Commendably, the government's New Vehicle Emissions Standards go a long way to improving this situation. But the Australian public want and deserve more and better options to choose cleaner transport. By extending the FBT exemption for PHEVs until 2030, we are offering Australians more choice. The FBT exemption will promote the continued adoption of lower-emission vehicles in Australia's transport sector and provide businesses and individuals with a compelling incentive to choose sustainable transportation. This Bill is more than just another piece of legislation put before the Senate. This is a statement of intent, a call to action for Australia to take a stand for its environment, economy and people. By supporting the extension of the Fringe Benefits Tax exemption for PHEVs until 2030, policymakers can pave the way for a cleaner, greener future that benefits us all. I encourage you to step out from behind the wall of party thinking, don't allow fear and misinformation to cloud your judgement. This Bill offers a gateway to smarter, cleaner and more sustainable transportation in Australia. It's time for us to do what's right for the nation and the planet. In conclusion, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Extending the FBT Exemption for Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles) Bill 2024 provides a strategic opportunity to accelerate the adoption of lower-emission vehicles in Australia. I urge my colleagues to support this Bill and join the movement towards a brighter, cleaner and more sustainable future for Australia. Senator VAN 283601 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 69 DOCUMENTS Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water 69 Order for the Production of Documents 69 15:56 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory On behalf of Senator Thorpe, I move: That the Senate- (a) notes that: (i) on 28 February 2024, order for the production of documents no. 481 was agreed by the Senate, requiring the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water to table the documents regarding the proposed National Environmental Standard for First Nations engagement and participation by no later than 14 March 2024, (ii) in a letter of response tabled on 18 March 2024, the Minister stated that 'work is underway to compile the documents' and proposed to table the documents on 11 April 2024, and (iii) it has now been over a month since the extended tabling date and the order has still not been complied with; (b) orders that, unless order no. 481 is complied with in full by midday on 16 May 2024, the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water be required to attend the Senate after question time on 16 May 2024 to provide an explanation, of no more than 5 minutes, of the failure to comply with the order, and that: (i) any senator may move to take note of the explanation, and (ii) any such motion may be debated for no longer than 30 minutes, shall have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each. Question agreed to. Defence Housing Australia 69 Order for the Production of Documents 69 15:57 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory On behalf of Senator Thorpe, I move: There be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, by no later than midday on 29 May 2024, all documents, advice, briefing materials and correspondence between Defence Housing Australia (DHA) and the Minister for Defence's office, the Assistant Minister for Defence's office, and the Minister for the Environment and Water's office in relation to DHA's development at Lee Point, Darwin since 1 March 2023, including any materials relating to: (a) DHA's erosion and sediment control plan and construction environment management plan and their respective statuses; (b) compliance with, and any potential breaches of, the Planning Act 1999 (Northern Territory); and (c) the change in contractor conducting site works, including rationale for, and timeline of, this decision to change contractor. Question agreed to. Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water 69 Order for the Production of Documents 69 15:58 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania On behalf of Senator Cadell, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than 5 pm on Thursday, 23 May 2024, the following documents: (a) all documents since 1 February 2024, including any ministerial briefing notes, ministerial submissions/minutes, emails or correspondence relating to decisions made, and the decision-making process, on the potential cost recovery for the regulation of waste exports, in the possession of the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water and the Minister for the Environment and Water; and (b) all documents since 1 February 2024, including any ministerial briefing notes, ministerial submissions/minutes, emails or correspondence relating to the direction from the Minister for Environment and Water not to introduce a cost recovery levy for the regulation of waste exports under the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act 2020, in the possession of Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water and the Minister for the Environment and Water. Question agreed to. Senate Estimates 70 Order for the Production of Documents 70 15:58 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I, and on behalf of Senator Waters, Senator Babet, Senator Hanson and Senator Roberts, move: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) the Coalition, with the full support of all non-Government senators, has forced the hand of the Labor Government to table a copy of the secret manual distributed by the Prime Minister's Office to departments instructing them how to avoid answering questions from the Senate, and (ii) the manual requires urgent scrutiny, explanation and correction from the Prime Minister; (b) requires the Minister representing the Prime Minister to attend the chamber on Thursday, 16 May 2024, immediately after the conclusion of private senators' time and prior to any other business being considered, to provide an explanation of no more than 5 minutes of whether the Prime Minister has seen the document tabled by the Government on Tuesday, 14 May 2024, whether other versions of the document exist, whether he approved the content of the document, to whom his office distributed the document, whether any revisions to the document have been made and if further advice has been provided to departments following the publication of the article; and that: (i) any senator may move a motion to take note of the explanation, and (ii) any such motion may be debated for no longer than 60 minutes, shall have precedence over all business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each. 15:58 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to move amendments to the motion. Leave granted. Senator GALLAGHER ING I move that the motion be amended in the terms circulated in the chamber: (1) Paragraph (b), omit "private senators' time", substitute "motions to take note of answers". (2) Paragraph (b)(ii), omit "60 minutes", substitute "30 minutes". Question agreed to. Original question, as amended, agreed to. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation 70 Order for the Production of Documents 70 16:00 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Science, by no later than Friday, 24 May 2024, the emissions figures modelled by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation on the future potential abated and unabated emissions in the Middle Arm Development Precinct industrial development scenarios, as presented at the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association conference in May 2023. Question agreed to. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 70 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Budget 70 16:00 The PRESIDENT 112096 A letter has been received from Senator McGrath: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: The 2024-25 Budget fails the key test to tackle inflation at the source, and confirms that Australians are poorer under an Albanese Labor Government, that Australians are paying the price for Labor's wrong priorities and bad decisions, and that it is Labor's homegrown inflation which is driving up the cost of living, energy, mortgages and grocery bills. 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 clerks will set the clock in line with informal arrangements made by the whips. 16:01 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I will start by reading a quote from the very eminent economist Chris Richardson. He said yesterday: 'My big ask of the budget was that it didn't poke the inflationary bear. I don't think it passed that test.' Not only did it poke the bear but it gave the bear a giant wedgie, it gave the bear a big blow of a trumpet in its ear and then it nicked the bear's honey—$315 billion worth of honey! That's the amount of money that this government is pumping into the economy, driving up the inflation rate. Labor don't understand basic economics. Senator O'Neill 140651 Do you oppose the energy rebates? Senator McGRATH 217241 You can hear all the whittering and cackling over there, but they don't understand how business operates and they don't understand how the economy operates. If you put $315 billion worth of extra spending into the economy, guess what will happen? It will push up inflation. This is what is happening in Australia at the moment. Everything is going up in price. If the Labor politicians were to deign to leave this fear that is Canberra and go out into the real world, like we do in the coalition, they would understand that Australians are doing it tough. I just did a 10-day trip, going from Brisbane out to Gundy, Eromanga, Windorah, Birdsville, Bedourie, Boulia and Mount Isa, then back down to Barcaldine, the birthplace of the Labor Party. You wouldn't know it there now. The Tree of Knowledge is dead, just like the modern Labor Party in terms of its understanding of working Australians and how the cost of living is hurting them. Guess what the No. 1 issue was that people spoke to me about in all of those communities in south-western, western and north-western Queensland? It was how expensive everything is under this Labor Party government. This Labor Party government doesn't have a long-term plan, and the budget showed that last night. The budget last night was just a shopping list of spending items. It was like the Treasurer and the finance minister decided, 'We'll spend all this money on these items.' It was interesting watching the Treasurer last night and watching the look on the Prime Minister's face. He looked like an extra from The Muppet Show. He was sitting there, slightly stunned, going, 'I didn't know about this.' It looked like it was the first time the Prime Minister had heard what was in the budget. We have a prime minister who is semidetached from being prime minister. He is semidetached from understanding what is going on in Australia and actually understanding what needs to happen as prime minister. I mean, it is nice that the Prime Minister has decided to be in the country, and we should give him a golf clap for spending some time here and not racking up his frequent-flyer points on the VIP aircraft. But it would be nice to have a prime minister like Peter Dutton—someone who understands that inflation is the No. 1 issue facing Australia in terms of how we get our economy back on the right track. The budget last night was a complete and utter dud when it came to helping Australians. This is how interesting it was. The Labor Party, with that budget last night—because they're very good at throwing out taxpayers' cash everywhere, instead of targeting the money to those who are doing it tough, instead of targeting it to the families across Australia—were happy to send money to some of the richest people in Australia. They were happy to spend money propping up big business. They were happy to spend money at the big end of town. This Labor Party has forgotten regional Queensland; this Labor Party has forgotten suburban Brisbane—this Labor Party has forgotten everybody in Queensland, because all they care about is themselves. All they care about is doing whatever it takes to win elections, rather than helping those Australians who are doing it tough. And inflation is what is causing the toughness for Australians. It would've been nice to have a budget that fixed it, but last night's budget was a dud. 16:06 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I could tell from that contribution that Senator McGrath is very upset—very upset that Australians are going to get a $300 rebate to help them with the cost of electricity. I can't understand why he'd want to hurt all those people in those towns that he's just mentioned. I'm going out to Broken Hill next week, on my rounds of the seat of Parkes, and I'm pretty sure everybody out there is going to be happy about the $300 rebate that will assist them with their electricity costs. I know that yesterday—and I do want to wish him a happy birthday—was Senator McGrath's birthday. Clearly, he didn't get the budget he wanted, which was one to heap more pressure on Australian families. And we have to find out what they're going to say tomorrow night. Are they going to support the $300 energy rebate that every Australian household will get under Labor or are they going to oppose it? I ask because they're whingeing about how much everything costs, and they seem to be completely out of touch. But I do want to thank the senator for bringing to the Senate's attention our recent budget. It's a fair budget. It's a balanced budget. It's a fundamentally good budget to assist people now, in their time of struggle, and also to create a future, an opportunity, for every Australian going forward. Now, the fact is that Senator McGrath was elected to parliament in 2013 and hadn't seen a budget surplus since then, until Labor came in. It's a Labor budget surplus. No wonder he's a bit upset today. These consecutive budget surpluses are a feat of economic responsibility and prudence which were absolutely missing, very sadly, from the previous coalition government. So any claim that they might make about 'good economic management' has gone right out the window. They failed when they were in government, and now, in opposition, they're whingeing that Australia has a surplus and that we should dare to assist Australians by giving them some relief from their energy bills right now, in 2024. They had many treasurers when they were in government—sometimes they even had two blokes doing the one job!—but they never had the economic pedigree to achieve a surplus. Inflation is a scourge that impacts all Australians, particularly those on low and fixed incomes. To those doing it tough right now: Labor sees you, we hear you, we understand the struggle that you face, and that is why this budget is responding to you in your time of need. The budget provides tax relief to every working Australian, energy bill relief to all Australian households and targeted support to those on rental assistance and those who use the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. We'll also be giving rebates to those small businesses that are eligible, who have had the benefit of this assistance before. The energy assistance that we gave was mentioned in estimates by Steven Kennedy, the head of Treasury, who made it very clear that Labor's investment in energy relief on the previous occasion drove down inflation by 0.5 per cent. Now there's a fact—on the public record—that is absolutely missing in the alternative universe in which the Liberal Party and National Party reside. Inflation has halved since the Albanese government came into office and it's because of the policies in this budget that the inflation rate will lower by an additional 0.75 per cent. Treasury is now forecasting that Australia could now get back to the inflation rate target sooner—maybe even by the end of this year. These numbers obviously mean a lot to politicians and the economists and financial types that talk about all this stuff and watch with great interest. Most Australians don't pay attention to a whole lot of that, but they are busy counting every dollar that they earn. They will benefit from the tax cuts that every taxpayer in Australia will get, which was not going be the case under those opposite. Australians are working hard to ensure they can feed and clothe their families. I just want to put on the record that I was born in Western Sydney to young working-class Irish immigrants. My first home was in a caravan. My parents worked really hard and got a house, sold the house and had a period of renting—rent assistance would have been pretty handy—and I can tell you: the investment by the government of Gough Whitlam was responsible for putting in a sewer instead of a pan in the backyard of the house that we rented at Leumeah in one part of that journey. I was involved in the family business from the age of 11, doing the books and the typing. I know the relief this budget is going to bring to families, to working families, to small businesses and immigrant Australians. (Time expired) 16:11 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania This is a budget handed down while the planet's climate is breaking down around us, while ecological collapse is underway and while many millions of Australians are being price-gouged by supermarkets and are facing skyrocketing rents. These are issues that demand serious government intervention. They demand action. They demand real, strong and urgent action. That is not what we got from the Labor Party last night. This budget locks in economic inequality, and it exacerbates the breakdown of our climate and the collapse of ecosystems. Everyone understands that property developers and property speculators are driving up property prices and rents. Everybody understands that the supermarket duopoly are hiking prices to line their pockets and inflate their profits. Everyone understands that the gas cartel is profiting from the destruction of the planet's ecosystems and climate. But Labor has chosen to do nothing to rein in those corporate interests, and, of course, that is because Labor takes massive political donations from those same corporate interests. Labor talks a big talk about the pain people are feeling at the supermarket checkout. Yet Labor's budget last night did not make price-gouging illegal. It did not introduce divestiture powers. It contained not one new measure and not one new dollar to put downward pressure on food and grocery prices. Labor claims to understand the pain that renters are facing, and yet the budget last night did not freeze or cap rents. Instead, it committed tens of billions of dollars in tax breaks to property speculators. Labor says it loves renewables, but actually Labor loves coal and gas. There was almost $50 billion worth of direct subsidies in the budget last night to encourage burning fossil fuels, and Labor has released a plan written by the gas cartel to make Australia reliant on gas expansion well beyond 2050. The budget also shows the danger of letting fossil fuel corporations write their own tax laws, because it shows that revenue from the PRRT is continuing to plummet, with $4.5 billion in writedowns on PRRT revenues in this budget and the last. This budget should have contained action. It contains nothing of the kind. 16:14 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales I think we should all be a little shocked. For the first time ever, we actually saw someone in the Labor Party telling the truth. This was truly a Labor budget: more spending, more taxing and more deceit of the Australian people. In the midst of this Labor-exacerbated cost-of-living crisis, the solution that the Treasurer had was to keep spending, keep taxing and put out a couple of sugar hits to make everyone happy. We saw $315 billion of new spending at a time when we actually need restraint. After two years in office and three budgets, this government is no closer to dealing with its own homegrown inflation crisis, meaning that cost-of-living pressures for all Australians will continue and interest rates will be higher for longer. In fact, today, the average family with a mortgage is more than $35,000 worse off under this government. Isn't it great that at a time when the budget's actually forecasting unemployment to rise that the Albanese government thinks it's a great idea to employ an extra 36,000 additional bureaucrats in Canberra? Does anyone think they're getting a service that's 36,000 times better? I'm pretty sure you're not, and you're certainly not feeling that you've got value for money when you're $35,000 worse off. A couple of months ago, I was made the shadow assistant minister for mental health, so I had a bit of a look. I wanted to see what was happening in mental health. This country is actually in the midst of a mental health crisis. Whilst it warranted a brief mention last night, this government, of course, failed to prioritise it as the issue that it is. Senator Brockman, I'm glad that you're here, because I actually just got an email from a clinical psychologist in the wheat belt of Western Australia. He said on the budget—and this has only just come through whilst I've been in the chamber—'As usual, mental health is dumbed down, degraded and dehumanised, with policy demoralising to those doing the work.' I don't think I could have summed it up better myself. I will try to cover off some more of that coming out of the West Australian wheat belt, but I think we know the priority this government puts on mental health and wellbeing. We know what they think of farmers. We certainly know what they think of farmers in WA, because they can't wait to kill off every industry over there. I don't think those new Akubras will be so welcome at beef week next week, but here we are. We know that mental health was exacerbated through the pandemic and that there was a lot of anxiety and uncertainty induced. We know the more that this cost-of-living crisis goes on the more that anxiety is heightened and that important expenditure is becoming further and further out of reach for most families. We also know, like with many things, that early intervention is key in helping scores of young Australians who are exhibiting the first signs of mental illness. We need to make sure that they're supported so that their issues don't get worse. There was the in-principle digital mental health service, with no details, as per usual, about how it will function and what it will do. What there wasn't any money in the budget for and what those opposite seem to not understand is that there are some significant mental illnesses that can't be fixed via an app. They actually require significant interventions, both clinical and medical, to ensure that people are well supported in the community. But what did this government do when it came in? Quick as a flash, they cut the Better Access initiative from 20 sessions to 10. They removed vital services from those who need them most, and there was not a hint last night that they've done anything to bring them back or make them easier to access. I understand that this isn't sexy stuff. There are no photo ops in Akubras for mental health. But this is something that affects every Australian. It permeates every part of our community. Every family is impacted in some way by mental health. Not all but a lot of families are impacted by significant mental illness. In New South Wales, Sydney has just had two attacks, both of which can, in a lot of ways, be attributed to significant mental illness. They've had lasting damage done to communities and families because those people have failed to be supported. But, yet again, this government is not interested. If it's not about renewable energy, it's not about their budget. This is something that we are seeing time and time again. We didn't see a mention of suicide, something that is a scourge in this country, because that is not the priority of this government. (Time expired) 16:19 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I read with some surprise that the Leader of the Opposition said this morning on television that this government was 'bequeathed a good set of books when they came into power'. There are people on magic mushrooms with a firmer grip on reality than that proposition. We are in a government that has had to clean up after almost a decade of Liberal profligacy and incapacity for economic management. They were a trillion dollars in debt with nothing to show for it in terms of social or economic reform— Senator Hughes 273828 We had a triple A credit rating. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Senator Hughes, you were heard in silence. Please have the same respect for Senator Ayres. Senator AYRES 16913 Gross debt this year will be $904 billion. That means—for those opposite—it's $152 billion lower. That means that we save, over the course of the next decade, $80 billion in interest payments. That means that it creates room in the budget to make smart decisions in the national interest. You would think that, after all the claims about economic capability on that side, symbolised by Mr Taylor and Mr Dutton, there would be a moment of self-reflection, and that the figure of a trillion dollars would have some impact, but no. What we have is the same campaign and the same nonsense, and it's all characterised by two things: negativity and complacency. That's what characterises those opposite. Otherwise, how could you campaign about inflation—which, as Senator O'Neill said, rose to its dizzy heights when those opposite were in government—but vote against energy bill relief and measures to reduce the cost of child care? How could you feign concern about the cost of living but oppose Labor's reform of Mr Morrison's outdated stage 3 tax cuts, which now deliver under the Albanese government plan a tax cut for every single one of our PAYG taxpayers? That's 13.6 million Australians who will now get a tax cut. How could you do that unless your whole proposition was negativity and complacency? It's the only way you can claim that, when inflation peaks when you are in government, it's the result of an energy price shock from overseas, but now inflation is somehow home grown. It's silly, it's partisan and it's so see-through. A failed decade of energy policy, in which you couldn't land a single energy policy, has driven costs up right through the energy system. You delivered utter chaos and incompetence that drove billions of dollars of investment in our energy system offshore, symbolised by nothing more than four gigawatts of electricity-generating capacity out of the system and only one gigawatt going back in as energy demands have grown. Now the answer from Mr Dutton is this nuclear hoax. It's all delivered and straightforward—except for a few little things! It's uncosted, Mr Dutton can't tell you where the nuclear power stations will be, and there's no modelling or understanding about the impact of billions and billions of dollars of extra cost in experimental nuclear power stations coming to a suburb near you. There's no explanation of how that will in any way deal with the energy challenges that Australia faces. They had the worst productivity growth for a decade, and there are no answers on that question except austerity politics and to slash, burn and cut wages. This is a ramshackle joke of an opposition, and they ought to be seen right through. 16:24 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Here are things you won't hear from anyone in the budget, except for One Nation because we've got the guts to say what you're thinking. Firstly, guarantee cheap power—turn the coal-fired power stations back on, build more coal-fired power stations, and remove solar and wind subsidies. It's the only thing that can save us right now. Secondly, stop inflation. Stop quantitative easing—printing excess money. A trillion dollars was concocted during the COVID response, which is a major cause of the inflation we're still fighting today. Thirdly, we'll guarantee cheaper houses, cheaper rents and get young people into their first home. Don't just cut net overseas migration: start deporting. Prior to COVID, there were 1.9 million visa holders who needed housing and who were fighting Australians for a roof over their heads. That has increased to 2.3 million today, plus 400,000 tourists and others. Ten per cent of our population is on visas and needs extra housing. We will ban foreigners from buying Australian property. They're currently snapping up nearly one in 10 new Aussie homes. Fourthly, get cheaper groceries—build dams and help farmers produce tonnes of fresh, healthy produce for Australians. Give farmers water and the right to use their land, and we'll never have to worry about grocery bills again. Fifth, use all of our natural resources we have right here for Australians first. There's no need to become a green superpower, and we never will. We're already an oil, gas, coal and uranium superpower. The government won't do this because some foreign, unelected organisation in Zurich or New York will claim that we're not complying with our international obligations. Governments on both sides have forgotten that their first obligation is to Australians and no-one else. One Nation knows this. We'll put our trust in Australia's people and release them from the nanny state that tells them everything they can and can't do, which will enable people to abound and flourish. That's our promise of what would be a One Nation budget. We will always remind members of parliament to put Australians first. 16:26 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia What did we hear from the Treasurer yesterday? We heard, 'I did my bit.' You have to ask yourself where Dr Chalmers got his degree from. You have to wonder whether it was the 'Uri Geller Institute of Advanced Spoon Bending'! I think that's where he might have got his doctorate from. We've had the finance minister stand up in this place and the Treasurer stand up in the other place and talk about how their budget is putting downward pressure on inflation. No economist that I have seen has actually agreed with them because it is against every principle of economic theory that a big-spending budget like this could in any way, shape or form put downward pressure on inflation. Chris Richardson, a highly respected economist, described it as 'poking the inflation bear'. Alan Kohler, who is certainly no hard right-wing economist, writes for the New Daily. He talked about how the electricity rebates in particular were inflationary in their effect and how the budget overall was inflationary in its effect. What is in this budget is some big-spending slogans—I won't call them policies because I don't think there's much policy behind them. They are slogans. You couldn't make this stuff up: 'Future Made in Australia'. It's straight out of The Hollowmen or Utopia. And the biggest joke, which is a joke on the taxpayers of Australia, is that the first billion dollars of Future Made in Australia goes to a United States company, so Future Made in Australia has a very American tinge to it. Only Labor could come up with tax cuts that actually increase tax revenue over 10 years—tax cuts that add $28 billion of tax revenue to their coffers over the next 10 years. Only the Labor Party could come up with that. This is a budget that ignores Middle Australia. It ignores all of Australia, but it particularly ignores the vast bulk of Australians who are feeling an extraordinary pressure on their household budgets and on their small businesses. They've seen their costs skyrocket, whether it's the cost of inputs for a small business or the cost of buying the groceries and filling up the car for a household. They've seen those costs just go through the roof over the period of this government. At the time same time, they've seen their interest rates and their interest rate repayments also go through the roof. For a typical household, it's anywhere north of $15,000 a year in annual interest repayment increases. These are real people. This is real money. This is a government that has not got a clue on either how to put downward pressure on interest rates or how to help those struggling families out there who are doing it really tough. We talk to them every day. We hear the stories of people having to make hard decisions about whether they're going to cancel their kids' sport this year, whether they're going to decide to wind back on outings with their family, whether they're going to be able to employ that extra person at the cafe, whether they're going to have to put off the last person they hired at the local supermarket or whether they're going to have to think again about taking on that apprentice or that trainee. These are the stories we hear every day. For those opposite to come into this place and make the completely unfounded claim—a claim contradicted by literally every economist who has been out there on the budget—that this budget in some way puts downward pressure on interest rates is just a nonsense. (Time expired) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB The Senate will now consider the proposal from Senator McKim. MATTERS OF URGENCY 75 MATTERS OF URGENCY Great Barrier Reef 75 16:31 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter, dated 15 May 2024, from Senator McKim: Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today the Australian Greens propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: A marine heatwave that triggered mass coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef has devastated significant World Heritage habitat and wildlife, impacted communities and the economy, and should be treated like other extreme weather events and declared a national emergency under the National Emergency Declaration Act 2020 and Labor should stop opening coal and gas mines, which will make the climate crisis worse." 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. 16:32 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania At the request of Senator McKim, I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: A marine heatwave that triggered mass coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef has devastated significant World Heritage habitat and wildlife, impacted communities and the economy, and should be treated like other extreme weather events and declared a national emergency under the National Emergency Declaration Act 2020 and Labor should stop opening coal and gas mines, which will make the climate crisis worse. On 16 April, nearly a month ago, the Prime Minister flew into Gladstone and stood next to the Minister for Resources, Madeleine King, celebrating the thousandth shipment of LNG cargo across the Great Barrier Reef. What was extraordinary about this was that it was exactly one day after NOAA, the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration, out of the US, had announced the fourth and biggest mass coral bleaching in our planet's history. It was also significant that the Prime Minister was at Gladstone because, on that very day, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority were about to release their aerial surveys of the bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef, which was absolutely devastating. I visited Gladstone not long after and went out to Heron Island with scientists to see and bear witness myself to what had happened on the Great Barrier Reef, and it struck me as I was leaving on the ferry—our little boat navigating its way through 40 coal ships on our way to a Barrier Reef fighting for its life—that the Prime Minister that day, when he stood in Gladstone, didn't mention coral bleaching and didn't mention what was happening just kilometres off the coast where he was standing with the resources minister, spruiking the exact cause of the decline of the Great Barrier Reef. It got me thinking: how can we elevate this issue so that Australians understand the seriousness of what is happening not just on our reefs and not just on the Barrier Reef but on temperate reefs off my coastline and on coral reefs all around the world? I wondered why this marine heatwave, which is caused by warming oceans and caused by the burning of fossil fuels and rising emissions, hasn't been declared a national emergency. If this were a bushfire burning for thousands of kilometres along the Queensland coast, destroying half the World Heritage habitat on that coast—with the impacts on the creatures that rely on that habitat—and causing devastation to local communities and businesses, this would have been declared a national emergency. I encourage senators to go to the National Emergency Declaration Act 2020, where it clearly talks about this being an important tool to outline key matters of national environment significance—where 'the emergency has caused, is causing or is likely to cause nationally significant harm in Australia'. If you go to the definitions of 'nationally significant harm', it clearly says 'harm to the life or health of animals or plants', and part (iv) is 'harm to the environment'. I have no doubt, after what I saw and from the reports that have come in from scientists on the Great Barrier Reef, that this will be the biggest and most devastating mass coral bleaching and mortality event for corals that we have seen on the reef, and it will only get worse. How can this not be a national emergency? The Greens want this declared a national emergency; we have written to the Prime Minister asking him to instruct the Governor-General to do so. And the reason is simple. If Australians don't know what they're about to lose and are losing, they won't fight for it and they won't vote for it. From what I've seen in this place from the respective governments, including this government, they're doing pretty much everything they can to cover up the seriousness of this crisis, of this national emergency, including on the world stage at the World Heritage UNESCO in-danger-listing talks, which are coming up in the months ahead—and we'll get into that some other time. I deeply ask senators to consider what is at stake here and to let the Australian people know so that we can act. You're going to hear from lots of people in the next half an hour who will say they're doing what they can to save the reef, or they'll completely deny that there's a problem. But there is, and only we in places like this can fix it. (Time expired) 16:37 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland I am tired. I am tired of the Greens' hysterics. I'm tired of this crazy binary situation that they give, where it is coal and gas or save the planet. I'm tired of them presenting themselves as being soft, cuddly tree-huggers. For the people, particularly in Brisbane, who voted for the Greens at the last election, I think we need to be discussing what they're really all about, because their choice is binary. It is a choice between using the best resources in the world from Australia, having human ingenuity and practicality, jobs and food and human lives, and what the Greens offer, which is to shut everything down. It is their policies that are driving up the cost of living. It is their interventions in trying to stop ordinary coal and gas fired power. It is their interventions that threaten our geopolitical stability by trying to intervene in the gas market and stop supplies to our near allies. This is an incredibly serious discussion, and we have got to stop having some sort of binary conversation that does not protect the human condition. Of the UN sustainability goals, the first three are about protecting people's rights to shelter, food and their way of life, and the last three are about climate change. But, if you listen to the Greens, there is no place for humans in this world. It is important that we are clear about this. The policies of the Greens will mean that your kid, no matter if they're working in a supermarket or as a tradie, getting an apprenticeship or going into a high-tech critical minerals processing facility—none of them will have a job, because of energy policy being driven by the Greens. There will be less affordable food and fewer real jobs. It isn't a fantasy world that we live in, and Australians know that. They're the ones that are struggling with the cost of living and with rising food costs, all being driven up because of this rushed renewable expansion. We have to be clear that our resources raise the standard of living around the world. They bring people out of poverty. The three things that Australian resources do, whether they be coal or gas, are that they provide energy security to these countries, provide geopolitical stability— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB I'm sorry, Senator McDonald. Please resume your seat for one moment. Senator Whish-Wilson, do you have a point of order? Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 I have a point of order on relevance. Senator McDonald hasn't even mentioned the Great Barrier Reef or coral bleaching yet, and she's more than 3½ minutes into her time. That's what this motion is about. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB Senator Whish-Wilson and Senator McDonald, it's not a debate across the chamber. I don't think that was a relevant point of order, Senator Whish-Wilson. Senator McDonald, please continue. Senator McDONALD 123072 Thank you very much. One of the three things that the high-quality Australian resources provide is energy security to other nations. It is about geopolitical stability to our trading countries and our allies, and it is, interestingly, about lower emissions, because, when Australia doesn't fill this role, then the rest of the world is served with coal from Indonesia and gas from other parts of the world whose emissions are not as low as ours. So Australia has a responsibility to do these things, but most importantly we have a responsibility to Australians. The three biggest royalty streams of corporate taxpayers and contributors to PAYG tax in this country are the iron ore, coal and gas industries. The only thing that has changed about those in the last few years is the order. There is not a replacement for that income stream. It certainly won't be bringing in solar panels and wind turbines from offshore. That will not replace the jobs in those industries. Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 Can you get onto the Barrier Reef soon? Senator McDONALD 123072 This is an incredibly serious issue— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB Senator Whish-Wilson! Senator McDONALD 123072 I will not be drawn into the— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB Senator Whish-Wilson! Senator Whish-Wilson, I've already called you to order twice. Please desist. Please continue, Senator McDonald. Senator McDONALD 123072 For that reason, it is important that, for those Australians who care about ensuring that we continue to have the first-world lifestyle that we enjoy and for those Australians who believe in human ingenuity and innovation, we fend off the hysterics of the Greens and we be very clear about who is going to provide a future for Australians—a future for our young people. 16:42 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I'm always very pleased to have the opportunity to talk about the Great Barrier Reef and what it means to the people of Queensland when I get a chance to speak in this chamber, although I do acknowledge that, every time I get the chance to do so, there are stunts like this from the Greens, which I don't think are the way to progress protection of our Great Barrier Reef. Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 It's the only way to get you to talk about the reef. Senator GREEN 259819 Senator Whish-Wilson, I know that you want to sit there and intimidate me and speak over me, but I'm going to stand here and speak about the facts and speak about the work that I do in my community. You can shout over me all you like, but it is not going to help. What is going to help is standing here and talking about the facts. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB Can you resume your seat for a moment, Senator Green. Senator Whish-Wilson, you were heard in silence. Please give the same respect to other senators. I don't want to have to keep calling you. Thank you, Senator Green. Senator GREEN 259819 As the special envoy for the Great Barrier Reef, I acknowledge the very deep privilege and responsibility that that role entails. One of the reasons that I am so eager to work in and around the Great Barrier Reef is that so many of the jobs in the communities that I represent rely on the reef. That's why I live it every day and talk to people to whom the reef really matters every day. I understand what this summer has meant to them. This has been a particularly tough summer for the reef and for coral reefs all around the world. When I make a contribution on this, whether it's in the community or in the chamber, I will always talk about the facts. There has not been—and it is inappropriate to say that there has been—any deviation from talking about what is happening on the reef. Nobody's covering this up, as you insinuate. You should be ashamed for saying that. We are talking very factually about what is happening on the reef, and we will continue to do that. In March this year, Australian government agencies did confirm that a widespread bleaching event was occurring on the Great Barrier Reef. In April, NOAA, the US scientific agency, declared the world had experienced a global bleaching event and that this was the fourth global event on record and the second in the last 10 years. Of course this is not news that we want to hear. No-one who lives and works on the reef wants to hear this. It's important to note that preparation and planning for the Australian summer started well before it arrived. Everyone who is working to take action on this, including the government, understands what's at stake. That's why we're taking action on climate change and building the reef's resilience. We understand that it's urgent work. Our government acknowledges that, and it's why we're acting. We're not wasting a day. We've seen the disastrous impact of the precious days, months and years that were wasted by the climate wars, the negativity and the delays in this chamber. One of our first acts of government was to action addressing climate change, and we're working hard to transition to a clean energy future. That's what our budget was all about: delivering a net zero economy. We've legislated our targets. We're on a credible path to net zero, we have set a target of 82 per cent renewable energy and we want to see renewable energy projects go ahead. We're doing that right now. We are making sure that we're investing in low-emissions vehicles and green hydrogen and that we're helping families and businesses transition from gas to electricity. The truth is that this is economy-wide work. It's an economy-wide transition. It is going to take time, and it is going to take a government to direct businesses to do it. We're responding to the biggest threat on the Great Barrier Reef, but we're also making sure that there are effective management actions in place. We have boots on the ground. We're partnering with the Queensland government. We're investing $4.4 billion. We've increased our water quality measures because we know that water quality really does have an impact on the resilience of the reef to regrow after these events. We are responding to the threat of crown-of-thorns starfish, which, again, has a real impact on whether the reef can respond. We're engaging more Indigenous rangers and understanding what their knowledge is of the reef, and we're supporting the Queensland government to phase out gillnets by 2027. As I said, this is urgent work. It's why our agencies here and abroad have made declarations about the bleaching of our reefs. It's why the reef authority, AIMS and CSIRO have been working together not just through the summer but for a considerable period to ensure that we're doing everything we can to protect the reef for generations to come. It's why our government continues to invest. I want to end by acknowledging those people who work on the reef. I too have been to and visited the reef many times—but particularly recently. I was at Great Keppel recently with world-leading expert scientists to examine what was happening on the reef. We were there with environment groups. We talked to people about what this meant to them. We know that this is urgent work. (Time expired) 16:48 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory The Future Gas Strategy is nothing more than reheated Morrison government policy. It is so embarrassing that the Labor government would put this forward in 2024. It is a betrayal of Australians—a betrayal of young people and their futures—and it builds on the myths that we hear about gas. The first myth is that we're running out of gas. We're not. We export around 75 per cent of our gas. To liquify that gas takes twice as much gas as every household in the country consumes. If the major parties are serious about avoiding a gas shortage, let's legislate a domestic reservation policy. Let's do that tomorrow. This is the political will that's been missing. This is what happens when you have state capture by the gas industry of the Labor Party and the Liberal and National parties. The second myth is that gas is important because gas companies make a large contribution to revenue. This is wrong again. In 2022, export revenue for LNG was close to A$93 billion. That's more than double the federal government education budget for the same period, and yet not a single cent of petroleum resource rent tax was paid. 'Company tax,' you hear them say. Australian nurses paid three times as much tax as the gas industry in that year, and the government knows that. They know this. That is why the Treasurer, despite the Future Gas Strategy, didn't mention gas once in the budget. They know this is a betrayal. They know this is betrayal of Australians and of the Great Barrier Reef. At two degrees, the Great Barrier Reef dies—99 per cent of it according to the government. More fossil fuels leads to two degrees. We need to stop this. 16:50 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise to speak in strong support of this matter of urgency, which is that a marine heatwave that triggered mass coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef has devastated significant World Heritage habitat and wildlife, impacted communities and the economy and should be treated like other extreme weather events and declared a national emergency under the National Emergency Declaration Act, and that Labor should stop opening coal and gas mines which will make the climate crisis worse. I've been talking about the reef since I was first elected to this chamber 13 years ago. I ran a strong campaign to stop the reef being treated like a coal and gas highway. I've still got the poster in my office. It's 10 years old now, and, 10 years on, the reef is still being treated like a highway for coal and gas exports. It is absolutely shameful that this government, who promised to be better and different from the last government, have not stopped the flow of coal and gas being exported. They are not doing enough to protect the reef. Senator WATERS 192970 I hear Senator Green's protestations that they've put a little bit of money into crown of thorns, that they've put a tiny amount of money into water quality—when the water quality scientists asked for $8 billion to tackle water quality issues, I might add. They have been doing orders of magnitude less than what they should be doing on water quality. The fact remains that this government keeps approving new coal and gas mines. It is an absolute joke. What more evidence do you need? This is the fifth mass coral bleaching in eight years, and we've just had the fourth global coral bleaching confirmed by international scientists. I want to read from the actual authority of the reef itself, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, GBRMPA, who, with AIMS, the Institute of Marine Science, released a report last month warning that the reef was experiencing 'the highest levels of thermal stress on record.' The authority's chief scientist, Dr Roger Beeden, spoke of extensive and uniform bleaching across the southern reefs, which have dodged most of the worst of the previous four mass bleaching events to blight the reef since 2016. I want to mention Professor Terry Hughes, who is the foremost coral bleaching expert globally, particularly on the Great Barrier Reef, and who's at JCU. He says that in the institute's aerial surveys it is the most widespread event and severe bleaching event to date, not just in the south but across much of the entire system—the whole 2,300 kilometres of the Great Barrier Reef. This is the fifth mass coral bleaching event. The coral reef scientists are tearing their hair out. I went and saw the reef after one of those earlier bleachings, and it was truly heartbreaking. It was like a sea of rubble. As my colleague Senator Whish-Wilson said, it looked as if it had been carpet-bombed. He got to see that with his own eyes as well. I want to speak out for the 60,000 people whose livelihoods depend on the reef. I want to speak out for one of the world's seven natural wonders, which I don't think we have the right to be destroying for the private profits of coal and gas companies so that they can make political donations to both of these two flaccid parties in this chamber. What an absolute disgrace that we are still making the same arguments, that the scientists are still saying the same thing and that the new government, who claimed that they would be different, are just as woeful and just as wedded to the fossil fuel industry as the last mob. What an indictment on your priorities. 16:54 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland When discussing coral bleaching recently, the assumption defaults to blaming claimed human climate change instead of asking what actually caused it. Coral bleaching in simple terms is a loss of colour in coral, most often due to symbiosis dysfunction, a severing of the join between the coral polyp and the host tissue—the calcium carbonate that gives coral its white colour. Bleaching is a response to environmental stress. It has many causes, including changes in salinity, ultraviolet radiation, increased sedimentation and high nutrient levels after flooding or pollution. Kamenos from the University of Glasgow found evidence of Great Barrier Reef bleaching in the 1600s. His paper has been contested, yet the many citations used to support his paper have not been. Hendy documented two hiatuses in coral skeleton growth, associated tissue death and subsequent regrowth in eight multicentury coral cores collected from the central Great Barrier Reef accurately dated to 1782 to 1817. This period was before humans are claimed to have influenced the weather. Dunne recorded bleaching on the reef in 1928. Woolridge documented the bleaching caused by floodwaters carrying nutrients impacting on the reef. Kenkel found coral has plasticity to adapt to different environmental conditions and is more resilient than previously thought. Maynard found that coral adapts to bleaching by becoming more resilient. During the past 2.5 million years, there have been 40 glacial maximums and 40 interglacial periods. Eighty times, coral has had to rise or fall by up to 140 metres, and our coral reefs are still there. How resilient they are. Our reefs have been subjected to bleaching for millennia, and they always recover, as they did in 2022, when the Greens were telling us the reef was dead, and tourists believed them. Tourist numbers are below the long-term average, COVID excluded. It's time climate carpetbaggers were called out for selective pseudoscience designed to protect their taxpayer funding. Bleaching is a part of nature. It recovers. It's cyclical. 16:56 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I come before the Senate today to speak to every member of this parliament on the destruction of our marine landscapes and the widespread climate disasters we are seeing and to ask the question, 'When?' When will it be enough for you to act not in alignment with corporate greed but on behalf of our planet and Australians, who actually deserve your help? Our national treasure, the Great Barrier Reef, is being described as a graveyard. This summer, 75 per cent of reefs surveyed across the entire Great Barrier Reef system experienced extreme heat stress. It was the fifth mass bleaching event since 2016. In Western Australia, in our south-west, our forests are dying. We have gone months and months without rainfall, with residents of the south-west forced to travel outside of their region just to have a shower or borrow water. Their lands are dry and barren, and the risk of fire is truly terrifying. People do not feel safe in these conditions. And yet, just one day after scathing reports from the world's climate experts established that we are on track for 2.7 degrees of warming, this Labor government reaffirmed their commitment to expanding fossil fuel operations. Labor's new gas strategy has been condemned downright and rejected across Australia. Not only does it double down on gas as an energy source; it increases our reliance on gas through its expansion of gas projects. The Labor government's decisions, which they have actively made in the face of this evidence, condemn our people and our planet to a future that is unliveable. This goes beyond being neglectful. We are reaching the point of planned suffering. The Labor government is not acting in the interests of the collective safety and wellbeing of the community but in the interests of corporations and fossil fuel moguls, giving them, in this budget, $50 billion in public funds over the next four years alone. The experts surveyed as part of UN and Australian processes—internationally renowned people who have spent their entire lives learning about our climate system and working on the impacts of climate change—warn us again and again that we are on track for disaster. It is in this reality that so many in our community are fed up and are asking this government one last time if it really has no better hope for the future of our country than to bring upon the world the climate disaster and to speed it up by ensuring that, as the world burns, it does so based on fuels found here in Australia. Shame upon them all. (Time expired) 17:00 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales The Great Barrier Reef is being killed. The reef is in the grip of its fifth mass bleaching event in eight years because of climate change and heat stress caused by the burning of fossil fuels, yet the Labor government has just ensured gas expansion beyond 2050. The science is clear. Burning coal and gas is destroying the planet. What is also abundantly clear is that the Labor Party is owned by fossil fuel corporations. They're rolling over to Santos without as much as a whimper. It's no wonder then that, after promising to act on the climate crisis, the Labor Party have shown themselves to be champions of coal and gas, locking us into coal and gas production beyond 2050, and that too using public money. Net zero by 2050 was already going to be extremely challenging, and now we know it's nothing more than hollow words from Labor. How can Labor look people in the eye and say they sincerely care about the reef and the climate crisis with their future gas strategy, which will lead to nothing but the bleakest of futures? People are already living the reality of the climate crisis with catastrophic consequences, including heatwaves, fires and floods. In my home state of New South Wales people are still reeling from the floods in the Northern Rivers. This is only going to get worse if we don't act now. The sad reality is that Labor is beholden to vested interests like in coal and gas corporations. We've all seen the crocodile tears, the hand-wringing and the empty words from Labor MPs on their party's expansion of gas, but we've still seen no actual action. You are not fooling anyone. People can see right through this, and the community has had enough of this. Since they came to power, the Labor government have approved five new coalmines and eight new gas mines, knowing full well that, at the current rate of global heating, it is going to blast past the internationally agreed target of 1.5 degrees Celsius. What an upside down world. What an absolute shame. At the last election, if it is anything to go by, there was a clear message that voters want to see more action, and strong action, on climate. The only thing standing in the way of action on climate is Labor, whose pockets are being lined by their coal and gas donors. Shame! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 The question is that the motion moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [17:07]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Sterle)

12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 26 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. 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.

BILLS 81 BILLS Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2024, Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Bill 2024, Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 2) Bill 2024 81

Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2024

Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Bill 2024

Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 2) Bill 2024

Second Reading 81 17:10 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise to speak on the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill and the two related consequential and transitional provisions bills. I commence my address to the Senate by posing this question: what is the price of a dirty deal between the Attorney-General of Australia—who, prior to the election, took it upon himself to spruik transparency from the highest mountain at every opportunity—and the Australian Greens? The bad news for the Australian taxpayer is that I can actually answer that question for you. How much do you think a dirty deal to put through a bill of this nature—an incredibly complicated bill, which has not yet been properly scrutinised by the Australian Senate, despite our role as the house of review—would actually cost the Australian taxpayer? Bear in mind, colleagues, that there is a cost-of-living crisis that the Australian taxpayer is currently experiencing under the Albanese government, yet those on the other side constantly say, 'We are putting in place the following cost-of-living measures,' and the Australian Greens cannot help, every time they stand up, talking about what they would do if they were in government. What is the price of a dirty deal between the Attorney-General of Australia, Mark Dreyfus, and the Australian Greens to push through a pet project of his? Senator Cadell, you were saying it would be a few million dollars? I'll be honest with you, in a cost-of-living crisis, I would have also said it couldn't be more than a few million dollars, yet last night, when the budget papers were delivered, all you needed to do was open up the relevant budget paper and you would see that the price of the dirty deal—wait for it, Australian taxpayers, because you are paying for it—is $1 billion. The bill that we have before us is a $1 billion bill. So I say to all of the small-business people out there, to all of the hardworking Australians who pay tax, to all of the other business people in medium businesses and large businesses: for getting out of bed every day and for going to work and doing what we need you to do, which is prosper, grow and create more jobs for Australians, this bill represents a billion dollars of your money. The question that you have to ask yourself is this: for a billion-dollar Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus special, what do you actually get? I ask myself the same question. There are two simple questions. One is, 'What did Australians have before these bills?' The other is, 'What do they get afterwards?' This bill will go through tomorrow under a guillotine. Bang! The government and the Greens will stop debate. There will be no scrutiny, and it will be pushed through: one billion dollars with no scrutiny. The questions are: what did Australians have before these bills and what do they get afterwards? In the first instance, before these bills, Australians had what is known as an 'administrative tribunal' that reviewed government decisions. After the billion-dollar deal between the government and the Australian Greens, what Australians get is an administrative tribunal that reviews government decisions. Hold on! Did I write that incorrectly? No, I didn't. What they have now is what they actually get after this bill goes through. That is a $1 billion imposition on the Australian taxpayer for the same system to be implemented but by a different government. Secondly, before these bills, Australian could apply for a merits review of a government decision that affected them. Afterwards, Australians can apply for a merits review of a decision that affects them. The only difference is this: you will pay much, much more for it. So far, I'm not sure the Australian taxpayer is getting a billion dollars worth of changes. Before these bills we had a body of tribunal members, roughly half of whom were appointed by a Labor government. Afterwards—and this is where Mr Dreyfus's billion dollars actually gets him a bit of bang for his buck. Before these bills we had a body of tribunal members, roughly half of whom were appointed by a Labor government. Guess what you get for a billion dollars, colleagues? You get a body appointed entirely by a Labor government. I would have said, 'Forget everything else—bang, straight in with Labor.' A billion dollars, and that's what you get—a body appointed entirely by a Labor government. I have to say congratulations to Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus for everything he said prior to the election on transparency. For everything you are saying now, in terms of criticisms of the former coalition government, well done. You have delivered a body that does the same thing, and Australians can still do the same thing in relation to the body, but the difference is the composition changes. For a billion dollars you get a body appointed entirely by a Labor government. I really hope some journos might actually look at these bills and might actually question why the Australian Greens and the Labor government would spend a billion dollars to get a body that is entirely appointed by the Labor government. You'd be forgiven for thinking this may be one of most expensive rebrandings of a public service body in Australian history. As I said, it is a little ironic that the Australian Greens were big today, saying not enough cost-of-living relief had been given in last night's budget, yet they have joined with the government—bang, a billion dollars, quite possibly the most expensive rebranding of a public service body in Australian political history. Seriously! I hope journos pick up the phone to their offices and say: 'Why do you on one hand say there is not enough cost-of-living relief? On another, it's a billion-dollar name change.' Seriously! In terms of the coalition's views on the bills, we've always said we are not opposed in principle to reforms to Australia's system of administrative review. I said when I was in government that there are areas where there is absolutely a legitimate need for reform and that improvements could be made. When you look at the context in terms of what the Administrative Appeals Tribunal does, it is a body that provides reviews of government decisions made under about 400 different pieces of Commonwealth legislation. This is an incredibly complex body. By necessity its remit is complex, wide ranging and reaches into virtually all portfolios. As I said, we have always been upfront. We are not opposed to changes. But, I tell you, not properly scrutinising this body and not properly unpacking the billion dollars—the Australian Greens have decided, 'It's a billion dollars, it's taxpayers' money; we're more than happy to guillotine it and put it through.' I have a problem with that. The question I now have for every Australian taxpayer who is thinking of voting Green or thinking of voting Labor, for every mum and dad out there who is going to have to stretch to pay their car insurance, their mortgage insurance, for their food when they walk into the supermarket, their gas bill or their electricity bill—how is that $300 going for you? 'The $300—seriously! It was about 18 months ago that I needed that.' Do you think it is worth $1 billion of your money to establish a new body that does the same thing as the old one? I would have thought the answer to that question is quite possibly 'no'. When you look at where the money is coming from, the budget papers tell us some of it comes from the existing appropriation of the AAT, some of it will be paid for out of the court fees the government charges you to go to court and some of it—this is the interesting bit for anyone listening in—will be from the NDIA, Veterans' Affairs and Social Services. Remember, the budget papers were handed down last night. Quite frankly, I'd be calling the Australian Greens and saying, 'Hold on, I thought you were meant to be standing up for us, and yet you are prepared to utilise money coming from the NDIA, Veterans Affairs and Social Services to pay for a billion-dollar vanity project by the Attorney-General of Australia.' If you're a veteran or a person with a disability, or someone—like so many Australians every single day, millions and millions—who has to deal with Centrelink or Medicare, I really hope you think the service that you are getting from these government agencies is good enough that the Labor government, Mr Albanese, and the Attorney-General of Australia, Mr Dreyfus, can afford to take money away from them to build a shiny new tribunal. That is a huge portion in new funding. We can explore the dirty deal, because I think it is very important. Perhaps Senator Larissa Waters would like to explain to the Australian parliament and to the taxpayer why it is better to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a shiny new bauble—the tribunal—rather than on women fleeing domestic violence? Senator Watt, the question I have on behalf of Western Australians is this: why are we spending more money on a shiny new tribunal than we are on the transition for live sheep exports? For Senator Pocock, how many more affordable houses could have been built in the ACT but for this new tribunal? As people know, governments have to make decisions about where their priorities lie. The government stands up every day and says to the Australian taxpayer, 'We know you are doing it tough.' What they forget to say to them is, '… because of the decisions that we have made since we came into government.' How does it then stand here today—a dirty deal done with the Australian Greens to rush this bill through with little or no scrutiny; it will go through with a whole lot of other bills tomorrow under a guillotine? It's $1 billion for a shiny new bauble. I was reflecting on the meaning of the word 'folly' in the English language. 'Folly' has two meanings. The first is 'a lack of good sense, or foolishness'. That is the term that most people, if you say you are going on a frolic, or a folly, would know—a lack of good sense, or foolishness. The other is a term that is sometimes used in architecture. It describes a costly, extravagant building constructed primarily for decoration but suggesting some other grand or transcendental purpose. Let's face it, there is a very real risk that, in passing these bills, the Senate is committing to a folly in both senses of the word. What I worry about is, in particular, the lack of scrutiny in relation to this bill. If I look at the process to date, a process is important, because in the Australian Senate we are the house of review on behalf of the millions and millions of Australians. They expect us to do their jobs. Let me very quickly tell you, in the remaining time, that the Attorney-General of Australia has, we know, an obsession with transparency. What transparency actually means when it comes to the Attorney-General of Australia is secrecy and avoiding scrutiny. I think that is now almost an accepted fact. The three bills here have 692 pages of new primary legislation, 760 pages of explanatory materials. The changes affect something like 248 Commonwealth acts. The decisions we make on this bill will directly affect the 67,000 cases—or around that—that are currently afoot before the AAT. Yet we had this bizarre and truncated sham committee process. I won't even bother to discuss the con job that happened in the House of Representatives. Let's have a look at this. In the Senate, we have had just six hours and 55 minutes of committee hearings, per the program set out by the government. That is less than a single average workday to scrutinise a $1 billion project. This means the committee has spent less than 40 seconds per page. Senator Scarr knows this because he did an outstanding job on this committee, and he will speak on this bill shortly. But 40 seconds per page? You're a fast reader, Senator Scarr. On behalf of the Australian taxpayer, good on you. But what a complete joke. This is a process that has not been conducted in good faith. It makes a mockery of our committee system and simply highlights the utterly cynical and contemptuous approach the government and parts of the crossbench have taken on this issue. It is a sham and quite frankly it deserves to be treated as such. 17:25 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I rise on behalf of the Greens to indicate that we will be supporting the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2024 and related bills. It is fair to say that this bill has had a rocky path to getting to its final stages in the Senate. The Greens believe it is critical for public accountability and for fair, effective and impartial oversight of the Commonwealth's administrative action that the parliament gets this reform right. It is for that reason that we joined with, I think, every other political party in this chamber, except for the government, to insist that this bill went off to an extensive inquiry earlier this year. I think the referral happened in February, and it reported earlier this week. We had extensive submissions and we also had the benefit of submissions that were put to a very rushed and wholly inadequate House of Representatives inquiry that the government, for their own reasons, thought was a sensible idea to hold over the Christmas and new year period. We have heard from a series of critical stakeholders, not just me but other senators and other engaged members who have had repeated meetings with stakeholders to try and get this reform right. I want to be clear that, when it was initially introduced to parliament—in the last sitting week of last year, a ridiculous time to introduce a reform of this scale—this bill, which replaces the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, was not supportable. It should not have been waved through this chamber and it should not have been waved through the other place. It had significant defects that, unattended, would have undermined the new tribunal's independence and removed important rights for thousands of marginalised people who want to challenge social security entitlements or family support payments, and it had a series of other untested provisions in it. It also retained a significant number of seriously unfair elements for people seeking asylum and for people challenging migration matters. For those reasons, we were not willing to just push it through. There was a fairly aggressive campaign, from the government and from the Attorney, for us to just wave it through with minimal scrutiny. The Attorney and the government said that they'd had detailed consultations in the 12 months prior to the introduction of the bill, that they'd had their own review council, that they'd consulted with stakeholders and that, therefore, we as parliamentarians should say, 'Fine, we'll wave it through.' I don't think any independent upper house should ever do that—just take the government at their word and just take whatever consultation the government did to be adequate. I've got to tell you that, when we spoke with innumerable stakeholders, many of them said that, yes, they had been consulted by the government—they'd been asked; they'd had meetings; they'd sat around and raised their concerns in the baldest possible terms; and the government had sat on the other side and nodded. But then, when they saw the actual bill introduced, none of their concerns had been addressed. The unfairnesses that they saw in the legislation were retained in the legislation that was introduced into parliament at the end of last year. I will give you just one example. Probably one of the most egregious examples was that the Centre for Public Integrity, who have been very clear about the need for any new tribunal to have the highest levels of integrity, had had a look at and been very critical of—for good reason—the series of political appointments that the former coalition government had made to the AAT. They'd done analysis of it, as had a number of other stakeholders. One of the primary reasons for introducing this legislation, the government said, was to establish integrity in the appointment process. Because the previous government appointed all their political mates, they had to wipe the slate clean and start again—that's what the government said. Then when my office, on behalf of the Greens, read the bill and the Centre for Public Integrity read the bill and looked at the integrity measures in the new bill that was introduced at the end of last year, they were discretionary. The Attorney could or could not apply the integrity measures for the appointment of new tribunal members. Who in their right mind thinks you can put in place optional integrity measures when the whole political basis for you doing this reform is the need for unambiguous integrity in appointments? Stakeholders couldn't believe it. When it comes to the tier 1 and tier 2 review rights that people have when they're challenging decisions on social security rights or family assistance payments that are coming out of Services Australia—previously Centrelink—we heard from countless stakeholders and individuals that those two-stage review rights were absolutely essential for them. Because there's such asymmetry of power between Services Australia and applicants in that space, often people are facing enormous stresses if they have had social security benefits or family assistance cut off. They're often in economically and socially distressing circumstances, and the only way they have a fair chance of trying to get their entitlements back is if they have this very informal initial stage, where it's largely them and the tribunal. That's often the first time ever they understand why the government says their benefits are being cut. Then, once the issues are fleshed out in that very informal initial first-tier process, if they succeed and get their benefits re-established, that's absolutely the best outcome. But, in the thousands and thousands of cases where they don't, they can then go to a community legal centre. They can then go to other supporters. They have the information to hand that explains why they didn't get their benefits. A two-tier process means that they can then put forward the information they need to to get a fair hearing. When you look at the annual reports of the AAT, there are 10,000 or so of these cases working their way through the system every year. The government's initial bill just abolished that process. It just abolished it. Again, the stakeholders said that they'd raised this issue repeatedly with the government and said, 'Don't do this.' The government consulted with them, they sat across the table with them, they read their submissions and then they ignored them. So thank goodness we didn't just wave this through. Thank goodness the Senate insisted on a lengthy inquiry. Why is it being brought forward now? Why is it being brought forward in May? We had an inquiry that could have extended through to July. Why is it being brought forward now? It's being brought forward now because those two issues that I've just articulated—the optional integrity matters and the tier 1 and tier 2 matters—have been addressed by amendments that have now been presented and put through in the other place. We tested those amendments in the inquiry and the answer we got back from stakeholders was, 'They work.' They reinstate the two-tier process in a near like manner and they make the integrity measures mandatory. And, having tested them in the inquiry, that addresses a number of our concerns. The bill also makes some improvements for administrative review matters. One of the things it does is it abolishes the IAA, this deeply unfair fast-track process for migration matters, which has created thousands and thousands of unfair outcomes, denying legitimate asylum claims from people, and is notorious for its injustice. It will be abolished with this bill. We think that's a significant reform and worth getting in place in a timely fashion. The structure of decision-making within the ART will also have some quite useful procedural improvements with this bill. I think the jury is still out on how the guidance and appeals panel will work. I have some personal concerns about how those guidance decisions will be implemented by tribunal members and the extent to which it potentially impinges upon the independence of tribunal members. But I heard from an array of stakeholders in the inquiry who said they thought, on balance, it was a positive reform. They thought it would provide greater consistency without unduly or inappropriately binding tribunal members. I'm happy to accept what I thought was a weight of well-informed opinions in that space that would suggest that the guidance and appeals panel is supportable. I still have some personal misgivings about how it will operate, but I accept the weight of very informed and capable opinions that said that will be a positive reform. I think there are concerns about the extent to which the president has an array of administrative tasks, and they can be quite powerful administrative tasks that are normally exercised by a non-judicial officer in a tribunal like this. But, again, they broadly got support. I think there's a watching brief on these things, which is why it's going to be essential to have a review. But I also note that while these reforms, which are meant to create a uniform, positive, single kind of architecture for administrative appeals in the Commonwealth sector, broadly provide a uniform architecture—which I think has improvements on the current AAT architecture—they do it for everybody except for people challenging migration, asylum and refugee determinations. The bill retains an array of deeply unfair elements in administrative challenges to determinations for migration and refugee matters, elements like: deeply unfair three-day time limits in which to bring an application and/or seek a review; other short and unfair time limits of sometimes seven days; and provisions that require the tribunal to make adverse inferences against applicants if they raise evidence late, often in circumstances where they have compelling reasons why they brought evidence to the table late. All of this, of course, produces countless jurisdictional challenges in the courts, alleging jurisdictional error by the tribunal, which costs the Commonwealth heaven knows how much in having to defend it and delays proceedings indeterminably. Why didn't the government seize this opportunity and actually create a genuine, uniform system? I think the answer is that both Labor and the coalition continue to believe that there should be an unfair and cruel system for people challenging migration and refugee matters. I'm glad to see that the majority report recommended these matters be reviewed by the Administrative Review Council, and we think that's a positive recommendation. We're glad we've had a sensible negotiation with the Attorney in this space, and we think that to get it reviewed by the Administrative Review Council and for that to be done as a matter of urgency once the Administrative Review Council is established is a good outcome. But the bill, by itself, is a very real missed opportunity. I believe the second reading amendment has been circulated in my name, which addresses that matter in some detail. I move: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes: (a) serious ongoing concerns about the differential treatment of applicants within the refugee and migration division including: (i) shorter timeframes to bring applications or appeals, (ii) the lack of capacity to extend times, and (ii) the lack of access to legal assistance; and (b) that these concerns together work against the principles that are said to underpin this bill of uniform, fair and ready access to just decision-making". I look forward to further debate on the bill. It's not perfect. The process is inadequate, but we've got to a point where it's supportable. 17:40 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I want to just make a few introductory remarks and acknowledge a few people in this process. Senator Shoebridge certainly made a very positive contribution to the scrutiny of this bill, the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill. I'd also like to make it clear that the remarks I make are no reflection whatsoever upon the staff of the Attorney-General's Department who, I think, obviously worked tremendously hard in relation to this bill. When questions were asked of them during the inquiry process, they were obviously very much across their brief, and they responded in a very timely fashion to the questions put on notice to them in a very abbreviated process. So I'd like to place that on the record. I'd also like to acknowledge—Acting Deputy President Sterle, you've been in this place far longer than I have, and you'll probably recognise the resonance of this point—that the majority of the committee are subject to pressures in relation to timing. They are subject to the input of the executive government, and, no doubt, there are some things beyond their control in terms of how matters can be abbreviated. I'm sure that you've come across those situations in your time here, Mr Acting Deputy President. I want to make clear that my comments in this regard aren't a reflection on the government members on the committee, who I think were diligent in terms of the inquiry process. Having made those introductory comments, the first point I want to talk about is process. I think Australians, including those sitting in the public gallery, have a reasonable expectation that, when legislation—which is hundreds and hundreds of pages long, and has hundreds and hundreds of pages of explanatory memoranda—is introduced into this place, the senators in this house of review should have sufficient time to closely scrutinise the legislation. Senator Shoebridge 169119 And a consequential amendments bill that's longer than either. Senator SCARR 282997 And a consequential amendments bill that is longer than either. Now, we simply didn't have the time to scrutinise this legislation as well as I would have hoped or probably others in this place would have liked, and that should be a matter for reflection. This isn't a comment just made by me as a senator in this place. There was an abbreviated House of Representatives committee process that was instigated just before Christmas, with submissions due on 18 January. Is that a good idea? There are hundreds of pages of legislation, hundreds of pages of explanatory memoranda—it's very complicated legislation—and you start the inquiry in mid-December with submissions by mid-January. What's wrong with that! It was actually held up as a positive that this bill was subject to an inquiry in the House of Representatives and an inquiry in the Senate. We would have been better off having an inquiry instituted in the Senate back in mid-December—having one inquiry that provided sufficient time. But, unfortunately, that, no doubt, is out of the hands of the majority government members on the committee and is in the hands of the Attorney-General. So the Attorney-General can reflect upon that. My second point is that this Senate asked the committee to report by 24 July. That's over two months away, and the reporting day was brought forward on very short notice—again, I'm not reflecting on the majority members of the committee—such that I as the deputy chair had one clear business day to look at the majority report. One clear business day—I had Friday. I got the majority report late on Thursday. I had Friday to look at it, and I had to get my report in to the secretariat by 9.30 on Monday morning. I did my best, and I did my best to cover as many issues as I could that weren't covered in detail in the majority report, but that is not a satisfactory process. There are matters which should have been dealt with in the majority report—really substantial matters, which I'll get to—which weren't touched upon in detail in the majority report. From my perspective, again, that is far from best practice. I had asked for certain witnesses to be called to public hearings, but, because of the lack of time which Senator Cash referred to, I didn't even have time to ask questions of witnesses who I'd asked to be called. I mean, that's embarrassing! It's embarrassing for us as an institution. And I apologise to those witnesses and I do thank them for the submissions they made, because they were detailed submissions. The second point I want to make is around the case for reform. I'm glad—I really am glad—that there are people in the public gallery who are hearing this. I like an audience, Acting Deputy President; don't we all! This is what the government said in justification of this reform. I want to read these statements out and then I want to tell you what the objective evidence is. See if you can pick the difference. The majority report says: The regime— the Administrative Appeals Tribunal— had lost the confidence of all stakeholders and the merits review system was badly in need of a complete overhaul. That's what the majority report says. And the Attorney-General said: … the AAT no longer enjoys the trust and confidence of the Australian community it serves, and is not fit-for-purpose. Those are pretty dramatic statements, and I would have thought that, if you're prepared to make those statements, you should also be prepared to consider the objective evidence. That evidence would include how the people who actually use the AAT, the Australians who go through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, judge the AAT themselves—their satisfaction rates. But that wasn't referred to at all in the majority report. Those in the gallery and those listening can go to the AAT's annual report and look at the evidence themselves. It wasn't even referred to in the majority report. It won't be referred to in any of the speeches, I'm sure. I'm not Nostradamus, but I'm sure it won't be referred to in any of the speeches from government senators. I want to put this on record. In the annual report for the year ending 30 June 2023—at the time when the Attorney was attacking the AAT, saying that it had lost the confidence of all Australians and was a disgrace—the overall result for user experience with the AAT was a rating of 72 per cent. Now, does that sound like an organisation that had 'lost the confidence of all stakeholders'—a rating of 72 per cent? And the KPI was 70 per cent. Senator Chandler 264449 And the representatives. Senator SCARR 282997 Then, in terms of representatives—the lawyers and people representing people who go through the AAT—the user satisfaction rate was even higher. So amongst those people, the lawyers—the ones you'd expect to have more experience of dealing with the AAT, as part of their job—the satisfaction rate was even higher! Then we get to this KPI with respect to fairness. I would have thought this was a key point. On fairness, on the courtesy and respect shown by members and registrars, on the opportunity given to parties to present their case and on overall perceptions of the fairness of the review and the independence of the AAT—on this key performance indicator—what were the results? The satisfaction rating of users was 77 per cent. So 77 per cent said they thought that it was fair, they were treated with respect and it was independent—77 per cent. And then, of their representatives—the lawyers and other people, advocates, who appear regularly—it was 82 per cent. Does that sound, on any objective basis, like an organisation that has lost the trust and confidence of all stakeholders? I don't need to answer that question. But the disturbing thing is that data is not even referred to in the majority report. They don't even try to deal with that issue. There's not even an attempt to deal with that issue. I want to make a few points on a number of issues that weren't dealt with in the majority report. It's a shame that a number of these issues weren't dealt with. There wasn't time. One of these issues—I'll touch on a few of them—was in relation to constitutional issues. There were some very good submissions made in relation to whether the President of the Administrative Review Tribunal should be a justice of the Federal Court. To put it in simple terms, the concern is that that mixes a court with a tribunal, which is part of executive government. Should there be that mixing? Does it raise too many constitutional issues? There were some very good submissions made by Mr Graham Connolly of council, and there was quite a reasonable response to that from the Attorney-General's Department. But it is an open question, in my mind, as to whether it is best practice, having considered the matter, to have a judge of the Federal Court as the president or whether it might be better to have a retired Federal Court judge or a retired senior member of the AAT as president. I think that's a reasonable open question. The next point I want to make is around costs. There were very good submissions made by a whole range of stakeholders that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal should have the discretion in exceptional circumstances to award costs to an applicant. That is especially true, given that we're introducing this additional layer, which Senator Shoebridge referred to, in the Guidance and Appeals Tribunal. You might have a situation where someone applies to the AAT and wins their case, and it's thought, 'We're going to elevate this to the Guidance and Appeals Tribunal because we want the Guidance and Appeals Tribunal to look at this case; it could set precedent, and it might be usable for the broader public for it to be elevated.' I strongly believe, in that situation, the costs of the applicant should be, in some way, reimbursed, because their case has been used for a public good. There are situations where Commonwealth departments, the bureaucracy, don't necessarily follow what we refer to as the model litigant rules. Senator Shoebridge 169119 No, no! Senator SCARR 282997 I'm not trying to be a comedian, Senator Shoebridge! I could follow Acting Deputy President Sterle's example. He's got better material than I do! Bear in mind, there are situations where Commonwealth departments don't follow the model litigant rules, and that means they don't necessarily conduct themselves as they should. They're dealing with a private citizen. You've got a private citizen against a big bureaucracy. If the government department doesn't do the right thing, I think the average, ordinary, everyday Australian deserves to get their costs. That's my view. They do that at state tribunals. I don't know why we're not doing that at the Commonwealth level. That's my last point in relation to cost. The Attorney has been on the record stating his concerns with respect to a particular cohort of members who were appointed to the AAT under the previous government. He's given particularity, precision, with respect to the number of members appointed by the previous government; he said up to 85. That triggers a concern in my mind as to whether those members, when they apply to become members of the ART, are going to be treated fairly. Please know—and I touch upon this in the majority report. Some of the evidence which we received in terms of processes show the panels are populated with some very eminent former judges, which gives one some confidence. But please know that this is perhaps the first test of integrity of this process. I generally believe this was unnecessary and unworthy—the loss of office compensation direction of our independent Remuneration Tribunal being overridden by this bill. Our independent Remuneration Tribunal has independently decided that, when something like this happens, this is what someone who loses their office should be paid, and this bill is introducing a different compensation scheme. I don't think that's appropriate. One of our witnesses, a professor of administrative law, said that that's bad public policy. I don't think parliamentarians in this place should be determining the remuneration of officeholders of Commonwealth entities. There's a reason that we have the independent Remuneration Tribunal. I think it's quite unseemly that their independence is being overridden by this bill. 17:55 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2024 and the associated bills, which relate to the replacement of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal with a new administrative review tribunal, are long overdue. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal has developed a reputation for inefficient and delayed decision-making, holding up the highly emotive process of considering mostly visa reviews and applications. The appointment process of tribunal members has been less than transparent, with many appointments being clearly politically based and with many appointees being barely qualified for their positions. That has raised a number of questions and a lot of talk. The new tribunal will offer transparent appointments based on merit and will ensure that decision-making will be less questionably based on perceived biases or lack of understanding of the issues. That's a clear issue in the profession. Positions will be advertised and appointments made based on record and performance at an interview. Applicants must have relevant knowledge, skills and experience, and their qualifications need to be stated. A significant problem in considering the bills, though, has been the time involved in assessing the voluminous amount of material—something that previous speakers Senator Shoebridge and Senator Scarr both mentioned. That is particularly so in terms of accessing the voluminous amount of material in the context of the huge number of consequential amendments that need to be made to more than 138 acts and the consideration of the impact of these changes. That's no light task; it's not a five-minute task. It's been suggested that the new bill does not adequately offer persons with immigration challenges enough access to legal support when presenting their case for review. The bills reintroduce the Administrative Review Tribunal. This is generally considered a good move as it can assist in avoiding long and expensive court actions. It's hoped that the Administrative Review Tribunal will be sufficiently resourced to avoid the enormous backlogs that have prevented timely and final resolution of primarily migration and refugee matters. It's been said that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal merits review system was failed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which did not function effectively, efficiently or transparently. In 2022-23, more than 19,000 migration and refugee matters came into the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This represented 46 per cent of all applications that came into the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. There were over 54,000 matters still outstanding at the end of the financial year. It's hoped that this backlog will be more effectively dealt with by the new Administrative Review Tribunal. I need to point out that the mass of material within these bills that we've had to go through has been difficult to take in at short notice. Sadly, this is becoming a standard practice of this Albanese Labor government, making it difficult for crossbenchers to efficiently and, sometimes, effectively perform their functions. We heard about the hoops that Senator Scarr had to jump through. That's not acceptable. Senator Shoebridge also mentioned the same problem. The process of developing this bill and getting it through scrutiny has been catastrophic, as one of them said. We have also seen a number of bills guillotined under the Labor-Greens-Teals-Senator Pocock coalition. That coalition has been pushing things through this parliament, suppressing orders for the production of documents and guillotining debate. We've had bills with enormous consequences for this country—some of the most far-reaching ever—rammed through this parliament with not one word of debate. I'm talking now particularly about the digital identity bill, which went through recently. That bill was amended quite substantially, and there was not one word of debate about the bill, nor about any of those amendments. So the process of coming to where we are with the Administrative Review Tribunal was flawed. Senators Scarr and Shoebridge echoed that. But the changes are needed. As servants to the people of Queensland and Australia, my team and I have weighed the pros and cons. Based on all of this, I somewhat reluctantly decided to support the bill. Having listened, though, to Senators Scarr and Shoebridge, who are lawyers and whom I respect, I will be reflecting and may change my mind. But, at the moment, we are highly critical of the government's process in developing this bill and putting it through what amounts to less-than-perfect, inadequate scrutiny. I do say the changes are needed at the moment. I reluctantly support the bill. 18:00 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I too rise today to speak about the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2024 and related bills and ask the question of why we're debating them this afternoon. It seems quite extraordinary that, out of nowhere, we seem to have a deal that's brought on this group of bills. And, yet, I cannot for the life of me see any urgency for doing it today. I can't see how these bills can possibly be urgent enough to be the subject of a change to the order of hours for the day. But here we are. We have a government that, every time they can't manage the chamber and put their legislative workload through at the appropriate time, go and talk to their mates the Greens down the other end of the chamber and do some deal on something. So we come in here and have the conventions of this chamber completely thrown out the window because it suits them—because all of a sudden Mr Dreyfus in the other place decides he wants his bill pushed through this place today. So the conventions of good and consistent government, conventions of government that have stood the test of time, all get thrown out the window simply because they just decided they can, and they have some friends in this chamber who are happy to vote with them to let that happen. One of the things that I learnt a very long time ago is it's much better to be consistent than convenient—because convenience will always catch up with you one day when you're a hypocrite. But the most egregious part of this bill is that we are in a cost-of-living crisis. Even the other side today admitted this when the Minister for Finance was questioned during question time. We saw the Treasurer being questioned and we have seen the Prime Minister being questioned. There is absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind in this place that there is a cost of living crisis facing Australians today. Every Australian knows that they're facing a cost-of-living crisis, because it's hurting them in their pockets. What we've got before us here is $1 billion that is about to be spent on a piece of legislation that has no real purpose. Nothing of any substance will change with this change of legislation. In fact, we'll get an 'R' instead of an 'A'. So we'll end up with the 'ART' instead of the 'AAT'. Other than that, there is no substantive change apart from patting the ego of an Attorney-General who wants to put his name on something with a billion dollar tag attached to it. Every Australian should be asking the question of what a billion dollars has bought them in this legislation. As I said, right now we've got the AAT, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. At the end of this passage of legislation, assuming these bills go through, we'll have the Administrative Review Tribunal. That doesn't seem to be worth $1 billion to me. Before these bills, under the existing administration, Australians could apply for a merit review of a government decision that affected them. After the passage of these bills—guess what?—Australians can apply for a merits based review of a decision that affects them. The difference will be, though, that they'll pay more to get that decision. Before this decision that's been put to us today is made, roughly half the tribunal members were appointed by the Labor government—existing members appointed since the last election. After these bills pass, assuming they do, the body will be entirely appointed by the Labor Party. So you would have to say that this has achieved only two things. It's a very, very expensive rebranding exercise where they've changed the word 'appeals' to 'review'. And we've ended up with a situation where, absolutely blatantly, the Labor Party have stacked out an organisation entirely with the people they wanted to put there. That is not the way you run executive government. That is not the way you run the country. These are conventions that have stood the test of time. You don't be political about these sorts of organisations. You put people on them that have the skills and experience to serve on them. What we've basically got today is a billion-dollar expenditure on absolutely nothing, right in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. I think Australians should be asking if their government speaks out of both sides of their mouth. On one side, they go out there and try to spruik the rhetoric of last night's budget, talking about how they're dealing with cost-of-living pressures, but at the same time they're quite happy to completely burn a billion dollars for a vanity project for the Attorney-General. It is absolutely disgusting. Let's also be very, very clear: the opposition also accepts that, in the 600-plus pages of legislation we have before us, there are probably some very good things. Nobody ever should say that legislation can't be improved, particularly legislation that's been in place for a considerable amount of time. We should always be open to reforms that make things better. Where there is a legitimate need to reform, we're quite happy to make sure that those improvements are made. We're talking about 400 different pieces of legislation or in excess of that. The AAT has been around for 50 years. It is a process. I think it is completely reasonable that we have a look at it. The AAT also deals with such an extraordinary range of different pieces of legislation, be it in relation to migration, the national disability scheme or social services. There are so many different things the AAT has to deal with. It does seem very sensible that, at certain points in time, we look at how we can improve this legislation. That part of this legislation, obviously, the opposition would be entirely keen to support. But there are so many complexities in a scheme of this size. We would question the need to shove this through this place today. Obviously, tomorrow it will have its neck chopped off under the guillotine that has become such a commonly used tool by those on the other side. I think they should call it the Albanese guillotine government, because that's what they seem to do with just about every piece of legislation. They don't seem to be interested or can't manage the time of this chamber. There's a key question for every Australian out there today when you're struggling to pay your rent, mortgage or power bill, or when you have to brace yourself to go into the supermarket to buy your weekly grocery shop because you simply know it's going to hurt so much more than it has ever hurt before, because prices just continue to go up. At the same time, the Australian government thinks it's okay to spend a billion dollars on next to nothing. Make no mistake—despite the small amount of money that will come through the process of people paying for reviews and through some appropriations to the AAT, most of the money that goes towards these billion dollars is new money. It's money that has to be found. It's money that goes on the bottom line. It's money that isn't paying off Australia's debt. It is money that is not actually benefiting Australians at all. If you gave Australians the choice about what they want to spend a billion dollars on, I can pretty much guarantee you that nobody would say they want to spend a billion dollars on changing the AAT to the ART. The most egregious thing about the absolute blatancy of what's going on here is the Labor Party seeking to put all its own mates on the AAT. Make no mistake. Of the people on the AAT—even those that were appointed by the coalition government in its previous term—some are really eminent people with extraordinary qualifications. They are people who I think anybody would be happy to have presiding over the review of a decision that was made by a government department in relation to an issue that was before them. The list of people who are appointed to the AAT is published. Anybody can, at any time, look at the skills and qualifications of those people who sit on the AAT. These are some really eminent people that the Attorney-General wants to purge from the AAT without any thought whatsoever about the value proposition they provide, simply because they happened to be appointed by the coalition. This is a political witch-hunt of an extraordinary nature, and I think the Attorney-General should be called to account as to why he thinks his political influence over what should be an independent body is an appropriate use of his time and appropriate behaviour for the highest law officer in the land. The highest law officer in the land is seeking to politicise an independent review body. It is absolutely outrageous. If any government previous to this—particularly a coalition government—had tried to act in this way, you can imagine the outcry from the other side. But they're quite happily able to bring this in here, and with their friends down at the other end of the chamber they're going to throw out a whole heap of eminent people simply because they happened to be appointed under the coalition. We're talking about people who have master's degrees. We're talking about people with first-class honours degrees. In fact, I think there are a couple of University Medallists that are currently operating as officers of the AAT. We've got decorated military officers, ex-defence people, people who have headed up government departments, public servants of the highest standing—I think we've even got the former Sex Discrimination Commissioner and a chair of the Accounting Standards Board. We're not talking about people who have no qualifications; we're talking about people who have exactly the qualifications that you need to undertake reviews of decisions. The fact is we are standing here today with a rushed process that doesn't allow us adequate time to scrutinise the really important measures about review and reform to make sure that the systems that are in place are appropriate and fit for purpose going forward. That has all been thrown out the window. We're not going to have a thorough look at that, because we're going to have to shove this through. We're spending money that the government simply doesn't have. If the Australian public actually knew what was going on here, I think they'd be absolutely horrified about the prioritisation of this particular bill, on the government purses—at the waste of time here in the Senate today, when it should have been dealt with appropriately somewhere else, and at the lack of consultation—which is, I must say, a hallmark of just about every piece of legislation that's comes in this place from the other side. They're not particularly keen, unless they're worrying about stitching up a deal with someone, to have proper scrutiny of this. You have to kick and fight to get anything sent off to a committee and, invariably, they stack them or don't invite the witnesses you want, just to make sure they get the biased outcome they want for the legislation. We have a government here who are quite happy to completely undermine the principles of the democratic system of this country simply so they can get their outcome. I've got to say, it's a very sad reflection on them, because for many years we have operated this place as a two-chamber parliament that actually respected the conventions, and we got the right outcomes because we went through the processes. The processes were put in place to make sure we have robust government and robust scrutiny. Therefore, we get good legislation, and good legislation means Australians are governed by good laws. This place seems to have forgotten about that. Those opposite and those down the other end of the chamber can't care less—it's all about a little petty win. They're not worried about what consequences their decisions have on the broader Australian public. Where we are at the moment with these three bills—clearly, we wouldn't be standing here today under a change of orders if we hadn't had a deal done between the government and the Greens—means that we are going to have a whole heap of changes. We're going to force through 692 pages of primary legislation and 760 pages of explanatory materials, and we're going to shove them through here without much thought. There are 67,000 cases that are currently on foot before the AAT. I'd really like to know what provisions have been put in place to make sure they aren't affected. I think this is a very sad day. We have had a process that we all relied on that has not been undertaken in good faith. The unintended consequences of this will be here for everyone to see in the future. I'd say to those opposite: before you actually decide that you're going to chop this off before it's had appropriate scrutiny, think about the unintended consequences on the people who are involved. Think about the unintended consequences of what would happen if, in the process of making this rushed change, you made a mistake and decisions that came out of the ART, when it's formed, were not right. It reinforces our point—and I just want to reinforce this before I finish my contribution—that we must never shy away from scrutiny. Scrutiny is our friend, and scrutiny always delivers a better outcome. We all might think we know everything, but we don't. More eyes looking over something always makes for a better decision. I condemn the government for this action. 18:15 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I mean, what can I say? Labor, what are you doing? This is an example of the modern era. Call me old-fashioned but, when I was growing up, my mother and my grandmother used to teach me to repair and recycle. Indeed, that is an ethos that many in this day and age are trying to get society back to. People are railing against fast fashion, people want to reduce unnecessary waste and, importantly in this age of cost-of-living pressures, people want to reduce spending. But not this Labor government—no. They are happy to throw out the old to bring in the new without even knowing whether the new will actually be better or not. It's like having that comfy old couch that you've moved from house to house. You know it's comfortable, but it's starting to look a bit worn. Instead of reupholstering it at a fraction of the cost, Labor are taking it to the tip and then rushing off to Harvey Norman for a bright new one without even sitting on it first to see if it's appropriate. That is the waste we are seeing with the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2024, the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Bill 2024 and the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 2) Bill 2024. Let's look at what we're doing today. We had an Administrative Appeals Tribunal that conducted independent merits reviews of administrative decisions made under more than 400 Commonwealth acts and legislative instruments. According to their website, the most common reviews related to some of the most sensitive issues we have in our society: child support, workers compensation, family assistance including paid parental leave and social security matters, taxation, migration and veterans' entitlements. And they worked. In the 2022-23 financial year, according to their annual report, the AAT published 5,000 decisions, but that was just the published matters. They handed down 21,625 decisions, and they finalised 42,862 matters before them in just one 12-month period. They had a clearance ratio of 104 per cent. That's 100 per cent plus four—more than 100 per cent. In fact, in the last financial year, the AAT met or bettered five out of the six measurable outputs. To me, over 100 per cent is like a high distinction or a merit or an A plus or something. Yet, despite this track record, the Labor government are taking it to the tip so they can build a whole new, bright, shiny Administrative Review Tribunal which will conduct independent merits reviews of administrative decisions made under more than 400 Commonwealth acts and legislative instruments. What? That's right: 'We had an operating AAT, but now we're going to spend a billion dollars to establish an ART.' That's a billion dollars for a new letterhead, probably a fancy new logo and a new appointments process. 'But, surely,' the people watching along at home are saying to themselves, 'the government has justification for this spend. There's got to be more to it.' Ordinarily, you would think that a decision to abolish such a body would be based on poor performance, but I've just outlined that that is not the case here. We've also heard, and some of my colleagues have mentioned, that there is concern from the government that some of the appointments to the AAT had—wait for it—associations with the coalition. Shock horror—that someone with an understanding of politics may also have the skills required to participate on the AAT! The old AAT had some 340 members. Some were working full time. Most were working part time. Of those, 160 were appointed—since this government came into play—by Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus. About 180 were appointed prior to the 2022 election, and, according to Labor's talking points, as many as 85 of those were associated with the coalition. Dreadful! Apparently, when the old AAT was abolished, the 160 members appointed by the current Attorney-General were retained to carry on existing work. The remaining 180 members are not guaranteed an ongoing appointment. Why not? Are they not qualified? Let's see. Of those on the uncertain list, as my colleague said earlier, we have people with doctorates in law and with master's degrees from some of the world's leading universities. We have decorated military officers, public service medallists, police officers, lawyers and people who have served on state or territory tribunals. Tell me they're not qualified. I can't see that they're not qualified—but hang on. Sorry, I forgot maybe they have been associated with the coalition. Well, excuse me. When I read that, I shared the concern, but then I went to the Australian Public Service Commission, just to check. According to the APSC website: 6.4.3 Commonwealth anti-discrimination legislation prohibits discrimination against a person on the ground of political opinion. To be fair, the Public Service Commission does counsel about having regard to potential conflicts of interest or perceived conflicts of interest and the expression of opinion on social media, and it urges caution. But it also says: 6.4.1 APS employees may participate in political activities as part of normal community affairs. They may also join, or hold office in, political parties. Commonwealth public servants can even stand for and be elected to local government office. If they run for this venerable place—as we know from the former constitutional crisis—they can't hold a public service office while campaigning after the issuing of the writs or as they sit in this place, if they are successful, but doing so cannot preclude them from being considered for a future role in the APS once their candidature or political tenure has ceased. So, if it's okay for public servants to have political associations—you can't tell me that membership of a political party or running for a political party is not association—then why does an association preclude someone from being appointed to the ART in the future? Or is it only those with a conservative association? Ponder that. Let's not forget that, back in February last year, Katy Gallagher, the Minister for Finance, announced a review of all public sector board appointments, claiming that they were going to restore merit to the process and stop political allies from being handed lucrative positions. Maybe I won't mention the appointment of Minister for Trade and Tourism Don Farrell's mate to a trade and investment commissioner role and Australian Consul-General San Francisco role last year, or the fact that that said mate was a former Labor senator who went on to be a Labor staffer who didn't apply for the role he was appointed to—and was appointed over and above a senior female public servant with years of experience in a relevant portfolio. No, I won't mention that, because Labor don't believe in appointing people with political associations to run for plum roles. Let's actually look at what we have before us. We've got three bills to formalise the abolishment of a system to provide a merits review process and to formalise the establishment of a system to provide a merits review process, at a cost of $1 billion. We've got three bills that will establish the Administrative Review Tribunal that will review decisions in relation to over 400 Commonwealth acts—basically, across nearly every Commonwealth portfolio—that have had woefully short scrutiny. The Labor-dominated Senate committee that scrutinised these three bills spent less than a whole working day scrutinising the bills. This lack of transparency and scrutiny is from a government that promised a new age of openness and transparency and yet, in practice, is expert in secrecy and avoiding proper scrutiny. The rushing of this and the lack of scrutiny are reminiscent of—what did we see tabled on Monday?—the 'how not to answer questions on notice' manifesto which was provided by the Prime Minister's office to every Public Service department. As to this government, their modus operandi, their lack of openness and their lack of transparency, we've heard from Senator Shoebridge and Senator Roberts—and they're not two people who are usually singing off the same hymn sheet, but we've heard from both of them tonight that the scrutiny of these bills has been clearly and woefully inadequate. I want to thank and commend my colleague Paul Scarr who, on that committee, put in a power of work, as well as extra work in his own time, and his contribution tonight showed just how deeply he understands this issue. His concerns about the attacks by the Attorney-General on the existing AAT are shared by all of us on this side. Senator Scarr's concerns about the majority report—which conveniently ignores much of the evidence that was provided to the committee and which recommends passing these bills—are shared by all of us on this side. And those concerns alone should be enough for these bills not to be supported by this chamber. Added to that, there's the waste—the sheer and utter waste—of spending a billion dollars of taxpayers' money to abolish a functioning body and replace it with effectively the same body, just with new appointees. We'd better run a microscope over those new appointees and make sure not one of them has had any association with the Labor Party. If that is our measure—that you can't have an association with a political party—we'd better run a microscope over the new appointments. A billion dollars was spent on new letterhead, a new logo and new appointments. Was the previous AAT perfect? Probably not, but it could probably have been reviewed and repaired, for far less upheaval, far less risk and far less cost than what will be achieved by passing these bills in this place. So, for the sake of Australian taxpayers and for the sake of sensible government, we cannot pass these bills tonight. Let's go back to review and repair. 18:30 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales When we're looking at very complicated legislation like this—the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2024, the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Bill 2024 and the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 2) Bill 2024—we need to ask ourselves: 'What's the purpose? Has the case been made for the reforms that have been put in front of us?' I'm not intimately familiar with the work of the AAT, but I am broadly familiar with it, and I have read the committee's report looking into the legislation and also the dissenting report provided by my colleague Senator Scarr. I happen to know a number of members of the AAT, both full-time and part-time members, including some with Labor connections and credentials and some who've worked for the coalition. I know all of them to be hardworking and diligent. We need to remember that the AAT body, which has been with us for some 50 years, has over that time developed quite a complex and detailed level of jurisprudence and a high degree of specialisation in some of the topics it considers. As it operates at the moment, there are specialist parts of the AAT that deal with particular matters. So I think we should be hesitant before we propose a wholesale reform, to recognise the expertise and value we might be losing. If you have a look at whether the case has been made for a new tribunal, I think we need to start by looking at the tribunal's performance. If you look at the AAT's annual reports, which are tabled in the parliament and are subject to audit by the Australian National Audit Office and oversight by other bodies, they overwhelmingly tell a story of a body that is performing well—not perfectly but well. Indeed, I think many parts of the government, the Public Service or the executive would be pleased with the sorts of metrics that the AAT reports in its annual statements. The user experience rate, for instance, was 72 per cent for the year to 30 June 2023. This is the level of satisfaction that people who use the AAT report having in that body, and bear in mind here that often applicants to the AAT will leave frustrated or disappointed with a decision. So the fact that you're getting a satisfaction rating or user experience rating of 72 per cent, above the target of 70 per cent, is quite extraordinary. If you look at the decision-making quality, at whether the AAT is taking decisions that are sound in law and firmly based in fact, in 2022-23, the year that was covered in the AAT's last annual report, the proportion of appeals allowed against AAT and IAA—Immigration Assessment Authority—decisions was just 2.1 per cent, well below the benchmark of five per cent. If you translate that into actual decision-making, in 2022-23 the AAT handed down some 21,625 decisions—quite a prodigious workload—and appeals were allowed in just 324 cases. So, in the overwhelming majority of cases—almost 98 per cent of cases—the overseeing judicial bodies concluded that the AAT's reasoning in law and fact, and their decision-making, was sound. In relation to performance more broadly, to getting through a case load, the AAT met its performance benchmark of 5,000 decisions published in the financial year to 30 June 2023. The clearance ratio, the number of cases cleared, was quite remarkable—104 per cent, indicating the AAT has been eating into a backlog above the target of 100 per cent. In terms of output, which is the raw number of AAT applications and referrals finalised or dealt with: in the 2022-23 financial year the AAT finalised 42,862 matters. That is better than their performance benchmark, which is 42,024 cases. If you look at these metrics, you see a body that has quite a prodigious workload and is working quite hard. The parties are largely satisfied with its performance. But we've heard from the government, in the majority report of the committee looking into this, the argument that the AAT has lost the confidence of all stakeholders. I would suggest that if you're getting a satisfaction rate of 72 per cent you cannot say that stakeholders are dissatisfied. If you have a look at some of the other figures: with respect to fairness, namely the courtesy and respect shown by members and registrars and the opportunity given to parties to present their case, and overall perceptions of fairness of the reviewing and independence of the AAT, the satisfaction rating of users was 77 per cent. This suggests the client load of the AAT is overwhelmingly quite pleased with how the body operates. You see the AAT is dealing with decisions in a timely manner. It's clearing a backlog. It's satisfied clients, and it's meeting all its performance benchmarks. It's hard to see how you can possibly make the case on that basis that the AAT has lost the confidence of all stakeholders, as the government has chosen to do. I recognise that a body that has been around for 50 years could undoubtedly be improved, and there are areas where there's a legitimate need for reform of the AAT and improvements could be made. Just like with any body that has been operating over a period, circumstances change, the caseload changes, the level of expertise changes and the use of technology changes. When you have a body with a remit as wide-ranging and complex as the AAT's, that is only to be expected. The AAT reaches into nearly all portfolios of government decision-making, from tariff concessions to freedom of information to veterans affairs, national security, immigration decisions and everything else. But the question is: do we need to abolish the AAT, the old body, entirely and create a wholly new body, or could this be done in a much simpler and cleaner way—and, importantly, in a way that preserves the jurisprudence, the expertise, the experience, the processes and the corporate memory of a body which now has a substantial corpus of work behind it over 50 years? I also have to ask the question: are the resources necessary to undertake this task warranted? In the budget papers, in Budget Paper No. 2: The Government will provide $1.0 billion over five years from 2023-24 … to establish and support the sustainable operation of the new Administrative Review Tribunal. This new body is costing us $1 billion. That's a substantial sum of money. We saw in the budget announced last night by the government that the government like to run an expansionary budget and don't have much concern for inflationary pressures, for the role of the Reserve Bank in trying to keep a lid on inflation or about the interest rates mortgage holders are paying, having now injected something in the order of $305 billion in extra discretionary spending into the economy in their two years in office and spent four out of every $5 of the extraordinary windfall that bracket creep and high commodity prices have delivered to them. I know the government doesn't have much of a problem; to them, $1 billion is small change. To the taxpayer, it's a significant sum of money. I have to ask: has the case been made? I don't think it has been. Let me also turn, though, to the process that has been engaged in here. This is an extraordinarily complex set of legislation. There are three bills altogether here, abolishing an old system entirely and creating a new system. We've got 692 pages of new primary legislation, 760 pages of explanatory materials, a package establishing an entirely new Administrative Review Tribunal—or ART—plus 33 schedules of amending legislation, which in turn affect and impose changes on literally hundreds of Commonwealth acts. There are also, of course, 67,000-odd cases currently on foot before the AAT. What will happen to those? What will be the transition process for those cases that are currently before the AAT when it transitions to the ART? We've heard—including from my colleague Senator Scarr, who was on the Senate inquiry into this—just how little time has been devoted to providing any proper scrutiny of this and, frankly, to ensuring that mistakes which a little more oversight, time and interrogation would reveal are apparent in incredibly complex legislation. We had in this place just under seven hours of committee hearings. The committee has spent a very short amount of time scrutinising this. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal—the body being abolished—was called to appear for just 40 minutes. Now we've had this legislation introduced, and it's likely to be rushed through by the government at short notice. Presumably, they will seek to guillotine debate at some point and move this to a vote. It's an extraordinarily cavalier way to treat the parliament. That's not just the coalition members but the crossbench members as well. But it's also quite dangerous. When you're dealing with something this complex, sometimes scrutiny, questioning and interrogation conducted by any members of parliament can bring out unintended errors and unintended, second-order consequences that can make the implementation of this legislation difficult. But the government doesn't seem to be interested in this. We've already seen the Attorney-General having to introduce a whole suite of changes just two months after introducing his primary legislation, before a single committee hearing had taken place, presumably on the advice of the Attorney-General's Department. There were a whole lot of unintended consequences and complications from the legislation that was initially introduced. The risk of rushing this process now, as the committee itself was rushed, is that similar mistakes, errors or unintended consequences, unforeseen at the time of drafting, will make themselves manifest. That will affect not only the administration of justice in this country and the accountability of the executive but also a large number of the parties currently before the AAT. If the ART has set up and established that it's not able to transition smoothly from the AAT, then we will have a real mess. Part of the Attorney-General's rationale was to clear a supposed backlog. As I quoted in those figures, the AAT is actually managing at 104 per cent of efficiency. It's processing more cases than it hears, which means it is eating into the backlog. But, if there are time bombs and unintended, unforeseen consequences and errors in this bill, then this system will grind to a halt until parliament can deal with it again. That's all because the parliament and the Senate have not been allowed the time by the government to scrutinise this legislation properly. I say again that the case here has not been made for the abolition of the AAT. Certainly there are arguments to be made for its reform and improvement. But, if you look at its performance as measured against its own performance benchmarks, its annual report and the degree of satisfaction from existing stakeholders, the best case you can make is that reforms and incremental improvements can be made. But to undertake a risky process like this—because setting up an entirely new body carries risks—to go to the expense of $1 billion, as announced in the budget last night, and to risk the loss of expertise, jurisprudence speciality and everything else that the AAT has built up over a number of years is an irresponsible and reckless course to be taking. That is why I will be opposing this legislation. 18:45 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I'm pleased to rise tonight to speak on the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill and the associated legislation because I smell a rat. You've only got to look at the history of the Albanese government when it comes to transparency to know that, somewhere, somehow, they are cooking the books. In my prior career, I was an accountant. One of the things we were taught in my professional years is that you've got to look at substance over form. That is statement of accounting concept No. 4. When you're looking at a balance sheet and financial statements, you've got to look at what's really going on. Many people might know it as reading between the lines. What we've got here is a government that is going to spend a billion dollars on basically doing the old 'bait and switch'. We've currently got 340 people working on the AAT, and they want to pull out the 160 or so people that weren't appointed by the Labor government. I say that because, if you know anything about the Labor Party, they are all about command and control. They will not allow any independent thinking on any government body whatsoever. We have evidence of that. In the recent parliamentary break, thanks to an FOI by Senator Paterson, we discovered that the Prime Minister's office released a document explaining to bureaucrats and people who take questions in estimates how not to answer the question. This is a government that hates transparency and hates accountability, and there is a conga line of examples. One of the first things Prime Minister Albanese said he would do when he got into government was release the minutes of national cabinet. Of course he wouldn't do that. He called out Prime Minister Morrison for not releasing the minutes from national cabinet, and I called out Prime Minister Morrison—that hideous Frankenstein creature that locked us down for two years through those horrible years of the COVID pandemic—for not releasing the minutes of national cabinet. They need to be held to account. That's not all though. We wanted information on the vaccine contracts every Tuesday—'transmission Tuesday'. We want an inquiry into renewables and the impact of renewables on our farmland and our fisheries. We cannot get any transparency. We wanted an inquiry into childhood transitioning and whether or not that deserved scrutiny. That too was shut down. When we wanted more information on Brittany Higgins and the millions of dollars paid out to her, that was shut down. That decision deserved scrutiny because, in a recent court case, the judge said that Fiona Brown, Linda Reynolds's chief of staff, acted sensibly. Serious questions need to be asked of this government; yet again, they are not interested in transparency. Then we've got to look at how they love to stack the boards with their mates. One of the first things that the current Treasurer did when he got into office was put Iain Ross on the RBA board. Iain Ross was the former head of the Fair Work Commission, which was supposed to stand up for employees but of course they threw employees under the bus during the COVID pandemic. But there was more to that. Iain Ross was one of the architects with Bill Kelty and Paul Keating of the superannuation system—another form of mandate and another form of wage theft. There was no transparency about superannuation. There was no inquiry or referendum as to whether or not people wanted 12 per cent of their income taken from them and given to Labor's mates in their ivory palaces in Sydney and Melbourne. No, there was no transparency, no scrutiny. 'We'll just start it off at two per cent and slowly creep it up to 12 per cent,' because that is the way the Labor Party operate, and that is why we have to look at substance over form. Why are they spending a billion dollars on changing the name of a tribunal that does very important work assessing whether or not the bureaucrats in the government make proper administrative procedures? What is it that they are trying to hide? We know that the Labor Party love to hide information. They love not to hold the bureaucrats to account. We see that all the time in estimates—whenever we ask questions, they don't want to answer them. So I think we need greater scrutiny. Tonight, my colleague Senator Scarr pointed out how the committee had very little time to actually review this bill. After a number of days and the inquiry, suddenly this bill—and the committee hasn't even had time to hand down its report—is being rushed into parliament so that it cannot be adequately scrutinised. Yet again, it's this constant theme of being sneaky. Prime Minister Albanese and the Attorney-General, Mr Dreyfus, really cannot explain what the rush is. And when this new creation is brought to life, of course it'll actually cost you more to get the bureaucrats held to account. So it's going to be even harder for the average Joe in the public out there to access their right to natural justice. Yet again, this is what the Labor Party do. I ask myself: why do you have to sack 50 per cent of the AAT because they weren't appointed by Labor? You could have just played the long game here and eventually put your appointees in there. It's not like we don't do that. Tony Abbott appointed a Labor staffer as the head of the Audit Office, the Auditor-General. When he came out and told lies about the purchase of land for the Western Sydney airport, we held him to account here in the Senate. I held him to account. He claimed that $3 million for 30 acres of flat land in Western Sydney was somehow criminal. What he didn't say to the people was that Paul Keating, in 1995 when he was Prime Minister, paid $130 million for land for the Western Sydney airport, and that was only reported in the balance sheet as $30 million. But all that was put aside because the Auditor-General abused his position to make a whole swathe of lies, which he was never held accountable for. Let me tell you, Labor, if you think that you're just going to rush this through parliament without adequate scrutiny, you can think again. I'd like to think that the Greens, in order to honour transparency, in the name of transparency, will vote against this bill, will vote against rushing it through parliament, so that we can have a better look. Yet again, a billion dollars is getting wasted on nothing more than a shuffle, a bait and switch. Labor will put their mates on the board. We've seen it with the soon-to-be Governor-General. She's an ex-Keating staffer. I well remember another Keating staffer, Bill Bowtell. I was listening to ABC national coming back from doing laps in the morning one morning before COVID and a bloke called Bill Bowtell was telling everyone that we had to lock the country down. I thought, 'Who's this doctor?' Of course, I googled his name. It turns out he's a former Paul Keating staffer likewise with Qantas—a member of that board. Labor have a history of appointing their mates to positions of power and authority. What we need to know here is why they are wasting a billion dollars of taxpayer funds plus the inconvenience of all the outstanding cases—I think there are tens of thousands of outstanding cases—that may have to be held again or started from scratch again for the poor person out there, the battler, who has probably been shafted by some tyrannical bureaucrat, where the power has gone to their head. Heaven knows we deal with these people every day. Every day I am contacted by people who have had unfair decisions handed down to them by the bureaucracy, whether it's the tax office or whether it's the NDIS, or people who have suffered from the vaccine injury scheme—all the time. I've been given tape recordings in which bureaucrats didn't realise they hadn't hung up the phone properly and were mocking people had who rung them for help. I'm not saying that all the bureaucrats are bad, but we need to have a level of review. Obviously, there are only 227 politicians at the federal level. We can't be across every administrative decision made every week by the tens of thousands of bureaucrats in this country, but we need to know that we have an impartial and independent appeals tribunal that is going to give the battler out there their natural justice—the battler who pays taxes to the government in return for services and for being treated like a human being. That's probably been the hardest aspect of this role, and my role as a senator is daily talking to constituents who are absolutely gobsmacked at the way they get treated by their government and the arrogance of the bureaucrats. It's one of the reasons why my questioning in estimates does so well on the social media—because so many people can relate to being shafted by the government and the big engine of bureaucracy every day. And, no, Senator Watt, it's not a laughing matter. It is very serious. This contemptuous, patronising attitude by bureaucrats has to be held to account by people who are going to put the interests of the people first. That's what democracy is: for the people, by the people. It's not for the bureaucrats; it's not by the big end of town for the big end of town. We see that all the time with the Labor government. In last night's budget, we got $20 billion for critical industries, for green hydrogen, for their mates the billionaires—Andrew Forrest—and for big end of town bureaucrats, who are looking after big end of town blowhards. Let me tell you: the Australian people are sick and tired of it. They're sick of the lack of transparency. They're sick of the patronising attitude and the callous indifference. The people get shafted by the government and then the government kicks them to the curb. We saw that with those injured by the vaccine. They were mocked as being antivaxxers—how disgusting. And they're still mocked—how disgusting. Let me tell you: people are waking up. They know that the government should serve the people and that they are not doing that. So the question is: why is the Albanese government wasting a billion dollars to do nothing more than bait and switch to basically rebrand a whole new department, sack everyone and then recruit everyone again, disrupting the appeals process? Heavens knows how much backlog this is going to cause. It's going to end up costing people more; they are now going to have to pay more. Why? I'll tell you why. Labor are up to something. They're looking after their mates at the big end of town like they always do. 18:59 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I too rise to speak on the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2024 and related bills. I'll begin by firstly congratulating Senator Rennick for that contribution. Senator Rennick has a way of cutting through to the core of the matter that I think is of great value to this place. I think I will start where Senator Rennick finished, and that is by asking why. Why are we doing this? What is the stated excuse? What's the stated reason from this Attorney-General? Then I'll look at the reality of the situation. First, what's the change? The Administrative Appeals Tribunal will become the Administrative Review Tribunal. A billion bucks for one word seems like a lot of money, and I think it would seem that way to the Australian people facing a cost-of-living crisis. The government claimed certain things in its budget but then found $1 billion to turn the AAT into the ART. You have to ask yourself: why? You also have to ask yourself—and this is also a point Senator Rennick made—why now? Why not when this bill was due to come before parliament in a couple of months after the Senate inquiry had had a proper look at it and a chance to report properly? Why have we now got some sort of deal stitched up between the Labor Party and their allies on the crossbench to bring this on and ram it through the parliament this week? As far as I can tell, there is no particular rush for action here. We should be making sure when we're dealing with matters concerning the Australian judicial system—and the AAT is part of our judicial system—that we actually take the time— Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Okay, Senator Shoebridge; I'll take that interjection. But most ordinary Australians would consider the AAT to be a part of the framework of laws, rules and processes we have in place for them to challenge government and bureaucratic decisions. So, whilst technically it's not part of the judicial system, most people, most ordinary Australians, would see the AAT as a central part of the way this country ensures fairness and equity for its citizens. As such, that should be one of the things we in this place both hold in high regard and take to with a duty of care that is of the highest level. In dealing with this particular bill in this way, the Labor Party government and those on the crossbench who are going to support them in this guillotine, effectively, are showing a disdain both for the process and, by association, for the people of Australia. You should not handle important issues this way. It may surprise a lot of people to learn that, contrary to the rhetoric from this Attorney-General and this government, the vast majority of AAT members have been appointed by the Labor Party. So, if they're criticising the members of the AAT, they're actually criticising a lot of their own appointees. It was a transparent process to appoint people to the AAT in that these things were very clear and part of publicly available information. Who are the kinds of people that are apparently being targeted to be purged from the AAT? It's people with master's degrees, people who have been attorneys-general themselves, people with doctorates of law, people with significant qualifications from university and people with significant experience of life as a whole but also significant legal experience. It is ridiculous to say that, in any way, the appointments have not been worthy. The AAT plays a very important role and is something that we should tinker with with great care. So, when we see a billion dollars being spent, with one word in the name 'AAT' being changed, we have to be, rightly, a little bit cynical about what the motives are. Is it just to get rid of a few people that the Labor Party don't like in that particular organisation? If so, I think that is to the great shame of this government and to the great shame of the Attorney-General. There are three bills here. They abolish a system that provides merits review across the entire Commonwealth statute book and reaches into virtually all portfolios. We're now looking at 692 pages of new primary legislation, with 760 pages of explanatory materials. What has been rushed before this chamber is a package establishing an entirely new administrative review body, plus 33 schedules of amending legislation. These changes literally affect hundreds of Commonwealth acts. It is complex legislation, the impacts of which cannot be known at this point. They cannot. It is simply impossible to know, when you're dealing with legislative change of this nature, the unintended consequences. And, therefore, the potential for negative flow-on effects on the 67,000 cases that are currently on foot could be extraordinary—67,000 cases. That would be hundreds of thousands of individual Australians potentially impacted in a negative way by these changes. And yet we have had just six hours and 55 minutes of committee hearing, per the program set, of course, by the government—not even one working day for an average working Australian. That it's all the scrutiny there has been for a bill which potentially impacts 67,000 cases, hundreds and thousands of individual Australians, and a significant part of our machinery of government that ensures that administrative decisions are fair to all Australians. One working day—that gives committee members about 40 seconds per page to look at the legislation. The number of cases at the AAT right now is greater than the number of seconds this Labor dominated committee spent examining the legislation. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal itself had just a 40-minute hearing in front of that committee. That's 40 minutes of evidence from the body that is being wound up, to be replaced by an unknown body—again, potentially affecting 67,000 cases and hundreds of thousands of Australians who are seeking redress through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. That is not good process. I think it's shameful for those on the crossbench who are holier than thou, who claim to be whiter than white, who claim to be purer than the driven snow on issues of probity and process, to have facilitated the truncation, or the abandonment, effectively, of the inquiry—the truncation of any serious consideration that the committee system could give this legislation, taking it on faith that the Attorney-General has got this right, when, on the face of the legislation itself, he hasn't got it right. He's already had to amend his own legislation. The flaws are there to see, but they're only the flaws that the Attorney-General's Department themselves picked up, or perhaps they were informed of them by a third party. How many more errors are embedded in this legislation that have not yet been picked up because we haven't had a proper committee process? Now we're debating these measures two months earlier than we should have been, no doubt with a view to passing them through this place. Clearly some sort of deal has been done, otherwise we wouldn't be here talking about this tonight. Somewhere, somehow, behind closed doors, untransparent to anyone in this room—certainly anyone on this side in this room—a deal has been done. We don't know what the content of that deal is. We don't know what has been agreed. We certainly can't be sure that this legislation has had adequate scrutiny, because we know it hasn't. Again, we know that this legislation is not right. One of the bills is the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 2) Bill, which actually makes changes to the ART Bill itself. There is an entire schedule, schedule 16, which makes changes to the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill. It was introduced before the primary bill had even been debated in the House. That's how well the Attorney-General nailed down this legislation before bringing it to this parliament. Before the primary bill was even introduced, an amendment—an entire bill of amendments in fact—had to be introduced as well. Two months after introducing the primary legislation, before a single committee hearing had taken place, he realised there were problems with the bill and introduced a whole suite of changes. These changes did not go to a minor, inconsequential issue. They concern the way the tribunal would deal with preventative detention orders in terrorism cases. The Attorney-General was admitting to major problems with his own legislation. He was telling us through his actions, because of course he is never willing to publicly admit these things, that the ART Bill was flawed and needed to be changed. That is why scrutiny is so important. I've got up in this place many times and talked about the importance of the committee process and the importance of the scrutiny role of the Senate in particular with regard to government legislation. It is something that is vitally important, so to see it now being truncated by Labor in alliance with others is I think very telling as to what the priorities of both this government and those of the crossbench are. I think when they say they believe in openness, transparency and proper consideration we all now know how thin, how weak, how pathetic those words really are, because here, where we've got something of such import to the Australian people, we are dispensing with the committee process. We're putting it to one side and saying: 'No, we're just going to stop doing that. A deal has been done behind closed doors. Let's pass the legislation.' I think that's a great shame on this place and I would ask those who are going to do that to reconsider. Allow the committee process to continue its work, allow it to complete its inquiry properly, and then let's come back here and debate this bill properly. 19:14 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales I come to this debate—well, it's not a debate but a fait accompli, with the deal having been done, clearly, with those sitting at the end of the chamber—as someone who has been a member of the AAT. I think I'm probably one of the few people in here that can say that I actually know the AAT. I had a brief stint there. For those that played along at home during the constitutional crisis, the ruling impacted me. When Fiona Nash left the Senate and I was the next on the ticket and should have entered the Senate, that went to the High Court. The High Court ruled that the election had never ended and that I held an office of profit under the Crown at the tribunal and was therefore ineligible to enter the Senate. So I have firsthand experience of the AAT and the work it does. I can proudly say I've worked in the migration area. Not one of the decisions that I made and not one of the outcomes of the cases that I sat on and adjudicated over were appealed. That's actually one of the KPIs of the AAT—that it's not seeing excessive numbers of appeals of the decisions made by members and that the decisions are made on sound and solid grounds. I can proudly say I didn't have any appeals on my record. But I do, just in light of this, want to make mention of someone else. I'm not sure if he's still at the tribunal; he very well may be. He was appointed by then Attorney-General George Brandis at the same time as me. He was a lovely man. I actually sat with him at the dinner we had to welcome new members to the tribunal when we were going through tribunal school. That was a man called Mark Bishop. Mark was a Labor senator who had then been appointed to the tribunal by the Liberal Attorney-General George Brandis because Mark did have, as a former senator, a number of skills that would provide value. I'm sure he has provided value to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The difference is that we see that—and I note from Senator Davey's contribution when she looked at the discrimination act and how it behaves in the Public Service as well and what's actually discriminatory behaviour—the current Attorney-General might need to update himself on discrimination because it is actually a form of discrimination to penalise someone based on political affiliation. What we are seeing here is a cosy deal done with the Greens; otherwise, the day after the budget, we wouldn't be seeing a change of hours for them to just ram through $1 billion worth of spending on an administrative tribunal which is actually not changing it. It's a rebrand so that they can restructure and move out everyone that they did not appoint, outside of the 160 Labor affiliated appointments that the government have made since coming to office, so that they can effectively discriminate against anybody who does not have card-carrying membership of the Labor Party. Maybe the Greens want a couple of their own. Maybe that's part of their deal. It is the most disgusting and disgraceful abuse of power. But, I have to say, I am not shocked, which is disappointing. We have come to expect, in record time from this government, nothing less than completely hypocritical behaviour and a lack of transparency, and now we can add a good healthy dose of nepotism. I will talk a little bit more about the specifics, for those playing along at home, of what the difference is going to look like and what spending $1 billion on a rebrand is going to look like. It's got to be the fastest time a government has delivered a budget and then hasn't wanted to talk about it. It's literally not even been 24 hours since the budget, and they've urgently said, 'Quick—we can pass this legislation,' about the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. I've seen the headlines evolve throughout the day, and this budget has gone down like a lead balloon. Australians can see it for the stinker that it is. They know it's absolutely going to make their lives harder. They know about this rubbish they've gone on with about 'every household'. I do not know if everyone's caught up on question time in the House of Representatives today, but there was a fantastic question from the Manager of Opposition Business, the member for Bradfield. He asked, in a hypothetical question, whether someone who had to move from, say, Bellevue Hill to Parramatta for work and owned a substantial number of properties, including, say, a $12 million beach house at Palm Beach, would receive $300 per household for each of those properties. There is actually a list in the Daily Telegraph of how many homes all members of this place and the other place own. It was a fair question on 'per household'. If you have a couple of households, are you getting it a couple of times? Coming back, this is a billion dollars on a rebrand. I thought I'd just have a look at some of the things we could spend a billion dollars on rather than a new logo, business card and letterhead—and, I'm assuming, some redundancy payments for anyone who's ever been affiliated with the Liberal Party. We won't see the Greens here because of their level of hypocrisy. I want to say that if they didn't have double standards they wouldn't have any at all. Let's think about infrastructure development. We have Senator Allman-Payne, who is very passionate about public schools, schooling and education. Just think of how many public schools could be refurbished or hospitals updated in our under-served areas. Look at the ageing water and sewerage systems and how much public health and sanitation could be improved. Rail connections and even—I don't know—a road from the new airport in Western Sydney might be part of that equation. Senator HUGHES 273828 They could have some EV charging points! Just think how many, Senator O'Sullivan, EV charging stations could be put across this land! You know what? They could even put some good cappuccino makers there so you could make yourself a coffee while your car charges for 3½ hours! Seriously, we could establish new community health centres in rural and remote areas. We could invest in medical research and develop treatments for diseases like Alzheimer's and dementia. We could expand mental health. We know we had a tokenistic mention of mental health in the budget last night while this country is consumed by a mental health crisis made worse by Labor's homegrown inflation and cost-of-living crisis. But we get a tokenistic app being developed for mental health. Just think what a billion dollars could do for mental health, especially at the moderate-to-severe end of mental illness. We could have new technology going into every classroom across the county and enhance digital learning for students, particularly those in rural and remote areas and those who struggle with connection at the moment. We could update those sorts of systems for them. We could fund scholarships for low-income families to go to university or vocational training. We could help Indigenous rural and regional children attend boarding schools that would provide them with secure housing, food and education and really set them on a path to a better life. Look at what we could do in adult education. We have more migrants in this country than ever before, but imagine the programs we could put in place to help them learn English and understand Australian culture. We hear a lot about homelessness, affordable housing and how people are struggling to get into homes. What could a billion dollars do? How many houses could a billion dollars build? What could we build for a billion dollars? How many low-interest loans could we offer to first-time homebuyers to help them break into the housing market with a billion dollars? These guys are all about energy efficiency. They love that. It's 'zero emissions', you know? 'We've got to make sure everyone has five stars on their appliances.' We could improve energy efficiency in many, many homes, particularly in lower-socioeconomic areas, so they wouldn't need to run their heaters full time in winter. They wouldn't require that volume of air conditioning because their houses would be insulated properly. But no—we're not looking at that. We're looking at a rebrand. Look at environmental conservatism. Think about the ecosystems that could benefit from some reforestation programs. We could even invest in working more effectively with the transmission lines that everyone is so determined to bulldoze through those communities. We could look at how to use plastics better. We could look at recycling. These are the things that we hear the Greens talk about, but, when it comes to a billion dollars for a rebrand, forget the recycling and the environment: 'We don't want any energy efficiency programs in any of these lower-socioeconomic groups. We don't want to work on any job creation programs.' Imagine spending a billion dollars on rural and regional areas and Indigenous communities to train them up. How much could a billion dollars do there? Senator McGrath 217241 A dam! Senator HUGHES 273828 Oh, God! A dam! How good would a dam or water security be! We could stop the flooding in the Hawkesbury that happens every 3½ minutes. Do you remember when Tim Flannery told us it was never going to rain again? Tell that to the people of the Hawkesbury who've been flooded out multiple times over the past couple of months. It's awesome! I thought social welfare programs were your bailiwick. But, clearly, they're not, because you're prepared to put a billion dollars into new business cards rather than look at food assistance programs in a cost-of-living crisis that could actually help families that are struggling. You could put breakfasts in schools in lower-socioeconomic areas where kids come to school with an empty tummy. You could make sure there are lunches in schools. I sponsor kids through the Smith Family. I try and help. You know those programs where you sponsor a kid in Africa? I always thought that, if there was some way you could help, homegrown, then you should help at home. I got a nice letter from the child that I am currently sponsoring. I've had a few, as they've graduated from school, and I get nice letters telling me where they've gone off to. One's learning to be a mechanic. I get a letter about what the money that I give has helped contribute to buying—uniforms, for example. It has helped contribute to buying schoolbooks. Senator McGrath 217241 A billion dollars! Senator HUGHES 273828 A billion dollars worth of schoolbooks or a billion dollars worth of uniforms could have been provided to struggling families and their children. But, no! Don't worry. We'll make sure we get both window-faced and plain envelopes ready to go, all with the new logo and proper font on them. What about disaster relief? There are all those things. It's the end of the world. There's actually never going to be a positive about climate change. When you think about more carbon and more water, it's pretty good for the forests of Australia. It's pretty lush and green out there at the moment. But we're going to have all these disasters, apparently. We could've had a billion dollars ready to go to a disaster relief fund. What about crime prevention? Indigenous communities and rural and regional communities are being ravaged, particularly by youth crime. We had a stabbing in Dubbo again last weekend. A billion dollars could be spent on youth crime initiatives. Senator McGrath 217241 Labor's soft on crime! Senator HUGHES 273828 They are soft on crime. There's no national security; let in anyone, willy-nilly. The boats are back. Christmas Island's coming back. This level of incompetence is breathtaking, but it is being aided and abetted by those on the crossbench who claim and profess to be about social justice. They say: 'We're all about the welfare of the lower socioeconomic groups; those struggling and those doing it tough. We care about koalas and whales. We worry about the environment.' No, you don't! You worry about whatever cosy deal you can get from the Labor Party and then you'll be in here crying tomorrow because, 'Oh my God, they want to use gas!' Seriously, get some consistency, people! Have some values on something and actually stand by them, rather than capitulating for a billion dollars. Do you know what we've got at the moment? We've got an Administrative Appeals Tribunal that reviews government decisions. After this, we're going to have an Administrative Appeals Tribunal called the ART, not the AAT. But we're going to have a tribunal that reviews government decisions. At the moment, Australians can apply at the AAT to have the merits of a decision reviewed. After this legislation, they get to apply—at a higher cost, mind you—to the ART. The one big difference is that, at the moment, we have a tribunal that has people appointed who have experience across range of different areas and issues. Instead, what we're going to have with the ART is a tribunal completely stacked with Labor apparatchiks— Senator McGrath 217241 Unions! Senator HUGHES 273828 The unions. They didn't get the promotion through the right executive of the union body. Senator McGrath 217241 They didn't become a senator. Senator HUGHES 273828 They didn't become a senator. We know that's the clear pathway if you're in the Labor party. It will be all Labor apparatchiks. It'll put an ideological bent on decisions that should be being made impartially and at a distance as they review government decisions. But, no! Here we go again. Ram it through, thanks to the Greens. (Time expired) 19:29 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Attorney-General Dreyfus, in his conduct since he's become Attorney-General, is making Lionel Murphy look like a half-decent first law officer. Let's look at his record since he's become Attorney-General. He holds the odious honour of becoming the first Attorney-General to be referred to the National Anti-Corruption Commission in relation to his conduct concerning Senator Reynolds. We all know the record of Lionel Murphy, and I think Attorney-General Dreyfus is following Lionel Murphy down that particular rabbit hole. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Order! It being 7.30, we will now move to adjournment. Senator McGrath, you will be in continuation. ADJOURNMENT 100 ADJOURNMENT Budget 100 19:30 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia We know that Australians are doing it tough. The cost-of-living pressures have been mounting for years, and this is not a crisis that has suddenly emerged. It didn't just erupt in the last five minutes, in the last year or even in the last two years. This is something that has been building, and our government's No. 1 priority is easing the cost-of-living pressures. The coalition's so-called policies to address the cost-of-living crisis fall short. The report released by Senator Hume as part of the Cost of Living Select Committee was woefully disappointing. At best, it was tinkering around the edges but had nothing brave or bold contained in it. Our budget, handed down last night, does. First, let's talk about tax cuts. From 1 July, every Australian taxpayer will get a tax cut. Now, that is going to actually make a fundamental, meaningful difference to the cost-of-living pressures that people are facing. When global energy prices soared, we took urgent action. We had our energy price relief plan which targeted relief to households and small businesses, placed a cap on coal and gas—directly lowering the wholesale energy prices—while consumer rebates helped more than five million households and one million small businesses. We're continuing this relief, and our announcement last night was that every Australian household will get $300 off their energy bill this year. Our transition to renewable energy is also lowering power prices, with record generation from grid-scale renewables and rooftop solar, contributing to this really positive trend. In the realm of housing, we're working to relieve the current pressure Australians are under, while also putting in place measures that are going to set us up for the future. Last night we announced the first consecutive increase to rent assistance in more than 30 years—more help for more Australians struggling to pay the bills. Our Help to Buy Scheme is levelling up the playing field for first home buyers. The fact is, we need more homes, more quickly and in more parts of the country. This is, without a doubt, connected deeply to the neglect—the wilful and disgraceful neglect—from the previous coalition government when it came to the future of housing in this country. We have an ambitious goal to build 1.2 million homes by the end of the decade, and we are putting in place the things we need to achieve that right now. We are delivering the biggest investment in social housing in more than a decade, to help us reduce homelessness. We're investing in fee-free TAFE and in VET places to ensure that we have the workforce to deliver these homes, because we've seen our education systems decline significantly over a disgraceful decade of the previous government. We're also boosting construction of rental housing through tax incentives and the build-to-rent sector. A major focus of our government has been on strengthening Medicare, reversing another area where there has been—you guessed it—a decade of neglect. Last year we tripled the bulk-billing incentive—the largest single investment into Medicare, ever—and since November there have a been over 954,000 additional bulk-billed GP visits. Australians now benefit from cheaper medicines through changes to the PBS, and 60-day dispensing. More than 27 million cheaper scripts have now been dispensed, saving Australians over $342 million. Now, we are freezing the maximum cost of the PBS medicines and adding more medicines to the PBS. This year and next year, no Australian will pay more than $31.60 for a prescription on the PBS, and no pensioner or concession card holder will pay more than $7.70 for the next five years. These are all areas where we've seen disgraceful neglect over a decade. These systems do not crumble overnight. They have crumbled over a decade of neglect, and those opposite should be ashamed. I commend the budget from last night, which is giving spectacular progress— (Time expired) People's Republic of China 101 19:35 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania I rise tonight to speak about the revelation that six Australian members of parliament and senators, myself included, were personally targeted by a PRC state sponsored hacking group. As members of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, we were targeted by this group specifically because we are members of this Australian parliament, from both major parties, who have been willing to speak out publicly about the Chinese Communist Party's human rights abuses, its coercive behaviour towards Australia and its growing and increasingly dangerous aggression. It isn't overly surprising the CCP and its army of hackers would target its critics in parliaments around the world, but what was staggering is that our own security and intelligence services were told we were targeted more than two years ago—but they never told us. We found out this month only after IPAC became aware following the unsealing of a US indictment against the hackers. The targeting of democratically elected parliamentarians in this cyberhack is clearly an attempt by an authoritarian regime to find new ways to manipulate our democratic processes. That's one of the many reasons it is unacceptable that parliamentarians weren't told when we were targeted. While we have since been assured this initial attempt wasn't successful in extracting any information, the nature of malicious cyberactivity is that hackers will probe defences for weaknesses until they find one. In the same week we were finally notified of the attempted hack of our emails, we learnt that a Chinese hack on Britain's Ministry of Defence had potentially exposed the personal details of 270,000 serving personnel. Nobody can assume that their systems are permanently immune from cyberattacks, and that's why anyone personally targeted should be told so that they can increase their guard against the next attempt. The behaviour of the Chinese government and its proxies is undoubtedly the single biggest security and foreign affairs challenge that our nation currently confronts. If we are going to be successful in this challenge, both parliamentarians and the voting public need to be given a clear and accurate picture of the Chinese government's pattern of behaviour. The withholding of information that Australian parliamentarians were personally targeted by state sponsored hackers clearly diminishes our ability to understand the real extent of the Chinese government's behaviour towards Australia. Since being appointed as shadow assistant minister for foreign affairs in 2022 I have written extensively about the risk of Australia falling into a Beijing-made myth that problems in the Australia-China relationship are the fault of Australia and that stabilisation requires the Australian government to moderate its language and refocus on the money that can be made from doing business with China. It's deeply concerning to see narratives manufactured in Beijing permeating Australian commentary and decision-making while things which should be spoken about in Australia go left unsaid. To a large extent we have been effectively coached by Beijing to view China through the extremely narrow prism of bilateral diplomatic exchanges and trade. In the last term of government the Chinese government chose to cut off ministerial dialogues with Australia and to implement a number of trade restrictions. In the intervening period the Chinese government has formed a no-limits partnership with Putin's Russia and supported its invasion of Ukraine; increased its aggression against the Philippines in the South China Sea; strengthened partnerships with North Korea and Iran; been responsible for a succession of highly dangerous military actions towards Australia, Canada and US defence personnel; and escalated its espionage and cyberattacks against Western nations. Despite these realities our government has chosen to focus heavily on trade and dialogue with China. For many Australian commentators and government ministers, pointing out the dangerous trajectory of the Chinese government's behaviour is considered uncouth and passe, and carefully scripted slogans like 'cooperate where we can, disagree where we must' are the diplomatic order of the day. By cutting off dialogue and restricting trade, just a few years later Beijing has successfully made trade and dialogue almost the only China related topics we are supposed to talk about in Australia. This month's dangerous action by a Chinese fighter jet against an Australian Navy helicopter and the Albanese government's lacklustre response to it show us the reality of the China situation much more clearly than carefully scripted diplomatic exchanges or red wine sales. In a democracy which plans to spend hundreds of billions over coming decades to prepare for that reality, Australians should be told the unvarnished truth by our government about the Chinese government's current trajectory. Animal Welfare 102 19:40 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Indifference to the welfare of greyhounds is part and parcel of the racing and gambling industry. Across the country, we see deaths and injuries on and off tracks and exposure to cruel surgical artificial insemination. We also see the rehoming crisis as the industry continues to breed more and more dogs. Labor and Liberal governments remain indifferent to animal cruelty and the corrosive effects of the gambling industry on society. The Northern Territory greyhound racing industry is no different. In 2021, an investigation into the Darwin Greyhound Association found that inadequate treatment of greyhounds was observed, particularly in relation to kennelling, as were unacceptably high rates of injury and euthanasia. One of the recommendations of the investigation was that a 'greyhounds as pets' system be set up with PAWS Darwin to rehome dogs. The disturbing allegations I have seen are in relation to this organisation. The Darwin Greyhound Association is aware of these allegations but, I understand, has done nothing to monitor the welfare of dogs that leave racing. PAWS Darwin accepts ex-racing greyhounds for rehoming from the Darwin Greyhound Association, which, I understand, provides $2,000 to $3,000 per dog for rehoming. I have seen terrible allegations of animal neglect at PAWS which have led to the departure of staff and volunteers. For example, I understand that greyhounds at PAWS sleep at night on raised wooden platforms, which are unsuitable for their thin skin and low body fat. In some cases, this practice causes skin sores on greyhounds. This lack of bedding can be seen in videos posted on the PAWS Facebook group. I've heard stories of dogs spending all staffed hours outside in the extreme heat in tropical Darwin, except during a storm. The entirely bitumen surface on which dogs spend their days heats up to extreme temperatures. Volunteers have reported having to carry greyhounds, which could no longer walk on the surface, back into their sleeping quarters. The sun shades that are meant to be protecting the surfaces have been torn down by other dogs. I've heard that almost every greyhound suffers some form of heat stress or exhaustion in PAWS Darwin. For one particular dog called Pepperberry, as a result of extreme heat stress, her trainer took her out of the shelter and back to his race kennels so that he could observe her and try to make sure she survived. This required significant intervention, including icing and being placed in an air-conditioned kennel. The video I have seen of Pepperberry shows her extremely distressed with her legs collapsing underneath her. It is also alleged that the PAWS facility is being used to sell pure-bred puppies. These puppies are sometimes housed in the only area with air conditioning at PAWS, which is supposed to be reserved for sick animals. I'm told that many greyhounds that enter PAWS Darwin lose weight. This is the opposite of what should be happening when a dog leaves the racing and gambling industry. I understand there was a tick nest in the training room at PAWS for several months. Despite PAWS management claiming that it had been cleaned out, volunteers saw tick infested puppies after this had supposedly taken place. There was also an outbreak late last year of E. canis with several dogs infected, and these dogs were housed alongside healthy dogs with nothing but wire mesh between them. I make this speech to urge the Northern Territory government to investigate the racing industry's rehoming programs. If PAWS is genuinely using the funding it receives and still has such terrible animal welfare outcomes, then there is clearly a problem. 'Out of sight, out of mind' won't cut it anymore. Ultimately, this all comes down to the greed of the Northern Territory government, who are interested only in betting revenue, not the welfare of these dogs. Ban this cruel industry once and for all. President, I seek leave to table some photographic evidence which has been supplied to my office. Leave not granted. Holocaust Remembrance Day, Antisemitism 103 19:44 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales In my hand, President, is a Jewish memorial candle, or, as it's called in Yiddish, a yahrzeit candle. It's usually lit on the anniversary of a loved one's passing, but, on Sunday 5 May, it was lit to commemorate all the victims of the Holocaust. Sunday 5 May marked Holocaust Remembrance Day, when the Jewish community joined with the world to commemorate the brutal murder and enslavement of the millions of Jewish people who were persecuted by the Nazis. It was on this day a few weeks ago that I attended two events in Sydney. The first event was organised by Youth Holocaust Education And Remembrance, an organisation created and managed by young people in the Australian Jewish community who are passionate about ensuring that 'never again' is never forgotten. The grandchildren and descendants of survivors of the Holocaust recounted the long history of persecution and suffering that the Jewish people have experienced, from Roman times, through the Spanish Inquisition and in Nazi Germany—indeed, right up until today. Survivor Egon Sonnenschein recounted his hardship in Nazi-controlled Croatia—a puppet Nazi state run by the brutal Ustashi, whose cruelty was on a par with the most abominable regimes of the past. Victims of the Ustashi's sadistic rule were impaled, burned alive, and tied together and then drowned. The brutalities and murders Egon witnessed remain ingrained in his memory to this day. His recounting of his remarkable journey of survival and hiding, however, did not finish there. Happily, he continued to go on and tell us how he rebuilt his life, marrying the love of his life and starting a business as a refugee. On the same evening of 5 May, I joined with the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies to mark this important day and also to commemorate the 80th anniversary of the Nazi invasion of Hungary and the mass deportation of Hungarian Jews. In a period of just eight weeks, over 420,000 Jews were deported from Hungary, with most ending in that infamous place Auschwitz, where they were gassed on arrival. I heard the incredible stories of Hungarian Holocaust survivors Barbara Grunstein, Joe Symon and Lilly Wolf. It was also harrowing to hear from the son of the Righteous Among the Nations, Per Anger. Jan Anger spoke of his father's efforts to use his role as a Swedish diplomat to grant protections and ultimately save the lives of many of Hungary's Jews. In those cruel times, one finds what the true kindness of humanity looks like. Antisemitism is something that I care deeply about. It is a repugnant, ancient evil that goes against every moral fibre of my being. On Tuesday morning, the United States' Deputy Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism gave a briefing to parliamentarians, on my invitation. We, as parliamentarians, must listen to the warnings of actions of hate that appear in the world, to educate and to eradicate xenophobia worldwide. The Holocaust was an important and horrifying lesson to the world. Yet, as I lit the candle on 5 May, I was still unsure if we have actually learned the lesson. Hate is a powerful motivator of some individuals. It exists in every workplace, in every political party and in every country. And the more inequity there is, the worst it gets. Hate is fed by inequity. Hate is fed by a failure to see our common humanity. What frightened me were my conversations with the young people of Jewish faith who spoke to me about their experiences of simply trying to attend their university—the names they were being called; the actions that were being taken. I believe in protest. I believe in the differences across our democracy. I do not believe in hate. I do not support or endorse antisemitism in any shape or form. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Neill, I remind you that, in the future, if you're bringing cultural artefacts in, you do need to clear it with the Presiding Officer. Antisemitism, Freedom of Speech 103 19:50 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I too rise to share the concern about the rise in antisemitism around the world, including here in Australia. I note, in the current context, where people are concerned about whether or not we're on track to a two-state solution, that this week—in fact 14 May—marks the anniversary of the independence, the establishment, of the State of Israel. This was the first attempt at a two-state solution, and the immediate reaction of the surrounding nation-states was to attack the people of Israel. So, when people say that history didn't begin on 7 October, they are absolutely correct: antisemitism is centuries old. We have seen, even through things like that action in 1948, the rejection by people about a state where Jewish people can live and feel secure. I reject all forms of antisemitism and the claims that the State of Israel is not legitimate. I also note today that on Federation Mall, opposite the Parliament House's forecourt, a tranche of signed postcards from concerned teachers, parents and students were delivered to Prime Minister Albanese. Those postcards call on the Prime Minister to honour his commitment to faith leaders that religious freedom protections 'will not go backwards while I am the Prime Minister of Australia'. These postcards were signed at sold-out town hall events in Brisbane, Sydney and Perth which were organised in response to the controversial recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission report into faith based schools. The concern of these parents and teachers is that, if these recommendations are accepted by the government, they would in effect prevent Christian schools—in fact any faith based schools, but this group was representing the Christian-school sector—from employing or preferencing the employment of people who share their faith and their values, people who can teach and model the faith and values of the school. The government has indicated that this is a report from the ALRC, that it's not government policy and that they will consider the advice of the report. The concerning part, though, is that, after the report had been tabled, the report's author, a justice of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Stephen Rothman, highlighted that, despite what the report says, religious employers at faith based schools need more legal protection in order to be able to adhere to their doctrines and to hire staff who share their values. He said that they need a religious discrimination bill that provides a positive right to hire staff based on their ethos. It was refreshing to see this comment, because I have followed this debate closely and I was somewhat concerned to see the ALRC report, which stands in stark contrast to the comments of the previous president of the ALRC, Justice Derrington, who found in response to a similar terms of reference, as she was speaking to a gathered group of academics and lawyers operating in this space, that faith based schools do not discriminate when they act in accordance with their ethos. So I found it hard to believe that the ALRC would come up with an almost diametrically opposed conclusion, saying that it was almost impossible to reconcile people adhering to their faith. But Justice Rothman went on to say that he was constrained by the terms of reference set by the Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus. He said: If there weren't the constraints associated with the report— the ALRC report— and you were looking at religious discrimination more generally, then they should have a positive right. That was from Justice Rothman. What he has identified is that the approach that the government has taken, which has not been transparent, has also been constrained, and it has lost all legitimacy in the eyes of the Australian people. (Time expired) Middle East: Protests 104 19:55 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia I too rise to speak about current events in Gaza and protests in our universities. Increasingly, we are seeing those who oppose the unfolding genocide in Gaza labelled antisemitic. There is no place for antisemitism in our society. History shows us that, over centuries, Jewish people have been discriminated against, driven from their homes and murdered. Many Australian families bear the long legacy and consequences of that history. As a teenager, my now ex-partner of 22 years, John Wishart, discovered that his mother was Jewish when she burst into Yiddish in an argument with her mother in their Sydney kitchen. Prior to that moment, John had no idea that his mother was Jewish, spoke Yiddish and had arrived on the wharves of Australia after a long, intergenerational, multicentury dispossession that began in the bloody streets of Minsk in 1905 in one of the many murderous pogroms that drove millions of Jews out of their homes in the centuries before the Holocaust. Selina and her mother did not feel safe to be Jewish in the Sydney of the 1940s when they arrived from Minsk via decades in Burma and India. All throughout their lives, Selina never willingly discussed her history or her Jewish identity, and this is not an uncommon experience. Today John, her son; and our kids, Jake and Indi—her grandchildren—are proud of their Jewish heritage. And they are all protesting against the carnage in Gaza. This week marks the 76th anniversary of the Nakba, the violent displacement, dispossession and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people—a human rights disaster on an astonishing scale, occurring with such speed and in plain sight of countries awash with human rights obligations, yet, like Australia, supplying arms to enable genocide. This is an historical witnessing that is an international first of appalling scale and horror. We see it every night in real time—a genocide viewed on iPhones for the whole world to see. We will never be able to say we did not know. We know that at least 35,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, 14,500 of them children. Like many others, I found it hard to celebrate Mother's Day this year, thinking of all those mothers in Gaza grieving for their children, trying to feed their children, while making their way—1.5 million of them—to safe ground, having been bombed out of their homes in the north and now in unsafe shelter in Rafah in the south. I took my first protest action in the streets of Adelaide in protest at the Vietnam War, a war that killed at least two million Vietnamese citizens and stole the homes and health of so many more. Our protests were right. We were accused, however, of wild radicalism, of violence on the streets and of betraying our country's interests. I've spent years of my life working in universities, and they must be places of protest and free speech and, at the same time, places where antisemitism has no place. History will judge us. It will judge the shutdown of the protests of students against genocide in Gaza. That is the true huge crime that we are witnessing right now: genocide. As my colleague Senator Mehreen Faruqi said yesterday morning, we should not feel threatened by university students registering their moral opposition to the State of Israel's genocide of Palestinians. We should instead be concerned about the genocide itself currently under way. I have no tolerance for antisemitism, but I add my voice to those who support the actions of students who have the courage, integrity and humanity to peacefully protest against this genocide. The Australian government should take their example and acknowledge that the State of Israel's genocidal campaign has no end in sight, with expansion of its military operation in Gaza. We should expel the State of Israel's ambassador and sanction Prime Minister Netanyahu and his war cabinet. We should end the two-way military trade with the State of Israel and call for a permanent ceasefire and an end to the occupation of Palestine. The history of genocide hangs heavily over humanity. We should remember all of that history and we should stand up for students' right to protest as we reject the poison of antisemitism and insist that protesting against the horrors of Gaza does not make anyone antisemitic. (Time expired) Senate adjourned at 20:00