2024-05-16 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Thursday, 16 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 meeting is authorised. BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Rearrangement 1 09:01 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That the consideration of private senators' bills not be proceeded with today. Question agreed to. BILLS 1 BILLS Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023 1

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

Second Reading 1 09:02 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales To continue with my contribution to the debate on the Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023, the review, led by Professor John McMillan, was completed last year. The Human Rights Law Centre, in its submission to that review, said: Compliance with the mandatory reporting criteria remains patchy … the quality of reporting … remains poor … many companies are still not identifying obvious modern slavery risks in their supply chains or taking meaningful action to address them. Professor McMillan said, in his final report: A widely endorsed view in the consultations for this review is that there is no hard evidence that the Modern Slavery Act … has yet caused meaningful change for people living in conditions of modern slavery. In Australia, temporary migrants are also particularly vulnerable to modern slavery. The Australian Council of Trade Unions has pointed out that the drivers of exploitation include insecurity due to temporary visa status and visa arrangements that tie workers to their employers. Through the Senate Select Committee on Job Security in the last parliament, I heard firsthand from temporary migrants who had been subjected to slavery or slavery-like conditions. Kate, an agricultural worker from Taiwan, told us about how she took a job picking oranges for $25 per bucket. When she arrived on the farm, she was told that a bucket is 800 kilograms worth of oranges. She said, 'There's no room for negotiation.' She went on to say: I was very afraid of getting issues when I needed to renew my visa. I was afraid that reporting my condition and making a complaint to the government would risk my new visa application. We also heard from a number of workers from Vanuatu and Samoa, who courageously told us about their exploitation on farms in Victoria and Queensland. They were earning as little as $2.50 an hour while living in slum conditions leased to them by the labour hire company at an exorbitant rate. These workers were people such are Sergio, a Vanuatuan man. He'd come here to pick grapes. He told us, 'I came here to work for money. I did not come here as a slave.' Of course, we heard from highly respected Australian missionaries Geoff and Jane Smith, who are charity workers in Bundaberg. Their home was subject to a dawn raid by nine Australian Border Force troopers because they were suspected of aiding migrant workers who had fled from slavelike conditions. As Jane told the inquiry, 'I was in bed asleep and I heard a shuffle past my bedroom window. Next minute, I get up and all these police are in my house and they said, "We've come here to raid your house."' At the same time, the former minister for home affairs, Mr Dutton—now the opposition leader—was plastering farming regions with posters warning workers that if they absconded they would be deported and bring shame on their families. While Mr Dutton was threatening these workers with deportation, 45 workers on the Pacific Labour Mobility Scheme died at work, many of whom had visas tied directly to their employer, meaning they had no way of leaving an unsafe or deadly work environment. That's the system of those opposite—a protection racket for the very worst employers in our country. This is a very serious matter we're considering today. We've already made urgent changes to our workplace laws to make it illegal for businesses to threaten their employees on the basis of their visa status. We've amended migration laws to introduce new visa protections for migrants exploited at work. We've decriminalised undocumented work by migrant workers and established criminal offences for employers who exploit workers. Where Mr Dutton threatened people escaping slavery with deportation and shame, we are making it safer and easier for people to come forward. This bill and the review of the Modern Slavery Act are in addition to the changes we have already made to our workplace and migration laws. The McMillan review of the act made 30 recommendations, which the government is in the process of responding to. Several of the recommendations relate to the Anti-Slavery Commissioner, which the bill establishes. The commissioner will have functions, including to engage and support victims and survivors of modern slavery, to promote compliance with the Modern Slavery Act and to support businesses to address risks of modern slavery practices in their operations and supply chains. We've been calling for an antislavery commissioner since 2017, so this is an important step forward. It should be viewed in the context of the work that is being done, and is ongoing, in the review of the act and in migration and workplace laws more generally. It's also clear that more needs to be done. As a broad range of groups have noted, the existing Modern Slavery Act has failed. As the ACTU said in its submission to the review of the act: … the primary measure of the impact of the MSA must be whether it is working to eliminate modern slavery … On this measure, it is clear the MSA is not succeeding. The 'transparency framework' approach of the MSA is not an effective strategy for addressing modern slavery. It is based on the flawed assumption that reporting alone will improve business practices— and as they— compete for funding and consumer support … 'businesses that fail to take action will be penalised by the market' … Oh, my God, that's out of date, isn't it? Leaving things up to the market to take care of has rarely, if ever, actually worked. What a ludicrous way to approach a serious issue—where the slave owners and those profiteering from slavery are actually going to turn around and self-regulate. What a novel approach. A review by the Human Rights Law Centre, the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, Baptist World Aid, the UNSW Human Rights Institute, the University of Western Australia and the University of Notre Dame looked at how this transparency framework was working. They reviewed the modern slavery statements of 102 companies in high-risk sectors, including companies supplying garments sourced from China, rubber gloves sourced from Malaysia, seafood from Thailand and horticulture in Australia, and found that less than half actually identified and disclosed modern slavery risks. For example, three in four companies sourcing garments from China failed to mention the risk of Uighur forced labour in their supply chains. That is an extraordinary failure. Even taking ASX 200 companies, who should be best placed and resourced to enact the previous government's approach, a 2021 review found that a third of ASX 200 companies' modern slavery statements were noncompliant with the act. How's that for market forces when even the highest profile public companies in the country are thumbing the nose? If a third of the biggest public companies in Australia aren't compliant, what hope do we have for everyone else? It's clear that the act is not being taken seriously in the absence of real legal obligations, real penalties for noncompliance and real enforcement mechanisms. But that was the whole point of the previous government's approach to modern slavery: to give the appearance of taking it seriously while allowing slavers to profiteer. That's why the McMillan review called for the establishment of due diligence obligations for businesses and for penalties for noncompliance. I look forward to the Attorney-General's response to this review, noting his long-held concerns about the inadequacy of the act as it is currently drafted. I also note that a wide range of stakeholders and submissions on the bill call for the commissioner to also be equipped with investigative and enforcement powers. As the Human Rights Law Centre said in its submission: … it is critical that the Commissioner be empowered to help monitor and enforce compliance with the Act … receive and handle complaints and undertake investigations regarding suspected instances of modern slavery. The McMillan review also recommended new powers to support compliance with the act, and this should also be considered as part of the government's response. I note that the government's amendments to this bill, arriving from the Senate inquiry, clarify that the commissioner is able to refer matters for investigation to relevant agencies, including law enforcement agencies. Finally, I want to express disappointment at the views expressed by some business groups on the review of the Modern Slavery Act. Slavery exists at the extreme end of the spectrum of workplace exploitation. This government has made sweeping, substantial changes to grow wages, improve job security and eliminate exploitation at work. At every juncture, groups like the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry have opposed those reforms. The chamber of commerce made similar comments to the modern slavery review, saying: Significant cultural change is needed … to recognise this as an issue for many businesses … Forced efforts will drive forced behaviours … … a more compliance driven approach will drive compliance based, blinkered approaches … That's a bit of a clanger, isn't it? The chamber of commerce is telling victims of slavery that they should just wait and hope that businesses will do the right thing. I think it's time to hold businesses to account for slavery in their supply chains, and this bill is an important step forward. 09:13 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I greatly admire Senator Sheldon's passion and advocacy in this area; however, there are some important points to note here. This is not just a question of business being expected to address, especially, offshore modern slavery. There are real practical issues in terms of business considering these issues and taking steps. The best approach is a team approach between government and business. In response to Senator Sheldon's comments, I want to read from a paper from the NSW Anti-slavery Commissioner, Dr James Cockayne, who gave some extremely good evidence to our inquiry in relation to modern antislavery measures. He spoke about the People's Republic of China's response in relation to Western companies trying to deal with the issue of modern slavery within Xinjiang. This is how the People's Republic of China has responded, in the words of Dr James Cockayne: Western efforts to call out human rights abuses in Xinjiang, and to regulate supply-chains passing through Xinjiang, have been met by a furious backlash from Beijing, with many components: a full-court media and diplomatic push, describing the allegation as the "lie of the century"; the adoption of an Anti-Sanctions Law that criminalizes— Just reflect on this: 'criminalises'— cooperation with foreign supply chain due diligence efforts … So the People's Republic of China has introduced a law which would criminalise a company based in the People's Republic of China cooperating with a Western company, a company in Australia or a company in the United States, trying to carry out due diligence in relation to supply chains. Third: harassment and intimidation of auditors and raids on auditing firms … That is, firms trying to carry out the due diligence, which legislative regimes like this require, being raided. Fourth: government-stoked online vitriol against campaigners, including several leading Australian researchers … Fifth: organised government boycotts and administrative harassment of Western retail brands operating in China, including major players such as H&M, Walmart and Intel. These are the practical issues facing Australian businesses when they are seeking to undertake due diligence with respect to modern slavery issues in Xinjiang within the People's Republic of China. These are real issues. This is not just a question of business being held to account, as it should be held to account, with respect to this issue. It needs support from government, because there is very strong pushback from certain international players who don't like it when companies outside their jurisdiction undertake due diligence with respect to these issues. So this issue needs to be considered in that context. Firstly I would like to sincerely acknowledge the work of the Attorney-General's Department with respect to this legislation. I think the effort that they've put into the legislation and also their cooperation with the inquiry was first class. The staff of the department should be complimented on that. I would also like to thank all the witnesses, especially from non-government organisations, who participated in the inquiry, including Dr James Cockayne, the New South Wales Anti-slavery Commissioner, who gave very good evidence. Also I want to acknowledge victims-survivors of modern slavery, who need to be kept at the centre of these reforms. I am very pleased that the government has adopted amendments to this legislation. I genuinely believe it improves the legislation and I commend the government for introducing amendments to the legislation. I will speak in relation to one of those amendments shortly. The coalition's record with respect to anti modern slavery measures should be considered, especially given the comments of Senator Sheldon. It was a coalition government that first introduced slavery offences into Australia's Criminal Code in 1999. It was a coalition government that in 2018 passed Australia's Modern Slavery Act. We are building on that act today through this legislation. It was a coalition government that first introduced the Modern Slavery Act which is being amended today. That needs to be recognised as well. That act shone a bright light on slavery risks in international supply chains. Lastly, it was a coalition government that developed the national action plan to combat human trafficking and slavery from 2015 to 2019 and the subsequent plan between 2020 and 2025. If you want an international perspective with respect to the quality of our laws in this space compared with those of our international partners, you can do no better than refer to the comments of Mr Hyland, who gave evidence to our inquiry. He was the first modern antislavery commissioner in the world, appointed under the government of the United Kingdom. This is what he said about our laws: 'Currently, Australia is leading in creating transparency of modern slavery in supply chains.' So we're coming from a pretty strong base, a pretty strong foundation, which builds on the work of both sides of politics, and I think that should be generally recognised. For me, this is not a partisan issue. This should be dealt with on a non-partisan basis because I think we're all interested in making sure that people aren't the victims of modern slavery within our borders or outside of our borders. Mr Hyland's comments were provided in response to a question on notice I put to him with respect to my deep concern about the definition of 'sensitive information' in the bill and how that would operate to potentially prevent the modern Anti-Slavery Commissioner from being able to discuss issues of great importance with respect to modern slavery in international jurisdictions. The concern there was that the original definition talked about the modern Anti-Slavery Commissioner not being able to include in the annual report or the strategic plan anything which 'would or might prejudice international relations'. I was deeply concerned that the operation of that definition would mean that issues such as those occurring in Xinjiang could simply not be included in an annual report or a strategic plan due to the pushback from the People's Republic of China. However, an amendment has been made to that definition of 'sensitive information'. It is a very good amendment, and I'm very pleased that that amendment has been made because I think it genuinely enhances the legislation. I want to make some comments with respect to the position in Xinjiang, and these are included in my additional comments in the committee report: On 31 August 2022, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights … issued: OHCHR assessment of human rights concerns in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, People's Republic of China. This is what they found: In summary, there are indications that labour and employment schemes … appear to be discriminatory in nature or effect and to involve elements of coercion, requiring transparent clarification by Government. Serious human rights violations have been committed in XUAR— the Xinjiang region— in the context of the Government's application of counter-terrorism and counter extremism strategies. The implementation of these strategies, and associated policies in XUAR has led to interlocking patterns of severe and undue restrictions on a wide range of human rights. These patterns of restrictions are characterised by a discriminatory component, as the underlying acts often directly or indirectly affect Uyghur and other predominantly Muslim communities. Similarly, there are indications that labour and employment schemes for purported purposes of poverty alleviation and prevention of 'extremism' … may involve elements of coercion and discrimination on religious and ethnic grounds. The recommendation to the business community was this: … that it … Takes all possible measures to meet the responsibility to respect human rights across activities and business relationships … including through enhanced human rights due diligence, and report on this transparently. How did the People's Republic of China respond to that conclusion by the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights? This is what they said: … Based on the disinformation and lies fabricated from anti-China forces and out of presumption of guilt, the so-called 'assessment' distorts China's laws and policies, wantonly smears and slanders China, and interferes in China's internal affairs … It's in that context that we're dealing with the issue of modern slavery in overseas jurisdictions, where some of those jurisdictions push back hard and, as Dr James Cockayne said, use things such as media, diplomacy and an anti-sanctions law adopted in the People's Republic of China that 'criminalises cooperation with foreign supply chain due diligence' ealing with this issue requires moral courage on the part of not only businesses but also government, and it requires cooperation between business and government. Business cannot be expected to deal with these issues alone, especially when dealing with certain overseas jurisdictions. They require the support of government, which is one of the reasons why I'm very pleased with the amendments which are being made to this legislation. Lastly, I want to return to one of the introductory points I made, and that is that victims-survivors of modern slavery must be kept central in our consideration of these matters. They must be at the centre of everything we do in this place in relation to these issues. When we're considering legislation in this space, we need to consider how the legislation will impact on victims-survivors. Again, there are some very pleasing amendments which are being made to the bill in that regard, including requiring the commissioner to engage with victims of modern slavery to 'inform and support' them with respect to the performance of the functions and including a principal objective in the strategic plan which sets out the objectives of the Anti-Slavery Commissioner to make 'guidance material publicly available to support victims of modern slavery'. That is welcome. It's about keeping the victims-survivors of modern slavery at the centre of our consideration of these matters. In continuing that theme, I want to end my contribution—I probably should have started and ended my contribution with this, but at least I'll end with it—by paying tribute to one of those victims-survivors, Mr Moe Turaga, who actually appeared before the committee and gave evidence to the committee. He is a survivor and now a consultant in relation to these matters. After being a victim-survivor, he has now become an advocate, helping other people in this situation, and also a consultant. He appeared with the Australian Catholic Anti-Slavery Network, and I compliment them on their work in this space. I want to end my contribution with his words, the words of a victim-survivor: My strongest advice is for an explicit commitment in the bill to put survivors and our concerns at the centre of the commissioner's work. I believe the amendments made to the bill do that, and I would like to sincerely thank Mr Moe Turaga for his advocacy, for his testimony and for all the work he does in the space. Similarly, I compliment various outstanding non-government organisations on all the work they are also doing in this space to try our best to eliminate modern slavery in Australia's supply chains. 09:28 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I rise on behalf of the Greens to indicate we will be supporting the Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023, but, in doing so, we seek to amend and improve it in order to rise to the challenge that is modern slavery. I want to acknowledge the comments of previous speakers, and I particularly want to acknowledge the significant work of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee—the chair, deputy chair Senator Scarr and other members of that committee—in discussing with stakeholders the necessary improvements to the bill and looking at the significant gaps in the legislation as proposed, because the question that this bill and the inquiry that we had were meant to answer was this: what would it take to make laws that actually stop Australia and Australians participating in modern slavery, and not just in Australia but in increasingly global supply chains? The report of the committee addresses a number of significant issues that stakeholders raised, and, while the recommendations that come from that are useful, they are modest. They've been included now in a series of amendments that the government is proposing to the bill to improve the system, but they didn't include a number of critical measures that were raised by stakeholders to make this bill actually rise to the challenge of trying to stamp out modern slavery in this country and around the world. For example, the bill does not provide the Anti-Slavery Commissioner with genuine independence by permitting them, when they're appointed, to provide advice and reporting directly to both the minister and parliament, and the bill does not provide for a multipartisan, joint oversight committee. They are elements you would include if you wanted a genuinely independent and empowered Anti-Slavery Commissioner. The bill as initially drafted does not ensure that the Anti-Slavery Commissioner's work is informed by and led by the experience of victims-survivors, and it doesn't have a statutory reference and support panel. There are very modest amendments being proposed by the government, but they go nowhere near providing the kind of reference point and grounding in the experience of victims-survivors that, for example, the New South Wales legislation provides. It's inexplicable to the Greens why the government isn't willing to entrench those kinds of provisions more firmly in the legislation. The legislation does not provide the Anti-Slavery Commissioner with the strong compliance powers needed to monitor and enforce compliance by corporate Australia and, indeed, require the Commonwealth to lodge full and complete modern slavery statements, and it's inexplicable why it doesn't. We've heard the evidence from the inquiry that significant elements of corporate Australia treat the provision of modern slavery statements as a tick-and-flick exercise because they know that there's no stick. There's no compliance stick if they fail to do their reporting or if they do it in a way that is derisory. Why not give the Anti-Slavery Commissioner the power to enforce compliance? I think one of the issues that is going to arise from day one of the establishment of this office is that it will not meet the expectations of victims and survivors that the Anti-Slavery Commissioner will be able to seriously help them—that the commissioner will, first of all, have sufficient investigative powers to inquire into matters when a victim-survivor comes forward and says, 'I was the victim of modern slavery,' either the victim perhaps of an exploitative industry in Australia—and it does happen—or, as we've seen on multiple occasions, the victim of an exploitative industry in a foreign country. This bill gives the Anti-Slavery Commissioner no power to even do preliminary investigations to understand the likelihood and the veracity of those complaints in order to inform industry and government as to how to respond, let alone to identify other victims-survivors who they could reach out to and help. They have no investigative powers. Stakeholders and the Greens don't believe the Anti-Slavery Commissioner's investigative powers should replicate the functions of police, but they should allow the Anti-Slavery Commissioner to respond to complaints of modern slavery, to do adequate investigations and to refer matters off where needed. What we get from the government is that there will be memorandums of understanding. They are not investigative powers. Stakeholders also made it clear that the Anti-Slavery Commissioner's proposed existing functions—even the very modest existing functions—cannot be adequately exercised with the proposed $2 million annual budget. And it wasn't just one stakeholder who said that; it was every single engaged stakeholder—every single one of them. Yet we look again in this year's budget, and that's what we see for the Anti-Slavery Commissioner. By way of perspective, the evidence before the committee was that this is a budget that's significantly less than is provided to the New South Wales Anti-Slavery Commissioner. Of course, the federal office will have a far greater remit than that important state equivalent. How can the government pass legislation and say that they're doing generational reform and seriously addressing modern slavery when they're establishing a federal regulator which has a fraction of the budget of its state equivalent and when much of this is going to be involved with assessing Australia's international trade connections? How can the Albanese Labor government seriously say that they're committed to addressing modern slavery when they are giving the federal regulator a fraction of what the state equivalent is being provided with? I note that, following the work of the committee—and I particularly want to acknowledge the work of Senator Scarr in this regard—there are useful recommendations designed to deal with the narrowing of the definition of sensitive information that will be withheld, and, as I said, there are some modest but useful recommendations to require the commissioner to respond to those with lived experience, though they are well below the standard set by the New South Wales example. The reason I'm familiar with the New South Wales example is that I was a member of the parliament and of the two committees that reviewed the New South Wales legislation. It was initially a private member's bill that was moved in New South Wales, which was agreed to by the then government, but then the then government refused to implement it. It took a further two years of arm wrestling and wrangling with opposition from parts of corporate Australia to finally get the New South Wales legislation up and running and implemented. Every step of the way there was corporate resistance and, indeed, political resistance. It is a terrible missed opportunity for this federal legislation to not even meet the standards of the existing New South Wales legislation—to fall below that on critical elements. A lack of investigative powers, a lack of engagement with those of lived experience and a lack of funding stand out as highlights for what a tepid response this is from the Albanese Labor government. To be clear, for the Anti-Slavery Commissioner to be able to deliver on the public mandate that will inevitably travel with that position, it needs to be able to take an active role in the identification and penalisation of modern slavery, and there's none of that in this bill. Having a body that provides victim-survivors with brochures on where they can go to seek justice or assistance, and otherwise just reviews and comments on government and corporate modern slavery statements, does not deliver on the promise that was made by the Albanese government first when it was in opposition and now that it's in government. To be clear, the Anti-Slavery Commissioner needs the backing of a commission to be able to undertake the full scope of expected work. There is no question that a standalone commissioner with a budget of around $2 million a year will be unable to discharge the duties required, even under this scheme, as the ACTU made clear during the public inquiry. It said: We're also concerned about the small budget that the commissioner is being provided with—just $8 million over four years and $2 million a year ongoing. We're proposing that it be increased to enable it to effectively carry out its standard functions and be sufficient to deal with the scale and severity of the scourge of modern slavery. Dr James Cockayne, the New South Wales Anti-slavery Commissioner, told the committee: On the second question of whether there is a role for the New South Wales parliament's Modern Slavery Committee to discuss resourcing, yes, there is, and I do speak with them about that. I've raised on the record with them several times that my own budgetary allocation, which is currently out of the Department of Communities and Justice's own resources and which I note is larger than $2 million, which raises its own questions of why a federal commissioner would have a smaller allocation than an individual state. I believe that the allocation I receive is inadequate to allow me effectively to discharge my statutory functions at the New South Wales level. There was a bucketload of this compelling evidence that leads to only one conclusion: the proposed budget for the federal Anti-Slavery Commissioner is manifestly inadequate. There should be an independent budget process and an adequate budget to ensure that the commissioner receives the funding that it needs. That would best be done if it were overseen by a joint parliamentary committee that reflected the make-up of this whole parliament, not one dominated by the government, which have indicated from day one that they want to strangle this office of the funding that's needed. On enforcement powers, there are real concerns that, if the commissioner does not have sufficient powers to directly levy penalties, then it will be essentially toothless. As a minimum, there should be penalties available for the failure of government agencies or corporate Australia to meet the reporting requirements on modern slavery. The Anti-Slavery Commissioner should also have the necessary power to compel the production of documents, records and other evidence where the Anti-Slavery Commissioner has reasonable grounds to expect there has been such a failure. But, for reasons that are not explained other than by saying, 'Computer says no,' none of those powers have been given to the modern slavery commissioner. It would be a serious mistake on the part of the Albanese government to create this position and then limit it in large part to referring victims and survivors of modern slavery off to other agencies and otherwise just writing letters and reports identifying modern slavery. This model will fail to deliver on the mandate for the commissioner, and we will inevitably have to come back and significantly reform it. On the question of investigative powers, the Human Rights Law Centre told the committee: … in our view, the commissioner should not merely be a first point of contact; they should also be able to initiate their own investigations and inquiries. In order to promote compliance with the act, for example, the commissioner will need to be able to investigate companies that they believe to be providing misleading statements under the act. The office may also need to investigate particular high-risk sectors with a view to exposing bad systemic practices in order to better inform efforts to address modern slavery. These functions would not be intended to duplicate or interfere with investigations into individual suspected cases of modern slavery that may be more appropriately undertaken by law enforcement. The focus of the Modern Slavery Act is not on criminal investigations and enforcement but rather on driving changes in corporate behaviour in order to prevent modern slavery from happening in the first place. I endorse those comments of the Human Rights Law Centre, but, unfortunately, those powers are not found in the bill. Carolyn Kitto from Be Slavery Free spoke to the committee, and I want to acknowledge her and Fuzz's work and their bravery over years and years. They said about the need for a fully-resourced and empowered antislavery commissioner: So why do we need one? In 2018 we boasted that we were leading the world in our actions on modern slavery, and we were. We can no longer make that claim. It is one thing to have good legislation; it is another thing to actually decide that you're going to put in place the things that make that legislation actionable and enforceable, and that's what an antislavery commissioner would do. We need one to provide business, government, civil society and victims-survivors opportunities to work together. To understand the scale of this challenge and why Australia must move faster, I think it's appropriate to end with the words of Walk Free, who advised the committee: The Global Slavery Index estimates the prevalence of modern slavery at the country level around the world. The 2023 index said the global number was 50 million, which is an increase of 10 million since we did the last estimate five years ago, and in Australia that number is 41,000 for people living in modern slavery. That includes people living in forced labour and people living in forced marriage. That number has gone up from 15,000 five years ago, I believe, which I think was 2016. Let's work together to fix this. I move: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate is of the opinion that the Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner should have the budget necessary to: (a) administer and enforce the reporting requirements in the Modern Slavery Act across government, business and non-profit reporting entities; and (b) deliver leadership on anti-slavery policy and practice". I indicate we will be moving significant amendments to address the matters raised in that second reading contribution. 09:43 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise to speak in favour of the Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023. Can I say from the outset that I concurred with so of what Senator Scarr said during his contribution to this debate. It is a bipartisan solution, and we need that support to pass this legislation. In times past, slavery was a simple concept to define: one person or group of people owning another person or group of people and subsequently forcing them to complete unfair labour tasks. Unfortunately, modern slavery is far more complex. In Australia, a person or a group of people are luckily no longer able to legally own another person or group of people. However, forced labour, sexual exploitation, child slavery, forced criminality, domestic servitude, forced marriage, organ harvesting and human trafficking are all elements of the newer concept of modern slavery. All these things are a horrible reality of our society here in Australia. Modern slavery practices are a major violation of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Australia is a party. Modern slavery practices are serious crimes that have become more and more prevalent globally and are complex, always evolving and often hidden from the limelight by the perpetrators so they're not caught. We want to change that for the better. We know organised crime is also in this space. In 2019, Australian Institute of Criminology research found that there were between 1,300 and 1,900 victims of human trafficking and slavery in Australia between 2015-16 and 2016-17. Furthermore, this research project of the Australian Institute of Criminology also found that, for every detected case of modern slavery practices being carried out, there were four additional cases that remained undetected. Australian businesses are also not safe from modern slavery. They are regularly exposed to modern slavery risks, and some goods and services available in our free market here in Australia are likely—very likely—to be tainted by modern slavery practices, whether it be forced labour, forced criminality or the like. While the establishment of the Modern Slavery Act 2018 is a good and progressive addition in combating the scourge of modern slavery, the Albanese Labor government recognises that more can be done, especially that more can be done to address the estimates that modern slavery crimes continue to increase here in Australia and abroad. For a long time, civil society, businesses, industry and academia have advocated the establishment of an independent commissioner who can raise awareness on the issue of modern slavery here in Australia. These stakeholders have advocated a commissioner who can provide independent information and support to victims and survivors and targeted support to businesses to identify and address modern slavery risks in their supply chain. In 2017, reports from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, entitled Hidden in plain sightand An inquiry into human trafficking, slavery and slavery-like practices respectively, both explored and made recommendations for the Australian modern slavery laws that would establish an independent commissioner, which the Albanese Labor government joins in recommending. The establishment of this bill builds on the Modern Slavery Act 2018, which I spoke about earlier, and delivers on the Albanese Labor government's tackling modern slavery commitment at the 2022 federal election by way of an amendment to the Modern Slavery Act 2018. This election commitment is all about further strengthening Australia's response to modern slavery and heightening our commitment to upholding the absolute right to freedom from slavery and forced labour and ensuring the right to protect against exploitation, violence and abuse. Furthermore, the commissioner will be required to consider Australia's international commitments when performing their functions to ensure that implementations of Australia's human rights and trade obligations are appropriately respected and, importantly, upheld. The commissioner will be financially accountable to the Commonwealth and will provide an annual report on the outcomes of their work program, to be tabled in the parliament upon their completion. The commissioner will develop a strategic plan detailing their priorities, which is to be published on their website. After all, it is about public awareness, and the best way to achieve that is through the commissioner. But I would like to, at this point in my contribution, acknowledge those community organisations and not-for-profits that have been working in our communities with survivors. The work that they have done has helped bring us to where we are now. The contributions to both of those committees that I referred to, from those who made submissions and came before those inquiries to give evidence, has helped shape where we are now. Going through the 2022 federal election, Labor made a commitment and, once again, we're delivering on that commitment. Furthermore, though, going back to the commissioner, their responsibility would be to uphold Australia's public governance and privacy laws when performing their functions to protect individuals' and Australia's interests. The bill provides that the commissioner will be appointed through a strictly transparent and merit based process and will be appointed on a full-time basis for a term as long as five years. The commissioner can be reappointed once after their term expires. Having a two-term appointment and that process of making sure that we continue to renew the commissioner will help to continue to raise that awareness and to bring focus on the priorities during that period of time. It's always good to have fresh eyes and a fresh commissioner, in my view. The commissioner will work collaboratively with government agencies to support existing initiatives while progressing new, complementary initiatives to address and combat modern slavery. Wherever there is organised crime involved in activities, as we know only too well, the criminals are always coming up with new strategies and new ways of trying to go undetected and under the radar. Inquiries and reports can also be forwarded from the commissioner to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for consideration. Further functions may be considered for the commissioner as necessary following the Albanese Labor government's response to the review. This bill will also support the Albanese Labor government's budget 2023-24 announcement on 9 May last year, which provided that $8 million over four years will be allocated for the establishment of the Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner. Modern slavery is a confronting, disturbing and prevalent issue in our society and our country and beyond our borders. I have provided you with some facts about the logistics and strategy surrounding the establishment of the Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner. As has been commented by others in this place, in the speech from Senator Scarr I heard that this is a bipartisan issue. There is nothing partisan about this bill at all. So I feel confident that we will have the support. It's not a bill to try to make political points. It's about putting amendments forward that are going to make this legislation better legislation. It's in all our interests to do that. It's an incredibly important bill, and I urge those around the chamber to support this bill so we can move forward and get the first appointment of the new Anti-Slavery Commissioner. 09:53 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania Sophea was sold into slavery at the age of four. She was sent to a place 300 kilometres from home, where she was forced to sell cakes around the local village, even if she was ill. Sophea was given nothing to eat unless she sold all the cakes, and she was beaten every day. Following the death of her parents, at age nine, Sinet was sent to live in an orphanage, together with her brothers and sisters. Children at the orphanage were forced to work in the rice fields and to entertain foreign tourists by singing and playing games with them. While the tourists would sometimes buy the children clothes or food, these were seized by the director of the orphanage and sold at the local market. Sinet was subjected to horrific physical and sexual abuse by the director of the orphanage. Moceica was approached by his cousin, a church minister, to go to Australia to study and earn money. When he arrived his passport was seized and he was told he had to pay off a debt for travel and visa costs. He worked 12 hours a day, seven days a week, picking grapes, watermelons or lettuces. Moceica thought that the money from his labour was being sent to his family, but when he contacted his mother after two years he found that they had received none of it. He estimates that these traffickers made over $200,000 from exploiting his labour, and he still has scars on his back from falling onto barbed wire, for which he received no medical treatment. These are just a few of the horrifying stories reported in the 2017 Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade inquiry into modern slavery titled Hidden in plain sight. Modern slavery practices are among the worst human rights abuses and are widespread throughout the world. They take many forms, including forced marriage, child exploitation, human trafficking, serfdom or servitude, forced labour and even slavery as it is known in the traditional sense. It is estimated that globally around 50 million people are subject to human trafficking and modern slavery. That is a staggering number, especially when you consider, for comparison, that it is more than three times the number of people who were enslaved during the entire three centuries of the transatlantic slave trade. Modern slavery takes place in every country in the world—sadly, including Australia. According to the Office of the NSW Anti-slavery Commissioner, there are 300 cases of modern slavery reported in Australia each year. But these cases are just the tip of the iceberg. The Australian Institute of Criminology estimated that between 2015-16 and 2016-17 there were between 1,300 and 1,900 victims of human trafficking and slavery in Australia and that, for every victim detected, about four victims go undetected. International human rights group Walk Free puts the figure even higher, estimating that in 2021 there were 41,000 people living in modern slavery in Australia. These include people in forced marriages, including children, and also forced labourers, particularly in those industries with a high proportion of migrant workers, such as agriculture, construction, domestic work, meat processing, cleaning, hospitality and food services. Australia's responsibility to tackle modern slavery doesn't just stop at our borders. There are many products being imported to Australia that have been produced with forced labour. We have a moral obligation not just to tackle modern slavery within our country but also to be part of the international effort to address the problem globally. The Modern Slavery Act has increased transparency in supply chains and elevated awareness among the Australian business community of modern slavery risks. While I recognise that it was the previous government that introduced the Modern Slavery Act, in 2018, Labor in opposition did a great deal of the legwork in the years prior to develop a serious policy to tackle modern slavery. In doing so, we had numerous discussions with representatives of business, civil society and trade unions, and the act was brought about only after considerable pressure from Labor. While passing the Modern Slavery Act into law was a step in the right direction, there is much, much more that needs to be done. The establishment of an Anti-Slavery Commissioner was part of Labor's tackling modern slavery election commitment. In the 2023 budget we committed $8 million over four years to establish the commissioner, who will work across government, business and civil society to tackle modern slavery. Among the functions of the commissioner will be engaging and supporting victims and survivors of modern slavery, promoting compliance with the Modern Slavery Act and providing targeted support to business to address risks of modern slavery practices in their operations and supply chains. The commissioner will be an independent statutory office holder, and this independence will be vital for the commissioner's ability to engage with stakeholders and develop effective policy and practice to address modern slavery. The commissioner will be accountable to the parliament and will be required to establish a strategic plan outlining their priorities. Annual reports tabled in parliament will inform the parliament and the public of the commissioner's activities and their progress towards strategic outcomes. The commissioner will be appointed through a merit based and transparent selection process on a full-time basis for a term of up to five years, and the commissioner may be reappointed once after their initial term. If this bill is passed, the commissioner will not, on their own, constitute the Australian government's entire response to modern slavery. Rather, their office will be part of a comprehensive framework that includes the Modern Slavery Act criminal offences, specialist Australian Federal Police investigative teams, a support program for victims-survivors, a human trafficking visa framework and a modern slavery research program. The commissioner's functions will complement the work being undertaken to combat modern slavery by the Attorney-General's Department, other government agencies and the Ambassador to Counter Modern Slavery, People Smuggling and Human Trafficking. The establishment of the commissioner will add to our arsenal for combating the horrific practice of modern slavery, both at home and abroad. An independent anti-slavery commissioner has widespread support from stakeholders across civil society, trade unions, peak business groups and academics. It has also been recommended by several inquiries and reports. The 2017 Hidden in plain sight report, which I mentioned earlier, found that the establishment of an independent anti-slavery commissioner in Australia would 'strengthen Australia's response to combating modern slavery'. Also in 2017, the report of the Joint Committee on Law Enforcement's inquiry into human trafficking, slavery and slavery-like practices stated: 'There may be merits in establishing an anti-slavery and trafficking commissioner independent from government.' The five-year statutory review of the Modern Slavery Act led by Professor John McMillan AO in May 2023 noted the Albanese government's commitment to establishing an anti-slavery commissioner, and observed: There are high expectations that the Anti-Slavery Commissioner will play a pivotal role in lifting both recognition within Australia of modern slavery risks and the standard of business performance in addressing those risks … The McMillan report also noted that, with only a few exceptions, there was strong support for an anti-slavery commissioner in submissions to the inquiry. The most recent inquiry that considered the merits and role of an anti-slavery commissioner was, of course, the inquiry into this bill. While the report focused on the key issues raised by the provisions of the bill, there was strong support for a commissioner in the submissions to the inquiry. The Australian Human Rights Commission said in its submission: The Commonwealth Government's decision to legislate an Anti-Slavery Commissioner is a welcome step towards further strengthening Australia's response to modern slavery. With an effective mandate, institutional independence and appropriate resourcing, the Anti-Slavery Commissioner will make an important contribution towards both combatting modern slavery and protecting human rights. International human rights organisation Walk Free said in its submission: We believe the establishment of an Anti-Slavery Commissioner is crucial to monitor and support government and business to strengthen the prevention and remediation of modern slavery. I note that some submitters, including Walk Free, the AHRC, the Maritime Union of Australia and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, submitted that the commissioner should have a greater remit than that proposed in the bill. However, as the Attorney-General's Department noted in its submission to the inquiry, the office of the commissioner is being established with a view to considering further functions as necessary. For example, the government is still giving careful consideration to the recommendations of the McMillan review, and further functions may be considered for the commissioner as necessary, following the government's response. By further strengthening Australia's response to modern slavery, this bill demonstrates Australia's heightened commitment to upholding the absolute right to freedom from slavery and forced labour and the right to protection against exploitation, violence and abuse. The Albanese Labor government remains firmly committed to tackling modern slavery. I commend the bill to the Senate. 10:03 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland As a servant to the fine people of Queensland and Australia, I note that the Modern Slavery Act 2018 establishes the Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner as an independent statutory officeholder within the Attorney-General's Department. The role of this new commissioner is to bring together the different initiatives the government has taken since the Modern Slavery Act was enacted. These include a unit inside the Attorney-General's Department and other agencies, including Border Force, to monitor the existing anti-slavery legislation, and an ambassador to counter modern slavery, people smuggling and human trafficking. The Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023 clarifies the commissioner's ability to share information with the Australian Federal Police and other law officers. That will be useful where slavery is brought to light. The definition of 'slavery' in the Modern Slavery Act, which the commissioner will be relying upon for their actions, is wide enough to include what everyday Australians would consider slavery. There is an issue with the definition of 'child slavery' that I will return to in a moment. Noting the absence of penalties in this bill and the modern slavery bill, I hope the commissioner does receive the level of cooperation necessary to eliminate slavery in the supply chains of corporations doing business in our country and of course eliminate slavery as it exists in Australia, which is mostly sex slavery. Senator Shoebridge has advanced an amendment which should improve cooperation with the commissioner. One Nation will support the amendment. The commissioner will provide an independent mechanism for victims and survivors and business and civil society to engage on issues and strategies to address modern slavery. This is the area of the bill that was dialled up following the committee report. There seems to be a strong emphasis on telling the stories of those workers who are being exploited and preparing material to inform business and the public on the issue. While One Nation will be supporting this bill, I believe that Australians across our country consider slavery repugnant, and the best option is to proceed to criminal and economic sanctions right now for businesses that include slavery in their supply chains. Deal with it now and stop slavery now. Businesses have had more than three years to establish whether or not they have slavery in their supply chains. That should be plenty of time. Simply reporting on it—and self-reporting at that!—is not an effective solution. That approach is nearing its use-by date. One Nation looks forward to the commissioner stepping this up and clearly communicating sanctions to business and working with the Attorney-General and the Minister for Trade and Tourism on further sanctions and penalties. It's essential that an Australian consumer can buy goods or services in our country and be safe in the knowledge that they are not rewarding the use of slavery. It's useful for people who see something to have somewhere to say something. For that reason I look forward to the commissioner operating a telephone and web function that allows people to report suspicions they have around the use of, or the keeping of, slaves. That could be used for reports of child slavery and child labour. For all the talk about child labour, we still have children in the Congo digging up lithium so that urban elitists can buy their electric vehicles, install their power walls and pat themselves on the back about how worthy they are. This has to stop. Stop turning a blind eye to these kids dying in the Congo and other places. The mechanism in place so far has failed miserably to help child labourers, and One Nation has legislation already before the committee. It's our measure to prevent goods being made with child labour from entering Australia. A problem that continues to exist—in part due to the definition of 'slavery' used in the Modern Slavery Act, which the parliament passed in 2018—is that the commissioner will be operating under the definition of 'child slavery' which traps only 'the worst forms of child slavery', not all the forms of it. Article 3 of the International Labour Organization Convention Concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour includes, in part (d), 'work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children'. After all these years of talk about child slavery and all these Australian government actions, these poor children are still digging up cobalt with their bare hands when they should be at school. The International Labour Organization has a far better definition of 'child labour', which my office is using. Their definition of 'child labour'—not child slave labour; it's more encompassing—is 'a child under 14 who misses school, or would miss school if it were available, in order to perform work'. So it is when work takes them out of school. That definition captures people who are caught in a never-ending cycle of poverty and misery, with children who are working to bring home a tiny income to support their families and who never receive the necessary education to break out of that cycle of poverty. They are trapped in poverty and misery for their very short lives. These children work until their bodies are broken, and then their children take their place. Child labour may provide large corporations with extra profits from cheap minerals, coffee and textiles, amongst others, yet it's just plain wrong. It is inhuman. I framed my bill to relate to child labour only because the Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023 has been on the drawing board for some time. My bill covers what this bill does not cover. Having seen the final version of this bill, I will provide the committee with an update on an amendment to my bill to allow the Anti-Slavery Commissioner to be the point of reporting of child labour on imported goods in addition to child slavery. One Nation will support this bill, and, as a servant of the people of Queensland, I will continue to pursue this issue. 10:10 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria In prisons in this country, people are being used as slaves, working for little to no pay, all to drive further profits for big companies like Qantas and Bunnings. And governments are on the take from this labour exploitation too. Modern slavery is a structural feature of the Australian economy as a result of systemic discrimination towards migrants and minority groups. We've heard about how people with working holiday visas, seasonal workers and international students have been subject to serious exploitation in Australia, with visa conditions that tie workers to their employers allowing employers to manipulate workers. This was the subject of an explosive 2015 Four Corners expose that proved that slave-like conditions have been rampant on Australian farms. Migrant workers aren't paid or are significantly underpaid, they're exploited by dodgy labour hire contractors, and many young women are being sexually harassed and forced to perform sexual favours in exchange for work or for visa extensions. But today I want to talk about the history of colonial slave labour of First Peoples in this country and how this continues within Australian prisons to this day. Governments go to great lengths to hide what goes on in prisons. Prisons are used to disappear and dehumanise people and even exploit people's labour for private profit. In prisons in this country, people are being exploited under slave-like conditions. Each state and territory runs prison industry programs, with private companies paying prisoner workers significantly below the minimum wage, exploiting cheap labour for their private profit. This is a subject that demands our attention, our scrutiny and our action. Many of you will be surprised to hear that Australia has the highest rate of incarceration in private, for-profit prisons in the world—even higher than the United States, your mates. But it is not just private, for-profit prisons that are exploiting people here; it is also state run prisons. Both private and public prisons have contracts with Australian corporations who are profiting from the use of slave-like labour and wage theft within prisons, exploiting prisoners for financial gain. It's not straightforward to find out which companies because they're all shamed and hiding. Public institutions and state entities utilise and benefit from prison labour. It's shady stuff. Governments have gone to great lengths to hide which companies are involved, what work people are being made to do and how much, if anything, workers are paid. Governments don't want the people to know that this is even happening. However, piecing together what little information we do have paints a stark picture. Over 42,000 people are jailed in Australian correctional centres, and many of them are working for as little as $2 an hour. The Australian minimum wage is $21.38 per hour. We know profit-gouging companies like Qantas and Bunnings have been using prison labour for various tasks, from refurbishing passenger headphones—you know the headphones you get on the plane; that's slave labour in prisons—to manufacturing nuts and bolts to put your stuff from Bunnings together. Despite many advocates shining a light on these practices, we still don't have proper transparency, with many companies refusing to confirm their involvement and governments refusing to give up the information. Qantas—what hypocrites! They have an advertisement filled with black First Nations women singing, while the company hides the fact that First Nations women in prison are working for slave wages, untangling headphones used in flights. Shame! Hypocrisy! This country is no stranger to profiting from the slave labour of First Nations people. Legislation in almost every state and territory facilitated the enslavement of our people, who were subject to near total control of movement, over who they could marry or what jobs they could do. Our wages were stolen, our savings were taken, and our property was seized. First Nations woman Ruby De Satge, speaking on the Queensland protection act, said: … if you are sitting down minding your own business, a station manager can come up to you and say, 'I want a couple of blackfellows' … Just like picking up a cat or a dog. Historians, including Dr Rosalind Kidd and Dr Thalia Anthony, have documented how First Peoples of all ages, including children, were forcibly sent to work, often far away from their home and families, in often horrific conditions. Boys were generally sent to work on pastoral properties, while girls worked as domestic servants. All were exposed to physical and sexual abuse. This government has unfinished business in repaying wages to Aboriginal and South Sea Islander slaves whose unpaid labour allowed big businesses to reap substantial profits and helped maintain the Australian economy through the Great Depression—riding on the backs of blacks. Shame! Today, it is not just private enterprises reaping the benefits. State governments are complicit in the exploitation, with agencies like the New South Wales corrective services industry generating millions in revenue from prison labour. From building fire trucks and toolboxes to constructing prison cells, the scope of state involvement is extensive and concerning. The Western Australian government runs the Prisoner Employment Program, which offers paid employment to people in minimum-security prisons in sectors such as clothing, food, textiles and furniture for prisons. The private Acacia Prison, run by Serco, partners with private companies and contractors such as metal workshops and wood workshops. Serco has to pay the state government 10 per cent of its revenue from this prison work. Most recently, the company reported paying $110,011 to the Western Australian government, meaning its revenue from the prison labour was more than $1.2 million per year. Clearly they can afford to pay their workers more. The impact of prison labour extends beyond economic exploitation. It affects the very fabric of our communities. Those in prison contribute to community projects, from maintaining racetracks to refurbishing public housing. But, while on the surface some of these might seem like good causes, that obscures the underlying issue of coerced labour within the prison system. Perhaps most insidious is the lack of accountability and oversight. Requests for data on the extent of prison labour have been repeatedly denied, kept hidden, practised in secrecy and shielding those who profit and enable this industry from accountability. So what can we do about it? First, we need truth-telling—to talk about it more. We need to demand that companies and governments be transparent about their use of prison labour. Most importantly, we need to remember that everyone deserves to be treated fairly and with respect no matter their circumstances. I am asking that the government urgently refer the prison industry and the corporations known to use prison labour to the Fair Work Commission. This is what my amendment facilitates—that the Anti-Slavery Commissioner has the power to directly refer matters to the Fair Work Commission—and it demands that those who are working in prison are at the very least paid the minimum wage. I also call on the government to release the exact numbers and names of companies that employ prison labour in Australia, information which is currently unknown as requests for the data have been repeatedly denied by your agencies. This is the very least your government can do, and I foreshadow moving my second reading amendment on sheet 2613. 10:21 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I'm pleased to make my contribution on the creation of the Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023. I congratulate the Attorney-General on progressing this important reform and delivering on Labor's election commitment to add this important role to our response in combatting modern slavery. In welcoming this important reform, I have a request that the new Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner take a very, very close look at the operations of the many overseas crewed and flagged vessels that visit Australian ports. As colleagues are aware, modern slavery includes serious exploitative practices such as trafficking people, deceptive recruiting, forced labour and forced marriage. Unfortunately, forced labour is still used extensively in international shipping. In fact, the International Transport Workers' Federation boarded a ship in Mackay earlier this month, following concerns about crew mistreatment, wage theft and deplorable conditions. The MV Eleen Sofia is registered in Liberia and is a flag-of-convenience ship—surprise, surprise. The ship has a shocking record. In February this year, the ITF boarded this same ship, the MV Eleen Sofia, when it was docked in Port Adelaide. Their main concerns at the time were overdue or unpaid wages and a lack of provisions—in other words, a lack of food for the crew. While the ITF fixed these issues at the time, they discovered exactly the same problem with the same ship when it pulled up alongside Mackay earlier this month. Things are now so bad with the MV Eleen Sofia that the Australian Border Force relocated the vessel to Gladstone. You may well be wondering what a foreign flagged and crewed vessel has to do with Australian antislavery provisions. In addition to undertaking international voyages, this ship conducts coastal shipping between Australian ports under licence from the Australian government. Every time ITF inspectors board this ship at an Australian port, they find underpayment of workers and appalling conditions. When they boarded the ship in April this year, they found, as I said earlier, no food for the crew—think about that. The ITF, my mates, conducts inspections throughout Australia's mainland ports. These inspectors are led by former seafarer, MUA official and great mate of mine Ian Bray. Together, this team uncovered more than $30 million in stolen wages just last calendar year. Thirty-million dollars in unpaid wages is definitely something that the incoming Anti-Slavery Commissioner should focus on. I had the great privilege of joining ITF inspectors in Melbourne in November last year as part of their week of action. Although I could only do the one day, it was great to join a wonderful human being, Christian Roos from the ITF in Belgium. Christian is an experienced ITF inspector and former seafarer. The week of action targeted shipowners and agents that systematically steal the wages of workers who transport more than 95 per cent of consumer goods that Australians rely on. The ship I boarded that day was a Chinese flag vessel with two extremely wonderful captains. They were really decent people. They opened up their books, welcomed us onboard and gave us access to everything. I tagged along. As someone who has done safety inspections in trucking yards, I did have a bit of an idea of what Christian might be looking for. But it opened my eyes. He checked out medicines and air conditioners to make sure everything was alright. He went into the kitchen, and this was interesting. There was food in storage in the fridge. For starters, the fridge and the freezer both weren't working properly. Then we inspected food, and he was pulling out the vegetable trays. There was moss on the vegetables. The chef was like, 'Well, I'll just cut it off and keep cooking.' But this is the magnificent job they do, let alone chasing wages. Let's not forget: these poor devils can be stuck on these ships for nine months. It was a real eye-opener, and I congratulate Ian and ITF. Keep up the great work. These workers, as I said before, are some of the most vulnerable. They often have their passports confiscated and are deprived of shore leave and decent accommodation. That's on top of their wages being stolen at times. At the moment, workers like those on the MV Eleen Sofia rely on ITF inspectors like Ian Bray and Christian Roos to make sure they get paid and get food to eat while they are away from home for up to nine months at a time. The ITF's recent, magnificent report, Nowhere to Hide, revealed that 70 per cent of ships carrying imports and exports onto our shores through our ports fail to meet international standards for wage payments. And yet, we don't think that's a drama. What a shocking system. But this has been around for years and years. I share the frustration here because I've been talking about this for years and years. That's why I urge the commissioner to work with the Fair Work Ombudsman and, of course, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority to combat the scourge of modern slavery at our ports and in Australian waters. I commend this bill to the Senate. 10:28 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I, too, rise to speak on the Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023. It is with a great sense of pride that I do so as the minister that brought this legislation into this place. I think it's also a great day of pride for everybody in this chamber, because what people don't see is that there are many common causes that, on all sides of this chamber, we work together on. I see Minister McCarthy there, who started this journey with me and Chris Crewther to get up a parliamentary inquiry into the need for a modern slavery bill in this nation. It was an amazing, 12-month, multipartisan inquiry that led to this bill, which was introduced and has now made the milestone of being reviewed and expanded. It will come as no surprise to anybody in this chamber that I am incredibly passionate about the serious and important issue of modern slavery. I'm passionate about it because, as a Liberal, there is no greater cause than individual freedoms, including the freedom from servitude and slavery. It's about people's individual freedoms and liberties. I am so proud to have been involved in this, and it is a cause that I still continue to champion globally and here in Australia. This coordinated and multipartisan approach started with the Australian government's 2004 Action Plan to Eradicate Trafficking in Persons, which was released by then prime minister John Howard. In 2015 the action plan was succeeded by the National Action Plan to Combat Human Trafficking and Slavery 2015-19, which really laid out the framework for this current piece of legislation. As I said, in 2018, there was no prouder moment for me in this place than, as then Assistant Minister for Home Affairs, taking the first modern slavery legislation through this place. Those of you who were here at the time will know that it didn't have necessarily the smoothest of passages through this place. 'Modern slavery', at that point, was not a term that was well known in this country. Certainly, a lot of Australians didn't know that slavery existed in our own country and they weren't aware of their inadvertent contributions to slavery globally. There were a lot of negotiations at that time. I was a little disappointed that Senator Sheldon's contribution had a go at the coalition, because we did the best that we could to get a bill through this place. There were compromises that were made then, including the establishment of the Anti-Slavery Commissioner. But, now that businesses understand what modern slavery is, they understand their reporting requirements and they understand the prevalence of slavery throughout their global supply chains, I think this is a bill whose time has come. In that context, the bill initially was designed to help businesses better control their own risks and also focus on businesses in their supply chains who benefit from the servitude of others. It also, at the time and subsequent to that, shone a light on the slavery risks in our international supply chains, including our supply chains for critical minerals and rare earths. That's one aspect I'd like to focus on here in the chamber today. I'd ask colleagues to remember that the supply chains today for our clean, green—so-called—supply chains are riddled with the servitude and enslavement of millions of people globally, particularly in China. I've had it suggested to me by some that the environment is the greater good and that we should not worry about the human servitude that is not just prevalent but endemic in the solar panels that we buy, in the wind turbines that we use, in electric vehicles, in batteries and in many other new energy technologies. This is something that I will be pursuing further this year. We cannot turn a blind eye. It's just the right thing to do. We should never, ever accept a single person being enslaved for the production of these goods. There's also a huge commercial cost. These goods are produced cheaply because they are produced on the backs of women, children and men who have been denied their freedoms, and many of them are in bonded labour as well. We can't go green on the backs of these millions of men, women and children who are forced to mine the minerals and rare earths and fabricate components of the goods that I've talked about. This year, the challenge for us as a nation is to deal with both. How do we get to net zero and net zero technologies but not on the backs of these men and women? The committee process for this legislation did take over 12 months, but it was a significant achievement. I would like to acknowledge all of those in this place and those who have now left this place who were involved. The committee's report was Hidden in plain sight. I think that accurately captured the nature of what we discovered through this process. We had 225 submissions, we had 10 public hearings and we received this amazing amount of evidence which clearly demonstrated that slavery was something we needed to deal with. As the report name suggests, modern slavery is hidden in plain sight, but quite often we just don't know what we're looking for or, when we see it, what we are looking at. These heinous crimes that are committed against 50 million people—50 million people are today enslaved—are mostly in our supply chains. There are more people in slavery, in servitude, in bonded labour and in child labour today than at any other time in our nation's history—in fact, in human history. This again is quite a shocking situation, but all too often we can think, 'Well, it's not an Australian thing; we don't have slavery here.' Yes, we do, but what's worse is that we contribute to the enslavement of others overseas. Slavery comes in many forms, and one of the forms of slavery that I became aware of on a field trip to Cambodia in 2016 with Save the Children and other parliamentary colleagues is what's now called orphanage trafficking. It was absolutely shocking to realise that there were at least eight million children who had been trafficked into these congregate care institutions that were called orphanages when most of these children had parents. They had been removed from their families to scam money from us, from well-meaning church groups, from well-meaning social clubs, from well-meaning schools and from volunteers who come and have tourist experiences with children. It's hideous to think about. That started a very long journey for me, here and globally, which still continues today. One of the things I am particularly proud of is that the Australian parliament led the way, because, in the Hidden in plain sight report, which led to this bill, Australia became the first parliament and then the first nation to recognise orphanage trafficking as a form of modern slavery. Australia still continues that work, and we're doing so on a bipartisan basis. I see Senator O'Neill here. She's been a wonderful support at the IPU and elsewhere on the matter of raising awareness and tackling orphanage trafficking. So thank you for that ongoing support. One of the other things about modern slavery that is important to note in this place is that it distorts global markets, undercuts responsible business and can pose significant risk to entities that find themselves inadvertently benefiting from slavery practices at some point in the supply chain. I think most Australians who have solar panels on their house or who bought an EV that was made in China did so for all the right reasons. But it's most likely that they not only were made and assembled in Xinjiang but have components and minerals that come from other countries that have child labour and the most revolting environmental practices all the way through their supply chains. Australians don't realise this, but we, as a chamber and as people, have to highlight that so that we can change practices so that, when people purchase these goods, they don't purchase goods that are made off the backs of children, women and men who have been enslaved. Sadly our region is also the global epicentre of modern slavery, with about two-thirds of victims right here in our region across the Asia-Pacific. One of the most egregious things about slavery is that this exploitation of people, this commoditisation of people, is a highly lucrative business. Not only does it provide those who manufacture the goods with slave labour and give them a competitive edge but it generates over US$200 billion a year. The commodification and the exploitation of people is a very lucrative business. We can change that. We can make change, and this legislation is a great vehicle for Australians to do that. But to start to do that we also have to realise the personal and the human cost of producing the things that we consume every day here in Australia, which come off the back of women and children. I conclude by reflecting on the key pillars in our national strategy against modern slavery. There are five national strategic priorities that provide the foundation for our ongoing fight against modern slavery. The first is prevention. The second is a national strategic priority within the criminal justice system and criminal law: disrupt, investigate and prosecute modern slavery. Here in our nation—never mind overseas—we still have a long way to go to work with law enforcement and particularly border protection officials to actually recognise what slavery looks like, as people come through the borders: people who come through on legitimate visas, minors who come through accompanied by adults who are not their parents, and women who come through to work in the sex trade in Australia, and who are cycled through brothels on legitimate visas. We've still got a lot of work to do. The fourth national strategic priority is partnerships. This is not something the federal government can deal with on its own. It requires law enforcement, welfare agencies and victim protection organisations to understand what is required and to have the courage to work together to do that. The fifth national strategic priority is research. The five pillars were established in 2020 by the former coalition government, and they do provide a good framework. This is a proud coalition achievement. I will finish by talking about something else that the coalition is very proud of: the first Magnitsky style thematic sanctions framework to hold to account perpetrators of human rights violations and abuses, particularly those involved in modern slavery practices. Let's call a spade a spade. We've got a tool that we introduced that we can use to highlight this. Let me again be very honest and clear. There are millions of these 50 million people enslaved in China today. They are in enormous detention facilities, primarily in Xinjiang. There are Uighurs. There are Tibetans who have been taken away from their families at a very young age and put into Han language boarding schools. In fact over 80 per cent of Tibetan children have now been removed from their families. They go into these education facilities. They lose their cultural identity, and then they get shipped into farms and factories, pretty much as indentured labour. There are also North Koreans provided by the North Korean government to China in bonded labour in servitude. What I would say to the government is that it is time to have a look at the powers that we have to call this behaviour out and say that it is not okay. There is a lot more that we can do together. While there are many other things on our agenda, including net zero, let's strive for a future here. We can use this bill and the amendments in this bill to say that net zero is important, but so are the human lives of those who will build that new future. 10:43 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Slavery is indeed an evil that, sadly, continues throughout the world right now—in this moment, on this very day. Millions and millions of people around the world, including Australians, are subject to servitude. Slavery is a concept that we think of as a long-ago phenomenon, and we seem somewhat blind to the reality that it didn't occur long ago in Egypt, nor did it finish with the change of legislation about slaves being units of labour in the United States of America. Slavery is with us, and it is amongst us here in our proud democratic nation of Australia in 2024. As I speak that sentence, I am both ashamed and despairing of some of the worst excesses of human nature that would ever think that enslaving another human being could ever be okay. It's a matter of public knowledge now that I carry a couple of very important things on my person. One of them is a set of rosary beads, a symbol of my Catholic faith in which I find great comfort, and the other is the declaration of human rights. For me these two things are interconnected. People of faith, people of goodwill, people of no faith—we all share a common humanity. That is what is expressed in that declaration. It's human rights for everyone, manifesting itself in very different ways across the faith traditions and in the public practice of people of goodwill, regardless of whatever faith or philosophy they might adhere to. Today in this debate we are talking about one of the most fundamental human rights. The reality is that when an individual is forced to work for another without payment, enslaved as an item of property for another individual—when one is denied agency—this at every turn is a severe breach of human rights. Fundamental rights, however, cannot be taken for granted. They have to be taught. They have to be cherished by every single person. Sadly, we are at a point where we need to legislate to clarify our actions around what we're going to do in response to this profound scourge. The right to agency is vital. It aligns with my values and how I see the world—that enslavement should never be and that freedom is a fundamental right that should be practised in full, while being mindful of where it meets the freedoms of others. The belief in the right to agency and having the capacity to live your best life for the period of time that you're here on this planet in the great common family of humanity is part of the reason I became a teacher. This belief in the fundamental human rights of my fellow citizens of the world is another reason I come to this place as a parliamentarian to do this work of legislating where it is necessary, where we seem to have lost something in the broad compact about what common law and common good should look like. 'Modern' is a word with both connotation and denotation. Often we see it as a positive. Thoroughly Modern Millie was one of my favourite films that my mother showed me—great music, great dancing—where the sense of 'modern' was full of hope and promise. Sadly, when we talk about 'modern slavery', it is a term that has severe negative connotations because it covers an enormous range of exploitative practices, including human trafficking, slavery, forced labour, child labour, the removal of human organs and slavery-like practices that have been long documented as practices of commerce in days gone by and things that most of us would only have seen through the media or in film, or read in novels. I want to acknowledge here the contribution of Senator Linda Reynolds, who referred to the work that she has done, in leading other parliamentarians at the International Parliamentary Union, in identifying the scourge of orphan trafficking and in addressing the very real challenge of the proper management of children in orphanages to be free and to not be enslaved and become units of commerce for those who would exploit them. I think one of the saddest elements of modern slavery is that it reminds me once again of that very old adage that the love of money is the root of all evil. It's not money in and of itself. We know that charities that benefit from people supporting them do incredibly good work. Money in and of itself and profit in and of itself are not a problem. But gross misuse of the fundamental rights of others for personal profit and gain was always wrong, is always wrong, will always be wrong and must continue to be addressed in all its variations and forms by people of goodwill in parliaments around the globe. I think part of the problem we face right now is that we live in a global economy and we're consuming so many products, services and goods that we don't know the origins of. Sadly the reality is that some of us will be consuming the products of slavery. I go to the Uighurs in Xinjiang Province in the People's Republic of China. It is now commonly known across the world that there are millions of people enslaved there. I've spoken with advocates for the freedom of those enslaved Uighurs in Xinjiang Province, who've indicated they're trying to use new technologies to identify the kind of weave of fabric so that we can begin to see where these materials are coming from and make informed decisions to ensure that we don't purchase the product of enslaved workforces. Supply chains in their globalisation can be very powerful and very effective. We cannot undo them, nor should we, but they are opaque. In fact some companies, disreputably and with a love of money trumping any respect for the fundamental dignity of human beings, seek profit and absolutely and deliberately obscure the truth of where and how their products are being made, created and distributed. That's really why the bill that's been put forward is of vital importance. It's essential that Australia rises to the challenge that is before us and that we stand up for the rights to which we are committed. Senator Reynolds mentioned the importance of the Magnitsky rules and laws around the world, and I want to give particular praise to our former colleague here in this place and my good friend former senator Kimberley Kitching for the great leadership that she showed in advancing our legislative endeavours to ensure that we had the Magnitsky sanctions at our fingertips when they were required. That is a sign of how important the work of individual senators can be, and how we as a parliament collectively and as a team of senators can act not only in the national interest but in the international interest with our fellow minded true believers in democracy. I also want to echo the observation of Senator Reynolds with regard to the boarding school situation in Tibet—or in the province called Tibet that is now occupied by China. The boarding schools that exist there are absolutely enslaving young people in a way that robs them of their Tibetan heritage, their language and their history for what can only be considered political purposes and creates a potential workforce that I hope is not enslaved in the same way that we have seen amongst the Uighur population in another province of China. It's very clear to me that, under the leadership of Anthony Albanese and this Labor government, Australia has absolutely returned to the world stage. When we come to the table to participate with other developed democracies to do our work alongside them in the interests of humanity, we have to make sure that our own house is in order. We have to practise what we preach otherwise our words mean nothing. Sadly, in my work representing this great nation with my parliamentary colleagues from across the political divide, we've seen countries which, right now in these days, are seeking to declare themselves democratic states, and which use the language of democracy but are seeking to destabilise the fundamentals of rules based order that are expressed in the UN declaration of human rights. The geopolitical realities of our time are very, very challenging. Benignly believing that we can assert fundamental human rights and believing that freedom is held by every individual—even those in our own country—is a position I wish we could hold, but it is, sadly, not matching the reality. The fight against slavery is occurring all around the world with many allies. Among those here in Australia, I want to particularly mention the Minderoo Foundation, which is seeking change. The modern slavery index is an important tool to measure and respond to slavery around the world. The scale of the problem before us is enormous. There were 50 million people estimated to be in modern slavery in 2021. The Australian Catholic Anti-Slavery Network is another organisation that shares the values which I've espoused and which I expect most Australians would share with me. The ACAN indicate that action against modern slavery is a fundamental Catholic social teaching. Pope Francis called modern slavery 'a crime against humanity' because that is what it is. He pledged with other global religious leaders to work to rid the world of this affront to human dignity and human freedom. I certainly support the network's mission to rid slavery from all Catholic supply chains and help to quash the evil of modern slavery. Patron saint St Josephine Bakhita, born in Darfur, was sold into slavery at a young age. Before ending up in Italy in 1882, she was beaten and abused by her former masters. However, her arrival proved to be a profound change for her circumstances. She was entrusted by the Canossian Sisters, and, for the next 50 years, she enacted God's love through cooking, sewing, embroidery and attending to the door. During her last days, she relived the painful days of her slavery more than once and begged, 'Please loosen the chains; they are heavy.' Surrounded by the sisters, she died on 8 February 1947, and 8 February has been designated as a day of prayer, reflection and action to end the injustice of human trafficking. I'm proud of the Australian government for taking this action. Today I feel my morals, my creed and my identity, as a person of faith and as a citizen of the world who supports the United Nations in its work and the fundamentals embedded in the declaration of human rights, are combined in this bill. I came to the parliament to make change and, ultimately, to be a force for good in this world. This piece of legislation is an example of the way in which our parliament can work harmoniously and powerfully to deliver public benefit for the common good here in our country and in other jurisdictions. 10:58 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I thank all honourable senators who've contributed to this debate on the Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023. I would also like to thank the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for its consideration of the bill. The government has moved amendments to the bill to fully implement the committee's recommendations, and has moved amendments to the explanatory memorandum to address some of the additional comments arising from the committee's inquiry. The bill would not be possible without the work and engagement of victims and survivors of modern slavery, and civil society and business stakeholders who have campaigned over many years for the establishment of the first Commonwealth Anti-Slavery Commissioner, and I want to acknowledge all of these individuals and organisations. The bill delivers on the Albanese government's election commitment to establish a Commonwealth anti-slavery commissioner. Modern slavery is among the most egregious forms of human rights abuses and deprives victims of their dignity, fundamental rights and freedoms. We know that modern slavery occurs in the Australian community. We have heard cases of domestic servitude, individuals trafficked into sex work and a young girl at risk of being sent overseas for a forced marriage. In January this year a Melbourne man was sentenced to three years and six months imprisonment for forced labour offences after he forced a person to work in his confectionary shop. There is no place for modern slavery in any form in the Australian community. To strengthen Australia's response to modern slavery, this bill amends the Modern Slavery Act to establish Australia's first Commonwealth Anti-Slavery Commissioner. The recent review of the Modern Slavery Act verified the long-identified need for an independent specialist commissioner to enhance our response. This bill establishes the commissioner. The bill confers important functions of the commissioner. The commissioner will support, engage and empower victims and survivors of modern slavery. The commissioner will provide targeted support to businesses in Australia to help them address risks of modern slavery practices in their operations and supply chains. To ensure we, as the government, can continue to lead by example, the commissioner will advocate for continuous improvement in policy and practice. The commissioner will be independent and will have discretion in performing or exercising their functions. The government thanks the Senate committee for the inquiry into this bill and for their recommendations. The government accepts the committee's recommendations 1 to 4 and welcomes the committee's fifth recommendation: that the bill be passed, subject to the implementation of the recommendations. The recommendations will be actioned through government amendments to this bill. These include: implementing recommendation 1 by clarifying the application of the definition of 'sensitive information' in the bill; implementing recommendation 2 by specifying that a principal objective of the commissioner's strategic plan must include development of guidance to support victims and survivors of modern slavery; implementing recommendation 3 by requiring the commissioner to engage with victims of modern slavery in carrying out their functions; and implementing recommendation 4 by clarifying in legislation that the commissioner is able to refer matters for investigation to relevant Commonwealth government agencies, including to law enforcement agencies, so potential modern slavery matters can be dealt with appropriately. The government will also support the amendments proposed by Senator Cash. I would like to thank the opposition for working collaboratively with us on this bill. I acknowledge there have been calls for the commissioner to do more, including to undertake investigations, to compel business to cooperate and to issue penalties for noncompliance. The government is currently considering options to further strengthen the Modern Slavery Act that may inform consideration of the commissioner's future role. However, this bill focuses on critical, core functions of the commissioner that will set a foundation for further action in Australia. The establishment of the Anti-Slavery Commissioner is an important reform. The commissioner will be a powerful and effective force for change in Australia. I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to the Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023. The addendum responds to matters raised by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee. I also table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved on this bill. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Shoebridge on sheet 2594 be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [11:07]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 14 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. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 32 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 11:11 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the second reading amendment on sheet 2613, as moved by Senator Thorpe, be agreed to.    

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

12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. Pocock, B. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. (Teller) Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 33 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 PETITIONS 20 PETITIONS Digital ID Bill 2024 20 NOTICES 20 NOTICES Presentation 20 COMMITTEES 21 COMMITTEES Selection of Bills Committee 21 Report 21 11:15 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I present the fifth report of 2024 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The report read as follows— SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 5 OF 2024 16 May 2024 MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE Senator Anne Urquhart (Government Whip, Chair) Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip) Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip) Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip) Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip) Senator Ralph Babet Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher Senator Maria Kovacic Senator Matt O'Sullivan Senator David Pocock Senator Lidia Thorpe Senator David Van Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 5 OF 2024 1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 15 May 2024 at 7.14 pm. 2. The committee recommends that— (a) the Airline Passenger Protections (Pay on Delay) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 18 November 2024 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral); (b) the provisions of the Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Commonwealth Frontline Workers) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 20 June 2024 (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral); (c) the provisions of the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Education and Employment Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 15 August 2024 (see appendix 3 for a statement of reasons for referral); and (d) the provisions of the Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 20 June 2024 (see appendix 4 for a statement of reasons for referral). 3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees: Australian Postal Corporation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2024 Legislate the Date to End Live Sheep Export Bill 2024 Parliamentary Business Resources Legislation Amendment (Review Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2024. 4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting: Australian Capital Territory Dangerous Drugs Bill 2023 Broadcasting Services Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements During Live Sport) Bill 2023 Competition and Consumer Amendment (Continuing ACCC Monitoring of Domestic Airline Competition) Bill 2023 Criminal Code Amendment (Inciting Illegal Disruptive Activities) Bill 2023 Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair and Transparent Elections) Bill 2024 (No. 2) Electoral Legislation Amendment (Lowering the Voting Age) Bill 2023 [No. 2] Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Protecting Environmental Heritage) Bill 2024 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020 Excise and Customs Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2024 Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2024 Freeze on Rent and Rate Increases Bill 2023 Treasury Laws Amendment (Extending the FBT Exemption for Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles) Bill 2024. 5. The committee considered the following bills but was unable to reach agreement: New Vehicle Efficiency Standard Bill 2024 New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2024. (Anne Urquhart) Chair 16 May 2024 Appendix 1 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill toa committee Name of bill: Airline Passenger Protections (Pay on Delay) Bill 2024 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To ensure a senate enquiry has the opportunity to scrutinize the current aviation issues that this Bill seeks to address, Possible submissions or evidence from: Airline industry, individuals, interested parties and other stakeholders. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): June—November Possible reporting date: 18 November 2024 (signed) Wendy Askew Appendix 2 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Criminal Code Amendment (Protecting Commonwealth Frontline Workers) Bill 2024 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: A short referral for the committee to investigate this legislation. Possible submissions or evidence from: Interested parties and other stakeholders. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): N/A Possible reporting date: 20 June 2024 (signed) Wendy Askew Appendix 3 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024 Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration: We expect that this Bill contains amendments to the Education Services for Overseas Students Act to give the education minister power to set limits on enrolments for each education provider, including specific courses or locations. These powers are extraordinary and warrant interrogation. Possible submissions or evidence from: Universities, student unions, NTEU, international students Committee to which bill is to be referred: Education and Employment Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): Thursday 20 June Wednesday 24 July Thursday 8 August Possible reporting date: 30 August 2024 (signed) Nick McKim Appendix 4 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To allow stakeholders the opportunity to comment on this legislation through a committee process. Possible submissions or evidence from: Interested parties and the forestry sector. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): May-June Possible reporting date: 27 June 2024 (signed) Wendy Askew SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024 Reasons for referra l /principal issues for consideration: Possible ramifications and considerations for timber/forests standards, supply chain management, illegal logging operations, and modem slavey protections. Possible submissions or evidence from: Advocates and peak bodies representing conservation, industry standards, trade unions, and human rights. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Possible hearing date(s): conduct on the papers Possible reporting date: 19 June 2024 (signed) Nick McKim Senator URQUHART 231199 I move: That the report be adopted. 11:15 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move the following amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report: At the end of the motion, add "and, in respect of the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard Bill 2024 and New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2024 the bills not be referred to committee." 11:15 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I move an amendment to the minister's amendment: At the end of the motion, add: "and, in respect of the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard Bill 2024 and the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2024, the provisions of the bills be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 13 August 2024." The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Ruston, which amends Senator Gallagher's amendment, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [11:20]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 32 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Van, D. A. 34 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 11:24 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report as moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to.    

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

 33 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. 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. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 32 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Van, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Report, as amended, adopted.

 BUSINESS 25 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 25 11:26 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania by leave—I move: That Senator Gallagher be granted leave of absence for 14 May 2024 on account of ministerial business. Question agreed to. NOTICES 25 NOTICES Postponement 25 11:27 The PRESIDENT 112096 If there is no objection, the business is postponed. COMMITTEES 25 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 25 BUSINESS 25 BUSINESS Rearrangement 25 11:28 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That— (a) the following government business orders of the day be considered from 12.15 pm: (i) Parliamentary Business Resources Legislation Amendment (Review Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2024, (ii) Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Modernising Administrative Processes) Bill 2024, (iii) National Cancer Screening Register Amendment Bill 2024, (iv) Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Military Invalidity Payments Means Testing) Bill 2024, and (v) Health Legislation Amendment (Removal of Requirement for a Collaborative Arrangement) Bill 2024; (b) government business then be called on and considered till not later than 1.30 pm; and (c) general business notice of motion no. 530 be considered during general business today. Question agreed to. CONDOLENCES 26 CONDOLENCES Hoare, Mrs Kelly Joy, Mildren, Mr John Barry, OAM 26 11:29 The PRESIDENT 112096 It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death of two former members of the House of Representatives: on 21 March 2024, Kelly Joy Hoare, a former member for the division of Charlton, New South Wales, from 1998 to 2007 and, on 25 April 2024, John Barry Mildren OAM, a former member of the division of Ballarat, Victoria, from 1980 to 1990. BUSINESS 26 BUSINESS Rearrangement 26 11:29 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That— (a) if consideration of the following bills has not concluded by 1.30 pm on Thursday, 16 May 2024, the questions on all remaining stages of the bills be put after the attendance of a minister in relation to the estimates manual: (i) Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023, (ii) Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2024 and related bills, (iii) Fair Work Amendment Bill 2024, (iv) Parliamentary Business Resources Legislation Amendment (Review Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2024, (v) Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Modernising Administrative Processes) Bill 2024, (vi) National Cancer Screening Register Amendment Bill 2024, (vii) Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Military Invalidity Payments Means Testing) Bill 2024, (viii) Attorney-General's Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Bill 2023, (ix) Public Service Amendment Bill 2023, and (x) Health Legislation Amendment (Removal of Requirement for a Collaborative Arrangement) Bill 2024; (b) paragraph (a) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; (c) following consideration of the bills, a message from the House of Representatives concerning the Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023 be reported, and the question that the Senate not insist on its amendments be proposed from the chair and be put immediately; (d) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm for the purposes of the bills and consideration of the message only; (e) after the consideration of the bills and the message has concluded, general business be considered till not later than 5.30 pm; and (f) the sitting of the Senate then be suspended till the ringing of the bells (at approximately 8 pm). I seek leave to move an amendment to the motion, which has been circulated. Leave granted. Senator GALLAGHER ING I move: That— (a) if consideration of the following bills has not concluded by 1.30 pm on Thursday, 16 May 2024, the questions on all remaining stages of the bills be put after the attendance of a minister in relation to the estimates manual: (i) Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023, (ii) Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2024 and related bills, (iii) Fair Work Amendment Bill 2024, (iv) Parliamentary Business Resources Legislation Amendment (Review Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2024, (v) Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024, (vi) New Vehicle Efficiency Standard Bill 2024 New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2024, (vii) Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023, (viii) Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards and Other Measures) Bill 2023, (ix) Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Modernising Administrative Processes) Bill 2024, (x) National Cancer Screening Register Amendment Bill 2024, (xi) Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Military Invalidity Payments Means Testing) Bill 2024, (xii) Attorney-General's Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Bill 2023, (xiii) Public Service Amendment Bill 2023, and (xiv) Health Legislation Amendment (Removal of Requirement for a Collaborative Arrangement) Bill 2024; (b) paragraph (a) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; (c) following consideration of the bills, a message from the House of Representatives concerning the Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023 be reported, and the question that the Senate not insist on its amendments be proposed from the chair and be put immediately; (d) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm for the purposes of the bills and consideration of the message only; (e) after the consideration of the bills and the message has concluded, general business be considered till not later than 5.30 pm; and (f) the sitting of the Senate then be suspended till the ringing of the bells (at approximately 8 pm). The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Gallagher to add four bills to the motion be agreed to. 11:31 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I ask that the question be put separately on each of the four bills in the amendment circulated by Senator Gallagher. 11:32 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 Thank you, President. I thought that this brave new world of Labor-Green politics was going to deny me that opportunity too. We previously supported motions to ensure appropriate consideration and scrutiny of these time critical bills by Senate committees. But what we're seeing here, in relation to the addition of these four bills to the motion at the very last moment, with senators being asked to make a decision without having been given notice of it, is some new level of chaos in this place. Senator Henderson ZN4 It's discourteous. Senator DUNIAM 263418 I agree with Senator Henderson's interjection. The lack of courtesy being shown to this place is really something that the government ought to reflect on when it comes to seeking to provide the Senate with opportunities to actually do its job and scrutinise this legislation. I put on record the fact that we are very, very dissatisfied with how the government is conducting itself, not only seeking to ram things through in a time that is unacceptable but giving us such little notice to be able to consider them. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that (v), the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024, be included in the amendment as moved by Senator Gallagher.    

The Senate divided. [11:38]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 35 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 33 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Van, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 11:41 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that (vi), the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard Bill 2024 and the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2024, be included in the amendment as moved by Senator Gallagher.    

The Senate divided. [11:42]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 35 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 33 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Van, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 11:44 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 What we're seeing here is selling Australians out—the Labor Party with some ridiculous omnibus bill which takes important changes off the back of the PWC scandal and puts them with a dud deal for Australians when it comes to the export of our gas. They should be ashamed of themselves. You're selling us out. You're telling people on JobSeeker, youth allowance, all these other social security payments, 'Stay in poverty. We can't afford to help you guys, sorry.' We don't have the money to do it and at the same time we're not collecting anything from our offshore gas. Hundreds of billions of dollars of LNG gets exported and today there is not a cent of petroleum resource rent tax. We'll hear people cry, 'Well, they're paying corporate tax.' They've minimised it below one per cent in recent years. This is embarrassing. More Australians need to know what you're doing. You're selling us out. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023 be included in the amendment as moved by Senator Gallagher.    

The Senate divided. [11:47]
(The President—Senator Lines)

35 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 33 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Van, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 11:50 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards and Other Measures) Bill 2023 be included in the amendment as moved by Senator Gallagher.    

The Senate divided. [11:50]
(The President—Senator Lines)

35 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 33 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Van, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

11:51 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now put Senator Gallagher's amendment to the routine of hours variation, and that includes the bills from (v) through to (viii). I will remind senators that I have been lenient this time, but there was no change in the vote on any of those four bills and so the proper course of action is there should have been no division between the bills. But a division is required on the amendment.    

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

35 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 32 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Van, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 11:55 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I seek leave to make a one-minute statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Is leave granted? Leave is granted for one minute. Senator McKENZIE 207825 Here we are in a budget week, and we could be in Moscow or we could be in any other communist country. You've seen the green bells for the other place ringing all morning. And why was the House of Reps voting all morning? It was to shut down debate on the new vehicle efficiency standard so that no-one in that chamber who is supporting the bill or not supporting the bill could have their say. And here we are again, with the Labor Party putting this bill into their guillotine motion so that no-one in this chamber gets to have a say on the biggest change to our transport sector since we got rid of the horse and cart. This is what weak leaders do when they are afraid. They're afraid of dissent, afraid of different ideas, and it's so typical that they got into bed with the Greens. (Time expired) COMMITTEES 31 COMMITTEES Legislation Committees 31 Reference 31 11:56 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That— (1) To ensure appropriate consideration of time critical bills by Senate committees, the provisions of all bills introduced into the House of Representatives after 16 May 2024 and up to and including 6 June 2024 that contain substantive provisions commencing on or before 1 July 2024 (together with the provisions of any related bill) are referred to committees for inquiry and report by 24 June 2024. (2) The committee to which each bill is referred shall be determined in accordance with the allocation of departments and agencies to standing committees agreed to by the Senate. (3) A committee to which a bill has been referred may determine, by unanimous decision, that there are no substantive matters that require examination and report that fact to the Senate. (4) This order does not apply in relation to bills which contain: (a) no provisions other than provisions appropriating revenue or moneys (appropriation bills); and (b) commencement clauses providing only for the legislation to commence on Royal Assent. 11:57 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland by leave—I move: After subparagraph (4)(b), add: (c) any provisions relating to the 2024-25 Budget measure—Future Made in Australia. Question agreed to. Original question, as amended, agreed to. Legislation Committees 32 Reference 32 11:57 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That— (1) To ensure appropriate consideration of bills by Senate committees, the provisions of the following bills introduced into the House of Representatives after 16 May 2024 and up to and including 6 June 2024 are referred to committees for inquiry and report by 24 June 2024: (a) Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024; (b) Health Insurance Amendment (Assignment of Medicare Benefits) Bill 2024; (c) Social Security Amendment (More Support in the Safety Net) Bill 2024; (d) National Health Amendment (Supporting Patient Access to Cheaper Medicines and Other Measures) Bill 2024; and (e) any bills relating to provisions in the 2024-25 Budget. (2) The committee to which each bill is referred shall be determined in accordance with the allocation of departments and agencies to standing committees agreed to by the Senate. (3) A committee to which a bill has been referred may determine, by unanimous decision, that there are no substantive matters that require examination and report that fact to the Senate. 11:58 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 While the coalition supported the previous motion to ensure appropriate consideration of time critical bills by Senate committees, we do oppose this motion. It's, frankly, farcical that the government believes this motion would ensure appropriate consideration of bills by Senate committees. This motion, if passed, would allow not only those bills listed in the motion but any bill related to the 2024-25 budget to be referred to a Senate committee to report by 24 June this year. The Senate should deal with these bills and any future bills that relate to the budget in the ordinary way. When they're introduced, the Senate can then decide which bills are or are not referred to committees and when the committees will report. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that government business No. 3 standing in the name of Senator Chisholm and moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [12:03]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 23 AYES Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Wong, P. 43 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hodgins-May, S. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 DOCUMENTS 33 DOCUMENTS Attorney-General's Department, National Indigenous Australians Agency 33 Order for the Production of Documents 33 12:06 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I seek leave to amend general business notice motions No. 519 and No. 520 in my name for today for the production of documents. I'd like to change the reporting date from 16 May to 17 May. Leave granted. Senator THORPE 280304 I move the motions, as amended, together: GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 519 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by no later than midday on Friday, 17 May 2024, all documents and briefing materials prepared by the Attorney-General's Department for additional estimates in February 2024. GENERAL BUSINESS NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 520 That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Indigenous Australians, by no later than midday on Friday, 17 May 2024, all documents and briefing materials prepared by the National Indigenous Australians Agency for additional estimates in February 2024. Question agreed to. Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water 33 Order for the Production of Documents 33 12:08 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 523, relating to compliance with an order for the production of documents. Leave granted. Senator THORPE 280304 I move the motion as amended: That the Senate— (a) notes that: (i) on 20 March 2024, order for the production of documents no. 493 was agreed by the Senate, requiring the Minister representing the Minister for Environment to table the documents regarding First Nations cultural heritage protection laws by no later than 8 April 2024, (ii) in a letter of response tabled on 9 April 2024, the Minister stated that 'work is underway to compile the documents' and proposed to table the documents on 9 May 2024, (iii) the order was not complied with by this date, and only following lodgement of a compliance motion did the minister respond to the order, and (iv) a further letter was tabled on 15 May 2024, in which the minister made a public interest immunity claim on the basis that these documents would 'disclose and pre-empt the deliberations of Cabinet'; (b) rejects this public interest immunity claim, given the significant public interest of disclosing the documentation relating to First Nations cultural heritage reforms; and (c) requires that the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water comply with order no. 493 by no later than midday on Friday, 24 May 2024. Question agreed to. Australian Federal Police 34 Order for the Production of Documents 34 12:09 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move: (1) That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by no later than midday on Friday, 24 May 2024, the following documents: (a) all agreements signed by Australian Federal Police Commissioner Reece Kershaw with the People's Republic of China and/or the Ministry of Public Security of the People's Republic of China during Commissioner Kershaw's visit to the People's Republic of China in March 2024; (b) all current and expired agreements entered into between the Australian Federal Police and the Ministry of Public Security of the People's Republic of China; and (c) all correspondence between the Australian Federal Police (including its agents, officers and employees) and the Ministry of Public Security of the People's Republic of China (including its agents, officers and employees) in relation to the agreements mentioned in paragraph (a). (2) That once received by the Clerk or the President, documents returned and any correspondence responding to the order shall be deemed to have been presented to the Senate and publication of the documents is authorised. Question negatived. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 by leave—I ask that the Greens support for our motion to get this transparency be noted. 12:10 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland by leave—I'd like to record my support for the motion. COMMITTEES 34 COMMITTEES Impact of Climate Risk on Insurance Select Committee 34 Appointment 34 12:10 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move: (1) That a select committee, to be known as the Select Committee on the Impact of Climate Risk on Insurance Premiums and Availability, be established to inquire into and report on: (a) the unaffordability of insurance in some regions due to climate-driven disasters; (b) the unavailability of insurance for some people due to climate-driven disasters; (c) the underlying causes and impacts of increases in insurance premiums; (d) the extent to which increased climate risk is being priced into insurance products not exposed to climate-driven risks; (e) the distributional impact of increases in insurance premiums across communities, demographics and regions; (f) the role of governments to implement climate adaptation and resilience measures to reduce risks and the cost of insurance; (g) how the pricing of risk from climate-driven disasters can be better redistributed across the economy; and (h) any other related matters. (2) That the committee present its final report by 19 November 2024. (3) That the committee consist of 5 senators, as follows: (a) two nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate; (b) two nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate; and (c) one nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate. (4) That: (a) participating members may be appointed to the committee on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate or any minority party or independent senator; (b) participating members may participate in hearings of evidence and deliberations of the committee, and have all the rights of members of the committee, but may not vote on any questions before the committee; and (c) a participating member shall be taken to be a member of a committee for the purpose of forming a quorum of the committee if a majority of members of the committee is not present. (5) That the committee may proceed to the dispatch of business notwithstanding that all members have not been duly nominated and appointed and notwithstanding any vacancy. (6) That the committee elect as chair a member nominated by the Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate and, as deputy chair, a member nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate. (7) 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. (8) That the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, may appoint another member of the committee to act as chair during the temporary absence of both the chair and deputy chair at a meeting of the committee. (9) That, in the event of an equally divided vote, the chair, or the deputy chair when acting as chair, have a casting vote. (10) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of three or more of its members, and to refer to any such subcommittee any of the matters which the committee is empowered to consider. (11) That the committee and any subcommittee have power to send for and examine persons and documents, to move from place to place, to sit in public or in private, notwithstanding any prorogation of the Parliament or dissolution of the House of Representatives, and have leave to report from time to time its proceedings and the evidence taken and such interim recommendations as it may deem fit. (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. (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. Question agreed to. Scrutiny of Bills Committee 35 Scrutiny Digest 35 12:10 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I present Scrutiny digest6 of 2024 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills together with ministerial correspondence received by the committee. I seek leave to incorporate the tabling statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows— As Chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, I rise to speak to the tabling of the committee's Scrutiny Digest 6 of 2024. The Digest reports on the committee's consideration of seventeen bills which were introduced into the Parliament in March, as well as amendments made to two bills. In the Digest, the committee has identified potential scrutiny concerns in relation to ten newly introduced bills. The Digest also contains the committee's comments on recent ministerial responses in relation to nine bills. The committee welcomes Senate amendments to the Digital ID Bill 2024 which address scrutiny concerns raised by the committee. The bill has been amended at the committee's request to require a report of the Minister's review of legislative rules relating to fees charged by entities in the Australian Government Digital ID System be tabled in each House of Parliament. The bill has also been amended to clarify that protection from liability for accredited entities is applied only in respect of actions or other proceedings brought by other accredited entities and relying parties participating in the Australian Government Digital ID System. I also wish to draw Senators' attention to the committee's remarks in relation to the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024. The committee sought advice in relation to this bill when it was first introduced and has received a response from the Minister which is addressed in this Digest. The bill raises a number of scrutiny concerns in relation to trespass on rights and liberties, the imposition of significant penalties and significant matters that have been left to delegated legislation. In relation to significant matters in delegated legislation, of particular concern to the committee is proposed section 199F, to be inserted into the Migration Act 1958. This section would allow the minister to designate a 'removal concern country' by legislative instrument. Senators will be aware that the momentous impact of making such a declaration is to effectively ban citizens of that country from applying for a visa to come to Australia. The minister advised the committee determinations made under proposed section 199F are in the national interest and are therefore a matter for the Executive, and that the intention is for countries to be aware of Australia's position that they should facilitate removal of affected persons. The committee's position is that the designation of countries as removal concern countries is a significant matter which should be subject to full parliamentary approval and would be most appropriate for primary legislation. The committee's view is that parliamentarians are clearly capable of appropriately assessing whether a legislative proposal is in the national interest and the committee has noted that the Government would have the opportunity to put its position during parliamentary debate. The committee also takes the opportunity to draw to the attention that an instrument designating a country as a removal concern country would not be subject to parliamentary control through the disallowance process. The committee notes that this crucial information was not provided with sufficient clarity in the explanatory memorandum to the bill, nor was it identified or justified in the minister's response to this committee. Any bills which empower the making of non-disallowable instruments should clearly set out the legislative authority for the exemption from disallowance in the explanatory memorandum so that this information may be properly scrutinised and considered by the Parliament. Explanatory memoranda should also justify why the exemption is necessary and appropriate in the context of each individual instrument. This is particularly salient in situations such as the current bill where the measures to be included in non-disallowable instruments are matters of high policy impact and which trespass on individual rights and liberties. In this instance the committee has not been furnished with any justification as to why it is necessary and appropriate for instruments made under proposed section 199F to be exempt from disallowance. Noting the significant consequences of the designation of a country as a removal concern country, which would inevitably affect a significant number of people, the committee is of the view that any such designation should be subject to parliamentary control through the disallowance process. However, at a minimum, a full justification for this exemption should have been set out in the explanatory memorandum to the bill. The committee also notes the advice that it is the intention of the Government that should the power to designate a country as a removal concern country be exercised, countries would be individually designated. While welcoming this statement of the Government's intentions, the committee notes that this is not required by the provision as drafted and this protection would be guaranteed through an amendment to the bill. Finally, I wish to draw the Senate's attention to the committee's comments on standing appropriations in the Parliamentary Business Resources Legislation Amendment (Review Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2024. This bill seeks to amend the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022,which appropriates the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the purpose of making payments of financial assistance to, or for the benefit of, parliamentarians under arrangements prescribed by the National Anti-Corruption Commission Regulations 2023. This bill seeks to amend the existing standing appropriation to add the words former parliamentarians, with the effect that the standing appropriation will extend to all payments that can be made in accordance with the NACC Regulations, including those made to former parliamentarians. Standing appropriations enable entities to spend money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund on an ongoing basis, usually for indefinite amounts and duration. Once a standing appropriation is enacted, any expenditure under it does not require regular parliamentary approval and therefore escapes direct parliamentary control. Given the difficulty of ongoing parliamentary oversight over enacted standing appropriations, the committee expects a robust justification for why a standing appropriation should be established or expanded in the first place. The committee has requested advice from the Special Minister of State as to: why it is necessary and appropriate to include a standing appropriation, rather than providing for the relevant appropriations in the annual appropriation bills; whether the bill places a limitation on the amount of funds that may be appropriated or duration in which the standing appropriation will exist for; whether the standing appropriation is subject to a sunset clause and, if not, whether it would be appropriate for such a clause to be included in the bill; and what mechanisms are in place to report to the Parliament on any expenditure authorised by the standing appropriation. I encourage all parliamentarians to carefully consider the committee's analysis contained in the Digest. With these comments, I commend the committee's Scrutiny Digest 6 of 2024 to the Senate. BILLS 36 BILLS Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024 36

Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024

First Reading 36 12:11 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 37 12:11 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— Today, I introduce the Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024. The Bill builds on Labor's long history of pioneering tobacco control reforms, harking back 50 years ago to when the Whitlam Government introduced the first restrictions on tobacco advertising. That legacy continued with the introduction of Australia's world-leading tobacco plain-packaging reforms just over 10 years ago, and again with the Albanese Government's push to reignite the fight against tobacco, with the Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Act 2023, which was passed in Parliament last year. Tobacco plain packaging was bold policy achieved in the face of some often savage legal and rhetorical assault. It was imaginative policy. And it was world-leading policy: 26 countries have followed our lead and introduced their own such laws. It's a policy that has saved lives and will continue to save lives. When plain packaging was introduced, around 16% of Australian adults smoked. Today, just over 10% do. But all that progress could be undone, if we do not urgently address the threat posed by a new public health menace: vaping. E-cigarettes and vapes were sold to governments and communities around the world as a therapeutic good: a product that could help hardened smokers—usually people in their 40s or 50s—to quit smoking and kick the habit. If vapes are therapeutic goods then it is entirely appropriate that Australia should regulate them as therapeutic goods, instead of allowing them to be sold alongside candy bars in convenience stores, often down the road from schools. Importantly, this Bill does not take away the ability for patients to legitimately access therapeutic vapes to help them quit smoking or manage their nicotine dependence, if that is deemed to be clinically appropriate for that patient. The Bill affirms Australia's commitment to its international obligations as a party to the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Under this Convention, parties are obliged to develop and implement effective policies to not only to prevent and reduce tobacco consumption and exposure, but also to prevent and reduce nicotine addiction. It is critical to introduce new safeguards in accordance with this commitment, to prevent the current and future public health risks associated with vaping. The Bill takes strong action to ban the importation, domestic manufacture, supply, commercial possession and advertisement of vaping goods, except in limited circumstances. It is a necessary step to address the growing risk posed by vaping in Australia, particularly to youth and young adults, while preserving legitimate patient access to therapeutic vaping goods for smoking cessation and the management of nicotine dependence, where clinically appropriate. These measures complement changes that have been instituted at the border. Together, these are intended to arrest and reverse the increasing rates of vaping, and to prevent long term adverse effects on population health. The reforms in this Bill are world-leading. Vaping is a very serious public health menace and the rapid rise in vaping among young people is creating a whole new generation of persons with nicotine dependence in our schools and communities. It poses a major threat to population health and Australia's success in tobacco control, and that is why this Bill is so critical to addressing these challenges now. The global health community is watching us closely. The highly addictive nature of nicotine, the sophisticated marketing to vulnerable populations, and the direct inhalation of substances into the lungs, mean that risks to population health associated with vaping can be severe. Numerous studies highlight concerns about potential adverse effects, including impact on adolescent brain development, worsened pregnancy outcomes, cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease and cancer. This is not surprising, as vapes have been found to include over 200 chemicals, including listed poisons, heavy metals such as nickel and chromium, and chemical by-products produced during heating such as formaldehyde, nitrosamines, acetone, and acrolein. Some of these chemicals are used in weed killer, nail polish remover and even to embalm dead bodies. A range of other health risks are also associated with vape use, including severe burns, poisoning and seizures. The evidence is clear: people who have never smoked, and who use vapes, are more likely to take up cigarette smoking than those who do not.And dual use of vaping and tobacco products may even result in worse health outcomes compared to smoking alone. Perhaps most worryingly, the long-term health risks of vaping are not yet fully known. Nicotine vapes may worsen mental health conditions, and amplify stress, anxiety and depressive symptoms. Parents, teachers and doctors are reporting that nicotine dependence is impacting learning behaviours and well-being in schools. In addition, the Australian Dental Association warns that vaping may be setting the next generation up for a raft of oral health issues. The latest national data show that 1 in 6 (16%) secondary school students aged 12 to 17 years reported recent vaping in 2022/23—a four-fold increase since the previous survey from 2017 (4%). These statistics are alarming and support the need for strong, decisive and urgent action. Vapes are being deliberately marketed and supplied to young Australians, with colours, flavours and packaging specifically designed to attract them. Vaping goods are aggressively promoted by the vaping industry in online advertising and other youth-focused media channels. Many vapes are deliberately mislabelled as containing 'no nicotine' or 'zero nicotine' or even unlabelled to avoid detection and seizure. However, the Therapeutic Goods Administration has reported that approximately 90% of all tested vapes are found to contain nicotine, no matter what appears on the label. Further, we know that a significant number of vape stores around Australia are located within walking distance of schools—in some states it is as high as 9 in 10 stores—and worryingly, around one in six high school students is now a regular vaper. Allowing these trends to continue is not an acceptable option. This is a crisis that deserves our national attention. The Bill appropriately responds by implementing the second stage of the Government's vaping reform measures. The first stage commenced earlier this year through amendments to regulations. The importation of disposable single use vapes, irrespective of nicotine content or therapeutic claims, was banned on 1 January 2024, subject to very limited exceptions. The importation of all other vapes was banned on 1 March 2024, unless certain requirements are met in relation to those vapes, including licences and permits, and pre-market notifications under the Therapeutic Goods Act. These reforms focus on turning off the tap at the border as a necessary first step to combat supply. The second stage, to be effected by this Bill, will regulate the importation, domestic manufacture, supply, possession and advertisement of all vapes under the Therapeutic Goods Act. This is achieved by extending the scope of the Therapeutic Goods Act to all vapes, not simply therapeutic vapes. The Bill institutes changes to ban non-therapeutic vapes and ensure that therapeutic vapes are supplied through pharmacy settings. Advertisements targeted at young people will be banned. Disposable vapes will be banned and widespread promotion and availability will be limited. The Bill will be complemented by changes to regulatory settings for therapeutic vapes to increase quality standards, significantly reduce flavours and introduce plain packaging. Similar safeguards already apply to other prescription medicines, including those for smoking cessation and the management of nicotine dependence. Because let us not be in any doubt: vapes were sold to the Australian community as therapeutic goods, to aid those seeking to quit cigarette smoking. And so, it is entirely appropriate to regulate them as we do any other therapeutic goods—through regulation that simultaneously ensures legitimate access and provides sound public protection. The Government is not taking away the ability for patients to legitimately access vaping goods for smoking cessation or the management of nicotine dependence, where clinically appropriate. The reforms simply ensure that vapes are only accessed under the clinical supervision of a medical or nurse practitioner, to provide an opportunity for users to receive appropriate advice on the risks associated with vaping, the benefits of not smoking, and any up-to-date health advice as part of their usual care. Deliberately mislabelling vapes to conceal the presence or content of nicotine will no longer be a means for suppliers to avoid compliance and enforcement. It will be easier for authorities to prove that vapes are unlawful and to enable their seizure. Importantly, there will be no legitimate supply through vape shops, convenience stores or other retail outlets, such as petrol stations or milk bars. The reforms to strengthen the regulation of all vaping goods irrespective of nicotine content was recommended in the National Tobacco Strategy 2023-2030. The Strategy was developed in consultation with a wide range of stakeholders and was endorsed by all Commonwealth, state and territory health ministers in 2023. The Bill provides a single consistent framework that will apply nationally to the regulation of all vapes. The federal cooperative scheme between Commonwealth, states and territories for the regulation of therapeutic goods will be extended to vaping goods to ensure comprehensive controls. The scheme is achieved through the application of corresponding laws enacted in each state and territory, with Western Australia having recently introduced legislation to the Parliament of Western Australia to enact their own corresponding law. The extension of the Therapeutic Goods Act to vapes is appropriate and necessary in the circumstances and will facilitate a national approach by enabling all jurisdictions to use the same legislation. Under the Bill, there are significant penalties for importing, manufacturing, supplying, possessing and advertising vapes except in certain circumstances. Consistent with the federal cooperative scheme, the Commonwealth will take responsibility for enforcing importation, manufacture, sponsor supply and advertisement. The states and territories will take responsibility for enforcing wholesale supply, retail supply and commercial possession. The Australian Border Force will lead enforcement at the border. The Therapeutic Goods Administration and state and territory officers will exercise powers and functions, in concert with police authorities as required, and particularly when organised crime is involved. Advertising of vapes to the public will be banned in almost all instances. Offences and civil penalties will apply to this conduct and operate in conjunction with bans on advertising in the new tobacco control laws passed in Parliament last year. Bans on the supply of vapes outside of pharmacy settings go to the heart of these reforms and will be principally enforced by the states and territories, with the support of the Commonwealth. For the first time under the Therapeutic Goods Act, there will be offences and civil penalties for the commercial possession of vapes. These are aimed at unlawful retailers and operators of warehouses and other persons with significant quantities of vapes who deny having been involved in supply. These are tiered offences, with higher maximum penalties depending on the quantities of vapes possessed. The new ban on possession includes an exception for personal use, including by young Australians who are deliberately being targeted by an industry determined to make a profit. This Bill is not about penalising persons who are using vapes, whether adults or children. The focus of the Bill is to criminalise the illicit importation, manufacture, supply, advertisement and commercial possession of vapes. This is needed to protect young Australians in particular. The penalties for breaching the new requirements are significant. These are designed to ensure that the reforms provide a strong deterrence from engaging in conduct that may harm Australians. The Government knows that some people will say that the reforms will simply grow the black market. However, effective enforcement has been hampered by the current regulatory settings. The Bill will address the methods that certain operators are using to import, advertise and supply nicotine vapes illegally. Strengthening the regulation of all vapes, through enhancing border controls, banning all disposable single use vapes and ending the supply of vapes outside of pharmacy settings, will make it easier to identify and disrupt the illicit supply of vapes and take effective enforcement action. Strengthened enforcement activities across all levels of the supply chain will also combat the black market. To support the implementation and enforcement of these reforms, the Government is providing an additional $25 million to the Australian Border Force and $56.9 million to the TGA over two years. And all states and territories are committed to sharing and increasing compliance action and supporting a national enforcement approach. The vaping reforms complement a wider set of actions being taken by the Government. This includes $63.4 million for new public health information campaigns to prevent and reduce the use of tobacco and e-cigarettes. This includes a dedicated Youth Vaping Education campaign, the first phase of which launched in February, with future phases planned to start later this year; and the National Tobacco and E-Cigarette campaign, which is planned to launch mid-year. These campaigns together will ensure all Australians are aware of the risks associated with vaping, and the supports available to help them quit. The measures in this Bill reflect evidence that a comprehensive range of demand and supply reduction measures can be highly effective in changing drug related attitudes and behaviours. Reforms recommended by the TGA and implemented in 2018 to make codeine a prescription only medicine are one example of this. Evidence showed that, after the codeine reforms were implemented, rates of codeine misuse and sales reduced substantially. In the meantime, a range of support services continue to be available nationally to help people quit smoking and the use of e-cigarettes. This includes programs run through state and territory health services and Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services, and the provision of quit advice and support through Quitline counsellors and other health professionals, such as GPs, pharmacists and specialists. It also includes 'first line' smoking cessation products that continue to be available, including medicines and patches that are subsidised on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The Government is also providing $29.5 million to expand specialised programs and services to support Australians to quit smoking and vaping, and $141 million to extend and widen the Tackling Indigenous Smoking program to reduce both vaping and smoking among First Nations people. We must slow and reverse the importation, manufacture, supply and advertisement of vapes in Australia, other than for legitimate, therapeutic use. We know that the job will be difficult, but so much great work is already underway to safeguard the health of Australians from the risks of vaping. The reforms introduced by this Bill will further this work and critically empower authorities to stop the spread of vapes endangering the health of young Australians. It is just over 50 years since Labor introduced the first restrictions on tobacco advertising, and just over 10 years since we introduced Australia's world leading plain packaging laws. As Parliamentarians in this place today, we all have the opportunity and responsibility to act now, to safeguard the health of young Australians for generations to come. How will history judge us 10 or 50 years from now, if—instead of acting—we equivocate: squandering this opportunity and ignoring our responsibility? How will our children and grandchildren judge us, then? Let us lead the world again, once more—for the sake of our children and their children to come. I commend the Bill. Debate adjourned. MOTIONS 39 MOTIONS Parliamentary Standards 39 12:12 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia by leave—I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that the slogan "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" opposes Israel's right to exist, and is frequently used by those who seek to intimidate Jewish Australians via acts of antisemitism; (b) welcomes Prime Minister Albanese agreeing with comments from former Defence Department Secretary Dennis Richardson calling the slogan "a very violent statement" which could "easily flow into actions of violence against communities in our own country"; (c) agrees with Prime Minister Albanese that "it is a slogan that calls for opposition to a two-state solution", and that "those people chanting, they're saying that one state should be Palestine"; (d) concurs with Prime Minister Albanese's statements in relation to recent university protests that "it's important that there be respectful debate in this country and what we're seeing at the moment… what is hatred, what is ignorance, what is divisive…and it doesn't have a place"; and (e) calls on all senators to engage in debates and commentary respectfully, and to refrain from inflammatory and divisive comments, both inside and outside the chamber at all times. This motion notes that the slogan, 'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,' opposes Israel's right to exist and is frequently used by those who seek to intimidate Jewish Australians via acts of antisemitism. This motion also welcomes Prime Minister Albanese agreeing with comments from former Secretary of the Department of Defence Dennis Richardson calling the slogan 'a very violent statement which could easily flow into actions of violence against communities in our country'. He further agrees with Prime Minister Albanese that it is 'a slogan that calls for opposition to a two-state solution' and that 'those people chanting are saying that one state should be Palestine'. It concurs with Prime Minister Albanese's statements in relation to recent university protests: It's important that there be respectful debate in this country and what we are seeing at the moment … what is hatred, what is ignorance, what is divisive, and it doesn't have a place. Lastly, this motion—as the Senate has done before—calls upon all senators to engage in debates and commentary respectfully and to refrain from inflammatory and divisive comments both inside and outside the chamber at all times. The conflict in the Middle East has unacceptably infected nations around the world, including, tragically, our own. The actions of some have created division. They have fuelled hatred, and they have spurred a most horrific rise in antisemitism. Antisemitism is one of the most ancient forms of hatred. It corrodes societies. As we witnessed during the Holocaust, with the deliberate killing of some six million Jews, when antisemitism is left unchecked, it can result in the most heinous of outcomes. Antisemitism manifests itself in many ways— Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X including the chanting of the slogan being said in the chamber right now. The PRESIDENT 112096 Resume your seat, Senator Birmingham. This is a divisive debate, like many debates in this place. There is to be silence. Senator Birmingham is entitled to put his motion in silence and that is what we will have. I remind senators that we are now at 12.15, which is the hard marker, as you know, but I understand that we will go beyond that by leave. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Antisemitism manifests itself in many ways. Attacks are often made via expressions of hatred, via threats, via intimidation. These include the use of chants and phrases like calls for intifada and the chant 'from the river to the sea'. We have seen in our country, as in far too many other places around the world, the increasing use of these chants and phrases. Let us be very clear: they call for violence and they stand against the existence of the state of Israel. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, if you continue, I will withdraw the call from you. I've asked you to be quiet. I have asked for respectful silence in a chamber. I appreciate there are different views. There are many opportunities for you in this place to put your view, not now. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Such chants and phrases have no place in the type of political debate we should wish to see in our country, nor in the expression of free will that we should encourage and enable in our country. They have no place because of the way in which they are used to encourage division, to inflame hatred, and through acts of antisemitism. We should, we must, stand against antisemitism in all of its forms. That includes the requirement to stand against the use of language that fuels, drives and underpins antisemitism. The coalition is very clear in our position in relation to this, and we have been very clear since the horrific attacks of 7 October, that the rise in antisemitism has been one of the most profound and concerning aspects of the reaction to those attacks and to the consequential war that has been undertaken. Tragically, we saw antisemitic acts within hours of the 7 October attacks. We saw them on the steps of the Sydney Opera House. We've seen them subsequently in motorcades and protests deliberately targeting suburbs known to have higher Jewish populations, deliberately targeting places of worship and congregation. These are deliberate acts to intimidate Jewish Australians. The PRESIDENT 112096 Sorry, Senator Birmingham. I am very reluctant to interrupt the opposition leader when he is on his feet. I called for silence. That goes for every single senator in this place. If you can't hold your silence, I'd ask you to respectfully leave the chamber. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X These have been deliberate acts of intimidation against Jewish Australians. They have been deliberate acts of antisemitism. They have been acts that have put a stain upon our nation and our nation's reputation for inclusivity and tolerance and for being a nation that stands strongly against antisemitism. We should have seen stronger leadership. We should have seen more forceful responses to these acts as they came. Had we seen that in the early days, perhaps we could have avoided some of the consequential impacts in the months that followed. We have seen not just a rise in protests—calling for peace or ceasefire or expressing a view about the actions of the Israeli government—but also a continuous rise in antisemitism in the targeting of Jewish Australians. The impact of that is that there are too many Australians of Jewish background who now go about their lives in Australia in a state of fear. They fear for their safety. They fear for the safety of their communities. They fear congregating in their synagogues. They fear for their children when they wear their school uniforms going to or from their schools. Such fear should have no existence in our country—no place, tolerance or acceptance. It should not exist at all. The fact that it does requires and demands the strongest possible action and leadership. The phrases I've highlighted today are ones that have not just been uttered in protests. They've not just been uttered in rallies. They've not just been uttered in the types of unacceptable gatherings—they're calling them protests—at universities around the country or in other places. But, indeed, 'from the river to the sea' has been accepted and even said by members of the government. That is why we are very clear in putting this motion to the Senate, supporting and highlighting the responses the Prime Minister has given. We wish he had given these responses proactively, not reactively. We wish that he would show leadership in responding and dealing to the use of such phrases that fuel and drive antisemitism. But that leadership has been lacking. We call on the Prime Minister to take appropriate action and ensure members of his government and his party do not act in ways and repeat phrases that incite and fuel hatred or antisemitism or are used by those who incite and fuel hatred or antisemitism. It is totally unacceptable for Mr Albanese to escape scrutiny or to evade responsibility for the use of such phrases and actions. To say that he hasn't spoken about or acted upon such use is a failure of leadership. Mr Albanese, consistent with what he has said publicly, should act in relation to the use of such phrases. Ultimately, as we have been clear, we call on all senators to engage in debates and commentary respectfully. The Senate has said this before, and it is sad that we must say it again. But we say it because it is critical that all of us think about our responsibility to ensure that we act in ways that give all Australians the right to feel safe. Right now, Jewish Australians do not. The government needs to take stronger action and Mr Albanese needs to show greater leadership to ensure that they do. 12:23 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia This government represents the Australian community more completely than any government in this country's history. More than half of our government are women, and we have more First Nations members than any government that has preceded us. We have members of parliament from many different countries, with ancestries from many different cultures. We have members of many different faiths: Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Hinduism. We are proud of how much we represent the richness and the diversity of the Australian community, and we are also deeply conscious of the responsibility this brings with it. We do not speak only to one part of the community, nor do we speak only for one part of the community. Ours is a pluralist nation, a nation that welcomes different races, different religions and different views, and we are united by our respect for each other's humanity and for each other's right to live in peace. We are united by respect for one another and our right to live as citizens in this free society. We all need to acknowledge the trauma on all sides. We all need to respect each other's humanity and to come together as peacemakers have done throughout history. We all need to be peacemakers. We gain nothing by reproducing the conflict here, by talking past each other, by shouting each other down and by insisting on respective absolutes. It is not acceptable for anyone in this country to blame others in this country for the actions of others overseas. We stand against discrimination in all its forms. We stand against hate speech and prejudice. I stand against prejudice, discrimination and hate speech, and I always have. People might recall a bipartisan motion moved by former senator Cormann and me, which we drafted, calling out Fraser Anning for his appalling first speech where he referenced the 'final solution'. People might recall the Labor Party in opposition applauding former senator Brandis in response to an event in this chamber which was targeting the Muslim community and the Muslim faith. We have been consistent in our position against antisemitism, against all forms of hate speech and against Islamophobia. Senator Birmingham talks about—and he is right to raise this—how people are feeling. I would refer back to what I said when we announced our vote in support of a two-state solution at the UN. I sought to address the Jewish community directly. I said: Now I want to make some remarks directly to the Australian Jewish community. I understand that the Australian Jewish community are feeling distressed and isolated. I want to say, you are valued members of our community. You have a right to be safe. You have a right to feel safe. Anti-semitism has no place anywhere. I stand against it. We all must stand against it. Similarly we have seen in this chamber and beyond the distress that so many Australians feel at what we are seeing in Gaza. In respect of the issues that have been raised, our position is clear. We call for a humanitarian ceasefire, enabling the immediate release of hostages and humanitarian aid to flow. We call for the release of hostages. We have been clear about our objections to an Israeli ground offensive into Rafah. We have called for Israel to comply with the binding orders of the International Court of Justice, including to enable the provision of basic services and humanitarian assistance at scale. We have been clear about our position on BDS. We do not support BDS. We've been clear about our position on weapons. Australia has not supplied weapons to Israel since this conflict began or in the last five years. But most of all we want to do what we can to break the cycle of violence. We want a two-state solution. The phrase 'From the river to the sea' is not consistent with a two-state solution. And it is that solution which is needed for the peace and security of Palestinians and Israelis alike. Colleagues, Australia is not a central player in the Middle East, but we are a respected voice, and we use our voice to advocate for a humanitarian ceasefire, for the release of hostages and for a two-state solution, including by using our vote at the United Nations to add international momentum for a two-state solution. With that, I move: That the question be now put. Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [12:34]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 56 AYES Askew, W. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Fawcett, D. J. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Wong, P. 12 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. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 12:38 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I seek leave to make a two-minute statement in relation to the previous vote. Leave granted. Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 In relation to the previous vote, I wish to place on the record the principles which guide the Australian Greens in relation to all issues connected with justice and human rights for and in Palestine and Israel. We do so grounded in an understanding that the State of Israel continues to deny the right of self-determination to Palestinians and to dispossess them of their land. We aim to rectify this injustice in ways that allow both Palestinians and Israelis to live in peace, security and equality, exercising self-determination, as described by the UN charter. We recognise the State of Israel's ongoing illegal occupation of Palestinian territories, and the expropriation of Palestinian land and water is illegal and must be opposed. We call on, and have always called on, all parties to abide by international law, and we have recognised the reality that the policies of the State of Israel are increasingly rendering a two-state solution unachievable. In this work we have opposed all forms of racism, religious or cultural intolerance and discrimination in Australia and internationally. We have recognised that Palestinians in the State of Israel are subject to apartheid, while also recognising that there is, within Australia and across the world, a rise of antisemitism and Islamophobia that must be called out and that must be opposed, and that the attempt to frame criticism of the State of Israel's policies as antisemitic is utterly inappropriate. We do all of this while advocating peaceful and non-violent solutions. (Time expired.) Middle East 43 12:41 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I seek leave to move a motion relating to weapons exports and the attendance of a minister, as circulated. Leave not granted. Senator THORPE 280304 Pursuant to contingent notice, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the attendance of a minister. In recent weeks we found out just how far this government is willing to go to avoid scrutiny and accountability and to keep the public in the dark about dodgy government actions. This is a government that works hard to hide its cruelty, to keep its violence out of sight and out of mind and to keep the truth hidden. There is no better example of this than when it comes to questions about their complicity in the genocide in Gaza. Minister Wong and Prime Minister Albanese have continuously dodged questions about their government's ties with weapons companies that are fuelling Israel's genocide, and the hundreds of millions of dollars of public funds going to these companies. We know there are a number of ways that weapons make their way from this country to fuel genocidal massacres around the globe, including Israel's bombardment of Gaza. The weapons usually do not come directly from the Department of Defence. The global military industrial complex is much more sinister than that. Labor uses this complexity to dodge questions about all the ways that weapons produced in this country make their way to Gaza. The constant misrepresentation and intentional avoidance of questions is a deliberate attempt to mislead the public and avoid scrutiny. It's behaviour that constitutes contempt of the Senate. I want to thank Senator Shoebridge's office for their work in scrutinising the government and revealing figures that confirm that, in February 2024 alone, Australia directly exported over $1.5 million dollars in arms and ammunition to Israel and that the entire value of direct arms and munitions exports to Israel since the Albanese government came to power is collectively over $3.25 million. Shame on you, Labor! Shame! You are complicit in genocide! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Order! Senator Thorpe, I remind you to direct your comments through the chair. Senator THORPE 280304 You're all complicit in genocide, for these figures are only the tip of the iceberg. They do not account for the full scale of weapons, military goods and equipment that travel from Australia to Israel, and likely do not include military equipment exported indirectly through third parties. They also do not include the supply of weapons parts manufactured in Australia, without which these weapons could not be used to kill innocent civilians. Shame! There is blood on your hands. Yesterday was Nakba Day. It's their Invasion Day—you know, what you were also all complicit in: the genocide of First Peoples in this country. It was Nakba Day. There is a clear genocidal campaign happening, and it's intended to complete Nakba. It's intended for Israel to wipe the land of its people. For centuries, private companies have played central roles in fuelling colonial invasions, going all the way back to the British East India Company, which fuelled the British empire's invasion of lands all over the globe. It became a hugely wealthy and powerful company on the back of this invasion. Multinational weapons companies have offices and factories all over the world, including in this country. They make millions profiting off massacres, like you all profit off the massacres of my people here, and supply invaders with bombs and weapons used to kill innocent civilians and expand their illegal occupations. Does that sound familiar? As Palestinian professor Mazin Qumsiyeh said, 'There are many parallels between the genocide'— (Time expired) 12:46 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The government does not support this suspension of standing orders. We believe there are other opportunities for senators in this place to put forward arguments like the one Senator Thorpe seeks to put here today, including as MPIs and urgency motions et cetera. To be brief, I want to make it clear, as many ministers have in many different forums, that Australia has not supplied weapons to Israel since the conflict began and for at least the past five years. Australia has a stringent export control framework which is designed to ensure military and dual-use items are used responsibly outside of Australia. This framework requires the government to consider Australia's national interests and international obligations, including with regard to human rights, before issuing an export permit. As part of this process, Defence considers factors including the nature of the export, its proposed destination country and the proposed end user at that destination. Where there is a risk that issuing a permit could contravene our interests or obligations, that permit is refused. Defence continues to review the export permits it has granted to account for changes in the strategic environment and ensure that our exports continue to align with our international obligations. Australia is party to and fully implements all major international arms control treaties, including the Arms Trade Treaty. Specifically, when Defence issues export permits for military or dual use, these are listed publicly on the Defence and Strategic Goods List. The supply of a weapon to Israel from Australia by the Australian government, an Australian company or an individual in Australia would require Defence to issue an export permit to allow it to leave our shores. The government can confirm that no weapons have been supplied to Israel for at least the past five years, because no export permits have been issued for weapons in that time. I move: That the question be now put. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU The question is that the question be put.    

The Senate divided. [12:53]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Fawcett)

30 AYES Askew, W. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Fawcett, D. J. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Kovacic, M. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 12 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. Pocock, B. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. (Teller) Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 12:56 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU The question is that the motion moved by Senator Thorpe be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [12:56]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Fawcett)

 12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. Pocock, B. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. (Teller) Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 30 NOES Askew, W. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Fawcett, D. J. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Kovacic, M. (Teller) McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 BILLS 45 BILLS Parliamentary Business Resources Legislation Amendment (Review Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2024 45

Parliamentary Business Resources Legislation Amendment (Review Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2024

First Reading 45 13:00 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 45 13:00 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— The Parliamentary Business Resources Legislation Amendment (Review Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2024 will progress important reforms to simplify how services to parliamentarians are delivered, including joining up administration, enhancing client experience and streamlining service delivery. These reforms build on significant reforms made in 2017 and 2018 to the administration of parliamentary work expenses. The Bill will amend the Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017 and the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Act 2017 to respond to recommendations of the Independent Review into the Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017 and Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Act 2017, which was conducted by the former Member for Hinkler, the Hon Kelly O'Dwyer, and the former Member for Adelaide, the Hon Kate Ellis in late 2021. The Review found that the legislative framework is broadly meeting its objectives, but identified areas for improvement and made 30 recommendations, including to reporting and certification processes, improving service delivery and training, changes to the administration of public resources, and supporting a modern, diverse parliament. The Government announced its in-principle support for all of the recommendations of the Review when the report was tabled in the Parliament on 2 August 2022. Significant work has been progressed to implement these recommendations. The PBR Act and the IPEA Act set out the framework for the provision and administration of resources for parliamentarians. The PBR Act commenced in 2018 and established a principles-based framework for the provision of public resources to senators and members of Parliament. The IPEA Act commenced in 2017 and established IPEA as an independent statutory authority. IPEA currently has functions relating to the provision of travel resources to current and former senators and members under the PBR Act and other legislation. This includes the administration of those resources (including processing claims, paying or providing resources and providing personal and general advice). IPEA's transparency and accountability functions include reporting and auditing resources and giving rulings relating to the public resources IPEA administers under the PBR Act. This Bill directly implements three recommendations of the Review which require amendments to primary legislation and substantially advances the implementation of a further five recommendations aimed at joining up administration, enhancing client experience and streamlining service delivery by transferring the administrative responsibility for certain PBR resources to IPEA. Since the Review was tabled, the Department of Finance has been working closely with all administering entities to progress the other recommendations of the Review. Implementation is being progressed in a sequenced and considered way, noting the complexities of the parliamentary environment and the interaction with different reviews being simultaneously implemented across the Commonwealth Parliamentary Workplace. These changes to the parliamentary business resources framework have been developed in the context of the Government's broader reform activities to improve our parliamentary workplaces arising from the Australian Human Rights Commission's Set the Standard Report, including the establishment of the statutory Parliamentary Workplace Support Service and legislative amendments to the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 at the end of last year. An efficient and transparent administration regime that effectively supports parliamentarians to perform their duties in the public interest is an important feature of this system. The Bill is making three main changes to the legislative framework. Firstly, the Bill will provide for the transfer of the administration of certain PBR resources, including office expenses, from the Department of Finance to IPEA on 1 July 2025, implementing recommendation 23 of the Review. Secondly, the Bill will implement recommendations 8 and 11 of the Review by extending IPEA's personal advice and rulings functions. Thirdly, the Bill will provide enhancements to the PBR Act and IPEA Act, to clarify certain provisions that have been identified as requiring amendment over time, and better support longstanding administrative practices under legislation. Transfer of PBR resources Parliamentarians and their staff have access to a range of resources, which are provided by multiple entities including the parliamentary departments, portfolio departments, as well as the Department of Finance and IPEA, under the PBR Act and other mechanisms. It is unlikely that there will ever be a single provider to administer of all resources that are necessary and appropriate for parliamentarians to undertake their parliamentary business. However, it is clear from the Review that there is room for improvement. The transfer and consolidation of the administration of most PBR resources within IPEA will result in IPEA becoming the key administrator and point of contact for advice and support, including in relation to parliamentarians' obligations under the PBR framework. This will simplify how services to parliamentarians and their staff are delivered. The transfer will implement recommendation 23 of the Review and substantially advance the implementation of several recommendations which focus on aligning the administration of parliamentary business resources. This includes a greater focus on joined-up systems, administration, training, guidance and enhanced information sharing to improve the experience of parliamentarians and their staff (recommendations 13 to 17). The IPEA Act will be amended to provide that IPEA is responsible, by default, for all PBR administration except for resources that are expressly carved out. While some exclusions will be set out within the amended IPEA Act itself, the IPEA Act will be supported by legislative rules that will exclude other PBR resources from IPEA's administrative responsibilities as agreed by the Government. The legislative rules will provide flexibility to allow for efficient changes to the administration of PBR resources that may be required over time. The scope of IPEA's existing administrative and service delivery functions will be expanded to include office expenses and other transferred resources. This will build on IPEA's existing high standard of service delivery. However, the Bill will not reduce the types of resources provided to parliamentarians under the PBR Act. IPEA's responsibilities for reporting, compliance and audit for all work expenses will extensively align with existing practice. Currently, IPEA's personal advice function in relation to travel expenses and allowances are afforded exemption under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and safe-harbour from liability for a debt or penalty loading under the PBR Act. These important protections encourage parliamentarians' use of IPEA's advice function prior to claiming or using public resources, promoting the careful and appropriate use of public resources. The Bill will extend these protections to also cover the PBR resources which IPEA will administer following the transfer of functions. Implementing Recommendations 8 and 11 of the Review The Bill will implement recommendations 8 and 11 of the Review. IPEA will have the authority to provide personal advice about staff use of travel resources to their employing parliamentarian. It will also allow IPEA to provide, with the parliamentarian's agreement, personal advice about a parliamentarian's use of resources it administers to that parliamentarian's staff. This will facilitate more effective and efficient communication between IPEA and a parliamentarian's office. The Bill will implement Review recommendation 11 by allowing IPEA to make a ruling in relation to public resources it provided under the PBR Act when a former member was a member. Currently, the PBR Act does not allow IPEA to make a ruling for, or provide safe-harbour protections to, former parliamentarians. The Bill will allow IPEA to make a ruling in response to a request by a former member. This will provide assurance to current parliamentarians that if IPEA is found to have provided incorrect personal advice, the safe harbour protections that apply while a member, continue to apply after they cease to be a member. Under the amendments, IPEA will have the authority to make a ruling at the request of a former parliamentarian, but not at IPEA's own initiative. Other changes The Bill will make a number of other amendments to the PBR Act and IPEA Act. These enhancements do not represent major policy changes, rather they aim to address gaps that have emerged, clarify or better align provisions to original policy intent, and better support longstanding administrative practices. These measures include clarifying the delegation powers for Presiding Officers and IPEA's reporting function to align with administrative practices. Amendments to the PBR Act will ensure that the Prime Minister's power to determine resources relating to a former Prime Minister aligns with existing decisions of executive government which preceded the PBR Act. Fortnightly remuneration The Bill will modernise the payment frequency for parliamentarians' remuneration. The Remuneration Tribunal will continue to determine and report on the annual salary amounts for parliamentarians and other remuneration elements. The Bill will facilitate remuneration being payable on a fortnightly (rather than monthly) basis. The commencement of this measure will be subject to the readiness of IT system updates required to enable this change. Consequential amendments to the relevant superannuation legislation will also be made to reflect this change to fortnightly payments. Estate allowance Since 1980, ten members of Parliament have died while in office. Sadly, five of these, former Senators Alex Gallacher, Kimberley Kitching, Jim Molan and Linda White, and the former Member for Dunkley, Peta Murphy, have passed away in the last three years. These recent events have highlighted that allowances relating to a person ceasing to be a parliamentarian under the PBR Act are not payable to persons who pass away while a parliamentarian. This impacts the grieving partner and dependents of each of our former colleagues, as the provision of PBR resources stop with immediate effect upon a person leaving parliament. The Bill seeks to recognise and redress this inequity by allowing the Remuneration Tribunal to determine allowances which would be payable to the estate of a person who dies while a parliamentarian. The Remuneration Tribunal would have the discretion to consider such factors as it considers relevant when determining what, if any, amount of estate allowance is appropriate. Territory Senators' Remuneration The Bill will address an issue impacting retiring Territory Senators' remuneration which was inadvertently introduced with the PBR Act. The amendment will provide that a retiring Territory Senator is remunerated and able to claim PBR Act resources for the duration of their term when the Senate is not dissolved. The amendment will maintain the consistent and equal treatment of all retiring parliamentarians in the circumstances of a double dissolution election, whose remuneration ceases on the day of the double dissolution. Review timeframe The Bill will extend the frequency at which the independent statutory review of the PBR Act must occur from every three years to every five years since the Review was tabled. This will allow sufficient time for the proper implementation of review recommendations, and a sensible period in which any new arrangements can be reasonably reviewed. This does not prevent examination of the Act, nor amendment, at other times. Technical Amendments The Bill will make a technical amendment to the National Anti-Corruption Commission Act 2022 (NACC Act) to clarify that the standing appropriation under subsection 280(3) of the NACC Act extends to all payments that may be made to, or for the benefit of, current and former parliamentarians under the arrangements prescribed by Part 5 of the National Anti-Corruption Commission Regulations 2023 (NACC Regulations). This would ensure consistent funding of the legal financial assistance scheme for current and former parliamentarians under the NACC Act. Conclusion In summary, this Bill will update, realign and reform the provision of parliamentary business resources to facilitate a more efficient, seamless, client-focused delivery of services to parliamentarians and their staff, as well as addressing key recommendations of the Review which require legislative amendments to the PBR Act or the IPEA Act. 13:00 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I rise to speak on the Parliamentary Business Resources Legislation Amendment (Review Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2024. Following the moving and passage of government amendments, the opposition will be supporting this bill, noting that the Special Minister of State has provided undertakings to the opposition on the intention of several measures in the bill and provided briefings on their operation, which we sincerely thank him for. The bill represents significant changes to the framework for parliamentary business resources. The bill would amend the Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017, the PBR Act and the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Act 2017, the IPEA Act, to respond to a number of recommendations of the independent review into the Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017 and the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Act 2017, which is referred to in my comments as 'the review' and was conducted in late 2021. The bill contains schedules that implement recommendations 8, 11 and 23 of the review. Recommendation 8 stated: The Government consider amending the IPEA Act to expressly facilitate IPEA providing personal advice about staff use of travel resources to their employing parliamentarian and advice about parliamentarians' use of travel resources to their staff. This change will allow for better access and practise of the correct use of expenses—something that we all agree on—in particular, giving clarity under the legislation as to who can receive this advice. Recommendation 11 stated: The Government should consider amending the PBR Act to clarify that a former parliamentarian can apply for a ruling and IPEA can make such a ruling. Again, these changes will ensure that, as the scheme is now seeing parliamentarians leave the parliament who were using resources under the PBR framework, those former parliamentarians can still access some of the benefits of IPEA's ability to make rulings after they have ceased being parliamentarians. It is an important change that will provide these individuals clarity, if required. Recommendation 23 stated: The Government should consider moving the office expenses administration function to IPEA. This recommendation is a significant change. It represents the movement of a significant management of the resources for parliamentarians from the Department of Finance to the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority and will mean that, for the first time since the creation of the modern resources framework, the department will no longer manage the majority of the day-to-day resourcing for parliamentarians and their offices. Such a significant change will require an appropriate amount of education and management, to ensure staff and offices adjust to this change as smoothly as possible. The original bill proposed that this change would occur from 1 July this year, as the department advised that the most appropriate time to make the change is at the end of a financial year. The bill will also make minor and technical amendments to the conditions of our workplace, resolve administrative issues, make technical amendments and provide some measures that will modernise the systems that support parliamentarians in their work. Noting the significance of some of these changes and the short time originally proposed in the bill to introduce them, the government has indicated that some of these changes will take effect from 1 July 2025. This will allow for appropriate consultation and preparation to be undertaken to ensure officers and staff adjust to the new model of resource management. We sincerely thank the minister, his office and everyone involved in relation to these initiatives for their work—for continuing to work collaboratively on this bill and for continuing the longstanding bipartisanship on these matters. 13:05 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise to speak very briefly on the Parliamentary Business Resources Legislation Amendment (Review Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2024. This is largely a machinery-of-government bill to change some expense reporting responsibilities from Finance to IPEA. IPEA is an independent body, and, therefore, we think those are good, positive changes and we support them. I'm also really pleased to see that the government fixed in the House provisions that would have kept the usage of special-purpose aircraft shrouded in secrecy. I'm very pleased to see the government has fixed that and that they will now restore a measure of transparency in relation to that SPA usage, as is appropriate. We do still have concerns about the Prime Minister's boys' club—let's be honest; it is mostly a boys' club—in that this bill would codify what has not been longstanding practice: for current prime ministers to determine the ongoing perks of previous prime ministers. We think that is deeply inappropriate and we think that it is far more appropriate that that decision sit with the Remuneration Tribunal. They are the independent body that we think should make that sort of decision. I have circulated a second reading amendment to give effect to that suggestion. Sadly, I'm not anticipating support for that, but it's important that we go on the record. I move: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that the Remuneration Tribunal, as an independent body, is better placed to determine the entitlements for former Prime Ministers than the Prime Minister of the day". 13:06 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I thank colleagues for their contribution to the debate. The Parliamentary Business Resources Legislation Amendment (Review Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2024 will directly impact three recommendations of the Independent Review on the Parliamentary Business Resources Act 2017 and the Independent Parliamentary Expenses Authority Act 2017 and support the implementation of a further five recommendations. This bill will realign and reform the provision of parliamentary business resources to better facilitate an efficient, seamless, client focused delivery of services to parliamentarians and their stuff. I commend the bill to the Senate. 13:07 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I seek leave to speak for one minute in relation to Senator Waters' amendment. Leave granted. Senator SCARR 282997 The coalition will not be supporting this second reading amendment to ensure the passage of the bill, noting that the amendment, in our view, has no material effect. Question negatived. 13:08 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland by leave—can I ask that the Greens' position supporting the amendment be noted. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 49 13:08 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole. 13:08 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Modernising Administrative Processes) Bill 2024 49

Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Modernising Administrative Processes) Bill 2024

Second Reading 49 13:09 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria On behalf of the federal coalition, I can advise the Senate that we will be supporting the Agriculture Legislation Amendment (Modernising Administrative Processes) Bill 2024. Overall, it has our support because we believe that the amendments outlined in this legislation are sensible, responsible and practical. The bill will help to ensure that the Primary Industries Research and Development Act 1989 is modernised, upgraded and fit for purpose while also repealing an act that is no longer needed. From the outset, when it comes to the Primary Industries Research and Development Act 1989, it's important to recognise the major role that it has within Australia's primary production sector. The purpose of this act is to authorise and regulate four of our rural research and development corporations—we call them the RDCs. For more than three decades these RDCs, which include fisheries, cotton, grain and AgriFutures, have driven forward evidence based innovation, boosted strategic partnerships and helped secure targeted investment in each of their respective industries. They allow the federal government and primary producers to co-invest. I like to think it's the taxpayers and primary producers co-investing to make sure our primary production sector is fit for purpose by delivering the next generation of research but also making sure it delivers a return to the farm gate. That's a collective effort. Not just the entire industry but many communities throughout rural, regional and remote Australia will benefit. Therefore, it's essential that our RDCs operate as effectively and efficiently as possible, and we believe the measures contained within this bill do exactly that. Significantly, this legislation will enhance the operation of the Primary Industries Research and Development Act by improving the efficiency of administrative processes which relate to its governance and appointments. Amendments include streamlining and clarifying the nomination of RDC board members by a selection committee, which are then recommended to the minister for agriculture. It also removes the requirement for an annual report to be provided to the minister if no activity has been undertaken by the selection committee. Acknowledging that the RDCs meet twice annually, this bill will remove the requirement for the four statutory RDC chairpersons to have a coordination meeting each year. The coalition believes that that is a reasonable change. The second major component of this bill includes repealing the outdated Rural Adjustment Act 1992 and making transitional provisions to allow information and documents held by the National Rural Advisory Council to be provided to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Given that the Rural Adjustment Scheme ceased in 1997, that all financial commitments were acquitted in the year 2000 and that the funding for the Farm Business Improvement Program ended in February 2008, repealing this act in 2024 just makes sense. In conclusion, the federal coalition will be supporting this bill, and we commend it to the Senate. 13:12 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I wish to thank Senator McKenzie for her contribution and I commend the bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 50 13:13 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 No amendments have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading. 13:13 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. National Cancer Screening Register Amendment Bill 2024 50

National Cancer Screening Register Amendment Bill 2024

Second Reading 50 13:14 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania I know the National Cancer Screening Register Amendment Bill isn't a controversial bill, but I just want to make a very brief contribution to the second reading debate. I'd like to offer some perspectives on this as someone who has been a longstanding advocate for patients of cancers with low survival rates and as the chair of the select committee that inquired into cancers with low survival rates. According to Cancer Australia, the five-year survival rate for lung cancer between 2015 and 2019 was only 24 per cent. In 2023 lung cancer accounted for 17 per cent, or about one in six, of all cancer deaths. Lung cancer has the unfortunate distinction of having both a high incidence and a low survival rate compared with other cancers, and this deadly combination gives lung cancer the highest mortality rate of any cancer in Australia. In 2023 this was an age-standardised rate of 33 deaths per 100,000 people. One of the issues the committee looked at was how the incidence and mortality of cancers compared to the funding they received from the NHMRC. The committee's report was tabled in 2017. At the time, lung cancer, which caused more deaths than any other cancer in Australia, was ranked ninth for NHMRC research funding. A number of submitters and witnesses to that inquiry highlighted the difficulties cancers with low survival rates have in attracting research funding. Among these difficulties is having a more limited research base, which makes it more difficult to design a study that will lead to a successful research grant proposal. More prominent cancers, which may have higher survival rates, typically attract more philanthropic funding and fundraising revenue because there are more patients and, obviously, more families and carers with a personal experience of those cancers. They are also more likely to attract commercial interest in treatment. These sources of funding—philanthropy, fundraising and commercial investment—help to establish the research base on which proposals for public funding can be put forward with the likelihood of success. Another observation of submitters and witnesses to the inquiry was the correlation between early detection, screening and diagnosis and increased rates of survival. An example put forward was that since 1990 the survival rate for breast cancer has increased from 60 per cent to over 90 per cent thanks, in large part, to screening. I know we will hit a hard marker fairly soon, so the key message I want to get across is that, if we're going to improve outcomes for cancer patients overall, there needs to be a greater focus on the cancers that have the greatest impacts on the community, and lung cancer is definitely one of those. That is why I'm proud to be part of a government that is making this vital investment in lung cancer screening and expanding the National Cancer Screening Register to include lung cancer. The five-year year survival rate for lung cancer is 24 per cent, which means that a little over three in four patients will die five years after their diagnosis. We know that early detection means early intervention, and the screening program this bill enables is expected to save over 500 lives a year. I'd like to finish by thanking the Minister for Health and Aged Care and his representative in this chamber, Senator Gallagher, for this initiative. I also thank Lung Foundation Australia for their hard work and advocacy, in particular their CEO, Mark Brooke, who's passionate about improving outcomes for lung cancer patients, their families and their carers. 13:17 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland At the outset I'd like to commend my good friend and colleague Senator Bilyk for her outstanding and diligent advocacy in relation to these matters over a number of years. The National Cancer Screening Register Amendment Bill 2024 amends the National Cancer Screening Register Act 2016 to add lung cancer as a third 'designated cancer' to the coverage of the register. The National Cancer Screening Register is national electronic infrastructure which currently supports the delivery of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program and the National Cervical Screening Program. This bill will expand the register to include lung cancer screening along with bowel cancer and cervical cancer screenings. The new National Lung Cancer Screening Program was announced by the government last year and will allow screening to be available nationally to eligible individuals from July 2025. In line with Medical Services Advisory Committee advice, the NLCSP will target asymptomatic individuals aged 50 to 70 who have a history of cigarette smoking. The coalition support this legislation—as we supported the establishment of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program—as we strongly support the intention of this register and screening program to increase rates of early detection of lung cancer in Australia. This builds on the work of the coalition to support better lung cancer outcomes across our country. On World Cancer Day in 2019 the coalition announced that we were inviting Cancer Australia to conduct an inquiry into the prospects, processes and delivery of a national lung cancer screening program in Australia. Following this announcement, Cancer Australia launched a consultation hub through which organisations and individuals could make submissions about the proposal. The coalition provided our commitment to establishing a lung cancer screening program pending the results of this inquiry and the approval of the medical expert panel. The National Lung Cancer Screening Program that has now been announced by the government is the culmination of the coalition's announcement back in 2019—this is a case of the current government continuing the good work of the previous government—resulting from Cancer Australia's feasibility assessment, which reported back in May 2023, and a recommendation from the Medical Services Advisory Committee. We welcome the government's decision to continue the important work we started in government to establish a lung cancer screening program. It is great to see that the coalition's commitment to this goal has now been realised. The coalition understood that early diagnosis is integral to improved lung cancer outcomes, including better survival rates and better quality of life. Early detection and intervention, as Senator Bilyk said, literally save lives. In line with the coalition's intentions, the National Lung Cancer Screening Program will target high-risk individuals to detect lung cancer in its early stages to increase the likelihood of successful treatment and improve lung cancer outcomes. To facilitate the delivery of the program, the National Cancer Screening Register will be expanded through this legislation to support patients with their screening pathway. The inclusion of the National Lung Cancer Screening Program is a welcome step in preventing and detecting lung cancer amongst Australians and ensuring better health outcomes. Once again, the coalition supports this bill. 13:21 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I'd like to thank colleagues for their contributions to the National Cancer Screening Register Amendment Bill 2024, and I'm pleased to see senators from right across the political spectrum support this bill's swift passage to help us fight this terrible cancer. I commend the bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 52 13:21 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 No amendments have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading. 13:21 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Military Invalidity Payments Means Testing) Bill 2024 52

Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Military Invalidity Payments Means Testing) Bill 2024

Second Reading 52 13:22 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland The coalition support this bill. The coalition has sought assurances from the government that veterans will not be worse off under this legislation. The coalition supports the intent of the bill in its aims to establish a clear legal framework for means testing income from military invalidity payments affected by the Douglas decision. Following advice from the government and through the committee inquiry, it is the coalition's expectation that the vast number of veterans will not be worse off under this legislation. The coalition does, however, note concerns from stakeholders, including those stakeholders seeking clarification on whether the amendments in the bill would exclude military invalidity pension income streams from asset assessments in family law matters and how this bill will affect eligibility for family tax benefits, childcare subsidies or low-income health care. The Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Military Invalidity Payments Means Testing) Bill 2024 modifies the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 to confirm how certain military invalidity pensions impacted by the Federal Court's Commissioner of Taxation v Douglas [2020] FCAFC 220 case are treated for income support. The legislation arises from the Douglas decision, which determined that specific invalidity benefits paid from the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Scheme and the Military Superannuation and Benefits Scheme should be taxed as superannuation lump sums rather than as superannuation income streams, as previously assumed. The purpose of the bill is to establish a clear legal framework for means testing these payments when recipients also apply for support through Australia's income support system. The coalition supports the bill. 13:24 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania This bill, the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (Military Invalidity Payments Means Testing) Bill 2024, amends the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 to establish a clear legal basis for means testing the income from military invalidity benefits affected by the full Federal Court's 2020 Douglas decision when recipients of those payments also seek support for other income support systems. It is now understood that, in light of the Douglas decision, the historical classification and treatment of these invalidity benefits in the means test can no longer be applied. The bill will introduce a new classification of military invalidity pension income stream in the Social Security Act and Veterans' Entitlements Act to include the military invalidity benefits affected by the Douglas decision. The assessment of the military invalidity pension income stream within the means test is designed to produce the same result as the historical assessments of the affected invalidity payments. This bill gives these veterans certainty about the assessment of payments for income support purposes. I commend the bill to the Senate, and I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum related to this bill, the addendum being a response to matters raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 52 13:26 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 No amendments have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading. 13:26 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Health Legislation Amendment (Removal of Requirement for a Collaborative Arrangement) Bill 2024 53

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

Second Reading 53 13:26 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I stand to note that the coalition will be supporting this particular piece of legislation, the Health Legislation Amendment (Removal of Requirement for a Collaborative Arrangement) Bill 2024. This comes at a very critical time for our healthcare system because it's under such extraordinary pressure. It has never been harder or more expensive to see a GP in Australia, bulk-billing is collapsing and ramping has reached record levels at emergency departments across the country. We believe that this is necessary, but the Albanese government desperately needs to listen to Australia. It needs to understand the magnitude of the challenges that are before us, particularly when it comes to workforce because the budget on Tuesday night almost single-handedly ignored workforce. As I said, the coalition will not stand in the way of this legislation. We will support it because it removes a barrier to Australians accessing primary care. But we would also like to put on the record that we believe that there is an absolute necessity for us to address, with a greater level of urgency, the issues around workforce. That's why the coalition will be moving an amendment that calls on the government to work with the states and territories to ensure nurse practitioners and midwives can work to their full scope of practice and to reduce any restrictions on their scope of practice at the state and territory level. 13:28 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise to speak very briefly, with the two minutes we have left, in strong support of this bill, the Health Legislation Amendment (Removal of Requirement for a Collaborative Arrangement) Bill 2024. This bill will remove that legislative requirement, and it will enable a midwife or nurse practitioner to prescribe under the PBS and to provide services under Medicare. With the mandated collaborative arrangements currently in place, women are bearing the financial burden due to increased travel time and the cost of finding a GP who will provide a referral for midwifery care. This is even more problematic in rural and regional areas, where access to care is already limited. Removing these mandated collaborative arrangements is a very positive change for women's access to maternity care, sexual and reproductive health care and nurse led care. It's one that the Greens have supported for many years, and we're thrilled to see this legislation come to the chamber today. These are particularly important changes for women in rural and remote areas. We support this bill. We also urge the government to get on with its response to the unanimous recommendations in the report from the Senate inquiry into universal access to reproductive health care. I'll flag that we will be supporting the coalition's second reading amendment, but we won't be supporting One Nation's second reading amendment. 13:29 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia The Greens fully support this bill, which seeks to remove legislative requirements for collaborative arrangements between nurses, midwives and medical practitioners. I will flag that we will be moving an amendment, but, to facilitate the passage of the bill— Debate interrupted. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 53 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS World Health Organization 53 13:30 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia Starting on the 27th of this month, member states of the World Health Organization, including Australia, will meet for the 77th World Health Assembly in Geneva, where they will consider amendments to the International Health Regulations and the WHO pandemic treaty. This week, I authored a letter to the Prime Minister, which was co-signed by 13 other parliamentarians—and I thank them for their support—demanding that this Labor government walk away from the amendments and the treaty. These instruments pose a significant threat to Australia's autonomy and independence on the global stage. If implemented into Australian law, the World Health Organization would hold an unacceptable level of authority, power and influence over Australia's affairs, under the guise of declaring emergencies and the potential fast-tracking of pandemic related products, and that hasn't worked out too well in the past. Thanks to COVID, there's a growing awareness of the rise of unelected global bureaucrats, and, like most Australians, I don't want a globalist entity coercing my country into getting on board with their pandemic program. The IHR amendments and the WHO pandemic treaty would transform the WHO from an advisory organisation into a supranational health authority, dictating how governments respond to emergencies which the WHO itself declares. The Prime Minister has the power to reject this power grab, and he must. Superannuation 54 13:31 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland When the Liberal and National parties start talking about superannuation, you know it's not a good sign. When they were in government they undermined the system by ignoring billions of dollars in unpaid super and by forcing vulnerable Australians to raid their retirement savings during the pandemic. Now they're pushing on with their latest dud idea—forcing young people to raid their super to buy a house. It's a policy that experts say will increase prices and put homeownership even further out of reach. What their policy ignores is that the median super balance of a person under the age of 30 is less than $18,000. Young people don't want to raid what little super they have. They want to see their super and their wages growing. Earlier this year I met with young workers from the SDA who shared with me the impact of what our current superannuation laws are having on their future, particularly laws that mean young workers under 18 do not receive super unless they work more than 30 hours per week. One worker, an 18-year-old from Queensland, told me that in her three years working in fast food and retail she would have earned almost $2,500 in super, but because she was under 18 she only received $100. She said, 'I did exactly the same job as those over 18. I work just as hard, yet I haven't been able to safeguard for my future like they have.' I also heard from a 17-year-old supermarket worker, who said, 'I started working at 15. Over the 18 months that I've worked, my superannuation is at $300. If the law was different, I would have over $1,800.' These young workers know how important it is to have a healthy superannuation for retirement, and so does our government. We've strengthened the system by including super in our wage theft laws and making changes to ensure that super is paid at the same time as wages. We are also helping to increase balances by paying super on government paid parental leave and by getting wages moving. We want workers to earn more and keep more of what they earn. Budget 54 13:33 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia This week's budget saw the government prioritise fossil fuels, property developers and defence over truth and treaty, increasing income support, and frontline family and domestic violence services. This budget was a betrayal of First Nations people, renters, students and disabled people, in the middle of a cost-of-living and climate crisis. First Nations people are still waiting for standalone cultural heritage legislation, while this government is handing out nearly $50 billion over the next 10 years to the fossil fuel industry to fast-track the destruction of country and our climate. Every day that we wait for this legislation, our sacred sites are under threat. Songlines, scar trees, sacred waterholes, rock art and ceremonial grounds are all under threat because of this Labor government. This budget lumps in funding for progressing these laws with reducing the backlog of complex cultural heritage claims under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act, a flawed act that has on many occasions failed to provide essential protections to sacred and significant sites. A prime example of this is the recent destruction of Lee Point,on Larrakia land, by Defence Housing Australia. Minster Plibersek denied protection under this act, giving the green light for bulldozers to destroy sacred land, trees and an extremely important corridor for many birds in that area. I was lucky enough to see this beautiful area before it was shamefully destroyed. I want to commend the members of the community who fought so hard to protect Lee Point. Another betrayal is the stark absence of anything for truth and treaty in this budget, showing that this government has completely abandoned the Uluru Statement post referendum, once again leaving First Nations people with an empty, broken promise of progress for our people. Time and time again, First Nations people have had progress dangled in front of us, only for it to be discarded when it's no longer politically popular. Hawke did this with treaty, and this government has done it with the Uluru Statement and cultural heritage protections. This budget shows that this government has abandoned First Nations people. Western Australia: Industry 54 13:35 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia WA Labor MPs should be hanging their heads in shame this week. In a week that confirmed just how dependent Australia is on Western Australia's traditional industries, we learnt, in one day, how damaging Labor's policies are proving to be to the state of Western Australia. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Murray Watt, finally mustered the courage to set a date to end live exports. But yesterday he got a taste of what's to come from Western Australian farmers, when the National Farmers Federation chose to walk out on Murray Watt's speech. Labor's decision to end exports by 2028 will cost as many as 3,000 jobs. We will not take it lying down. Generations of farmers have built an important and vital industry for Western Australian regional communities. On the same day as Murray Watt's unsuccessful speech, we learnt that Santos now intends to cut as many as 200 jobs in Perth. Make no mistake: this is absolutely attributable to Labor's preference for activism over the economy and working lives. Santos cited a delay in approvals—like those faced by their Barossa LNG project, which has faced years of court delays—for these 200 job cuts. Right now, Woodside's multibillion-dollar Scarborough gas project is also tied up in green lawfare. Can we expect a similar decision from Woodside in the months to come? Tonight, Peter Dutton and the coalition will offer a clear alternative. Instead of job losses, broken farming communities and dwindling investment, Peter Dutton and the coalition will ensure that mining and farming prosper in Western Australia. The answer is not a line of tax credits for comfortable miners; instead, it's about a genuine commitment to a pro-Western Australian mindset, built on the back of cutting lengthy approval times. Budget 55 13:37 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I rise to congratulate all the early childhood educators in this country, who have been campaigning for respect and recognition for their absolutely essential work in the Big Steps campaign: educators who have told their stories over and over again; who've spoken out about how they love their jobs, but just can't stay in them, earning just half the average wage; and who've told us how educators are leaving the sector in droves because love for their work doesn't pay for their bills. I congratulate those educators who've come to Canberra again and again and again, who've taken to the streets and who've stood up and spoken out. They stood up for themselves to advocate for a wage that reflects the skill, complexity and value in the work that they do, and stood up for the children that they are educating, who need to see the exodus of early educators from the sector stop. I congratulate all of you. On Tuesday night in the budget the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, acknowledged you too. Our government has put the care economy front and centre. We want secure and well-paid jobs in early education and care. So the government has made provision for a well-deserved wage increase for early childhood educators. We know this will help bring more educators back to the sector, giving even more children the best start in life. Congratulations for advocating for yourselves. Congratulations, too, for advocating for the children in your care. You deserve a pay rise. Keep up the great work. Budget 55 13:39 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania The Prime Minister has declared that domestic violence is a national crisis. A woman is being murdered every four days. Thirty-five women have been murdered so far this year. I think Australians are expecting that the PM will step up and give frontline services the funding they actually need because it is, as he says, a crisis. But this chickenfeed, bandaid budget in most cases doesn't do more than keep the lights on. Community legal centres turned away a thousand people a day last year. The Tasmanian women's legal service are turning a woman away every day because they just do not have enough lawyers because they do not have the funding. The funding announced in the budget only provides for CPI and adjustments to under 20 per cent of their funding base. Like I said, it's chickenfeed. The Prime Minister has said over and over again that he wants to change attitudes. But there are programs for men, for perpetrators of domestic violence—they want to get help and they want to change, but they are being turned away because the programs don't have the funding so there is no availability. And, if you really want to break the cycle, we need to be working on the next generation. Where was the money in this budget for programs to address the issues coming up for our kids—programs like the veteran mentors who work to put kids back on the right path? My worry is that this budget isn't about fixing the domestic violence crisis, it isn't about lifting the 3.3 million Australians out of poverty, it isn't about helping our kids get mental health support and it isn't about dealing with youth crime. It isn't about giving our seniors the opportunity to work more hours not just to top up their pensions but also because it's great for their mental health and wellbeing. Do you know what this budget is about, Australians? Do you know what it's about? Same stuff, different day. It's about the Labor Party looking after their donors and putting their own careers before the national interest. It's not a budget for Australians; it's a budget to soften up voters for an early election, and that's all it is. Budget 55 13:41 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Since the Albanese Labor government was elected, the average Australian household with a mortgage is $35,000 a year worse off. That's the average Australian household with a mortgage. Why? Because of the cost-of-living crisis because of high inflation feeding into higher interest rates. How does the budget that was just brought down this week address it? It doesn't. It doesn't address it. It makes it worse. You don't have to just listen to me as a senator in this place. Listen to one of Australia's most renowned economists, Mr Chris Richardson. This is what he had to say—an economist, not a politician: 'My key test for the budget was that it not poke the inflationary bear. I don't think it's passed that test. I've consistently been saying for a long time that I didn't see a rate cut until the end of this year, but that's starting to slip into next year. It looks harder to get one ahead of the election.' That's Mr Chris Richardson, one of Australia's most renowned economists. And that's bad news for your average Australian household with a mortgage. So not only did this budget poke the inflationary bear; it actually gave the inflationary bear a punch on the nose. Tragically, it is going to be Australian households who pay the price for that. McMillan, Ms Emily 56 13:43 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia It is my pleasure to rise today and place on the parliamentary record news of the recent election of my friend Emily McMillan to the position of assistant national secretary of the mighty Transport Workers Union. A proud First Nations woman, Emily is the first woman to take on this role. I couldn't be more proud of her elevation to this position and of her contribution to the union movement and the road transport industry. After serving eight years as chief of campaigns at the national office of the TWU, Emily was recently endorsed by the national committee of management and elected unopposed to this role by the national council at its meeting in Fremantle last week. Over two decades in the union movement, Emily has worked in a variety of public and private sector unions in industrial organising and campaigning roles. In her time as chief of campaigns at the TWU, Emily led the TWU's organising and campaign plans, which included a period of mass protected industrial action to make transport jobs more secure; the creation of the aviation campaign to rebuild jobs, pay and conditions after the pandemic; and a member-led recruitment campaign which has welcomed roughly 10,000 new members in the target areas of retail and aviation over the last two years. Most recently and most importantly, she led and won the campaign for transport reform through member-led national days of action, convoys, vigils, lobbying trips to Canberra and, of course, Senate inquiries. From my heart, and from Fiona's as well, Emily, congratulations. I look forward to continuing to work with you in your new role as the National Assistant Secretary of the mighty Transport Workers Union. We've got your back, sister. Sri Lanka 56 13:45 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales This Sunday, hundreds will gather at the town hall in Sydney to mark and acknowledge that it's 15 years since the brutal Mullivaikkal massacre that occurred during the closing stages of the war on Tamil Eelam in Sri Lanka. In May 2009, Mullivaikkal, an internationally declared no-fire zone, was attacked, and tens of thousands of Tamils, many civilians, many under the cover of the Red Cross, were killed by the Sri Lankan military. A hundred and seventy thousand Tamils were killed in the closing years of that brutal conflict. The people responsible for these crimes remain in senior positions of leadership within the Sri Lankan military and government. To this day Tamils are still unsafe and fear persecution, and many have sought refuge in other countries, including Australia. Our nation should open our hearts to those Tamils who are here and give them a permanent, welcoming home. We will not forget, and May 2024 marks a moment for the mourning of the dead. Yesterday I was honoured to meet with Farhad Bandesh and Piumi Kaneshan, people who came to Australia seeking to build a better life and instead have been met with cruelty by this government. The most recent round of cruelty is the Albanese Labor government's Trump-style travel ban and antirefugee bill. I can say this clearly: for Farhad Bandesh and Piumi Kaneshan and the thousands of others who are being threatened by the bill, this is their home. The Albanese government went into the last election saying they were going to be a different kind of government than the coalition. We now know that actually that means a crueller government, one that deliberately whips up fear and division against and amongst multicultural communities in a cynical attempt to hide their own failings. It won't work. Across the board, the community is saying clearly that this appalling bill and Labor's toxic politics that fester in their conflict with the coalition in this space need to end. Domestic and Family Violence 56 13:47 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Every nine days a woman is murdered by a current or former partner. Countless more are assaulted, hurt, raped, scared, trapped. Although black women are the most impacted by this violence, we are never seen as the experts on our own experiences. Missing from all of the recent conversations about gendered violence are the voices of black women. Without our voices being centred in this conversation, we cannot dismantle systems of violence. We know that more police and prisons have never reduced violence or made women safer, especially not black women and our families. We know that this government has created deep poverty and inequality in this country, which is only growing. Poverty plus the same old colonial gendered and racial violence are a deadly mix, leaving women trapped in dangerous situations, unable to leave, as funding cuts for vital services leave them with nowhere to run. We need urgent investment in community controlled, culturally safe services to support people who are experiencing or trying to escape violence. In the words of Afrida Imrose, policing is never going to fix what is essentially a public health crisis—especially when police are some of the greatest perpetrators and enablers of femicide. It is urgent and necessary to force our governments to reckon with how they are making things worse. Middle East 57 13:49 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Most of us in this place are aware that on 7 October the worst pogrom since the Holocaust occurred in Israel. We saw Israel attacked, a music festival and kibbutzim the scene of the most violent and depraved activity, and 1,200 dead. But 222 days on, there are still 128 hostages that have not been returned to Israel. It's now believed that 36 of those 128 still missing are dead, but their families don't know because they are held by a terror organisation who committed the most vile atrocities and who continue to call for the genocide of the Jewish people and the Israeli population, and for the destruction of Israel. We heard yesterday a member of the government call and endorse those genocidal claims. I want to commend Senator Birmingham for the motion that he brought today to this place. I want to acknowledge the 56 senators who voted in support of that motion. Interestingly, the senator who made genocidal claims didn't have the courage of her convictions to vote against that motion. But we did see 12 senators in this place endorse the actions of terrorists. They support murder, genocide and the rape and torture of women and children. They themselves are acting in a fascist manner and looking to call for the genocide of a people. All those 12 senators, I'm embarrassed to sit in this chamber with you. Slovakia, Democracy 57 13:51 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Overnight the Prime Minister of Slovakia, Robert Fico, was shot in an attempted assassination. He's in a critical condition. On behalf of One Nation, I send our prayers to the Prime Minister and hope for his speedy recovery and return to work. Slovakia has only just returned the Fico government, on a platform that stood out against globalist influence on Slovakia from the EU and the United States. This platform includes opposing the World Health Organization pandemic treaty, opposing the international health regulation amendments and any measure that takes away Slovakian sovereignty. Clearly, the attempt on the Prime Minister's life is the work of someone who feels the Slovakian people should not be allowed to break away from the controlled state being constructed in Europe and make their own way in the world, just as their neighbour Hungary has done under Prime Minister Orban. President-elect Peter Pellegrini called the shooting an 'unprecedented threat' to democracy and warned against expressing political opinions with pistols in squares instead of voting in polling stations, a sentiment true for our divided country. As Churchill said, 'The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.' Prime Minister Fico displayed such vigilance in standing against unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels, Geneva, London, Europe and New York. Australia must be vigilant against the continued subversion of our democracy by these same people. Under Prime Minister Albanese, Australia has seen a procession of bills designed to subvert Australian democracy. Today we see yet another guillotine. Thursdays have become 'guillotine Thursday' as the government rams one freedom-destroying bill through after another to avoid oversight. Indeed, as we speak, the government is doing exactly that with the Digital ID Bill in the House of Reps. The Senate is the house of review. This government, the Greens and some crossbench senators are making a mockery of our solemn duty. One Nation wants to know who's pulling this government's strings. It's clearly not the Australian people. Budget 57 13:53 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia Labor's budget betrays all of those in Australia who are doing it tough. Instead of tackling the housing crisis in affordability, increasing JobSeeker and fully funding the frontline services women need to escape violence, this government is giving property investors $175 billion in tax concessions, locking young people out of the housing market. They're giving fossil fuel corporations $50 billion in subsidies, literally paying to further fuel a climate catastrophe. They're giving wealthy people a $4½ thousand tax cut while keeping the unemployed in poverty. Their cost-of-living solutions are window-dressing for the millions who can't cover the increasing costs of rent, food, fuel and debt right now. On top of this, Labor's budget offers too little to women. Instead of fully funding frontline services for women fleeing violence, they've just rebadged an existing program. Their budget betrays renters and ignores the housing crisis. Labor's offering an extra $9 a week to around 20 per cent of renters, while rents are expected to go up by an average of $46 a week over the next 12 months. Renters in Adelaide have just experienced the biggest rent increase across our nation. They were looking for more help in this budget. If the government had introduced a rent freeze in 2022, when it was first proposed by the Greens, Australian renters would have saved an average of $3,067 by now. This budget betrays students. The government has promised to shave some indexation off the top of student debts, but this still leaves millions of young people with a lifetime of repayments. Labor has to stop rewarding the big end of town with fuel subsidies and tax breaks that are only making the climate crisis, the housing crisis and the crisis facing women in violent households worse. There is, indeed, a hole at the centre of this budget, and a few bandaids are nowhere near what's needed to fix it. Fuel Security 58 13:55 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria As most, if not all, senators in here will know, I have an abiding interest in national security. One of our greatest vulnerabilities with regard to our national security is fuel security. Australia has only 30 days of liquid fuels onshore. In the event of an outbreak of war, we wouldn't even need to be involved to be brought to our knees. That's why I was pleased to see money being made available for low-carbon fuels in the Future Made in Australia program in the budget the other night—that is, sustainable aviation fuels as well as biodiesel. This is an important initiative and one that needs to be taken as seriously as the production of renewable energy via solar panels or wind, or through the production of hydrogen. This is a vulnerability that Australia cannot live with and we should not be looking at doing anything but accelerating how we address it. Currently, the RAAF's target is to have 65 per cent SAF by 2050. Surely the ADF can be more ambitious in having a target for all its fuel use much faster? I call on them to be able to do it by 2030. This not only is going to increase our security as a nation but also will bring about the ability for our farmers to have another industry to sell their produce into. The resilience that we build in our farm sector is equally as important as our ability to protect our nation from this vulnerability. Budget 58 13:57 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Over the last two years I've had the privilege of travelling across the regions in my home state of Victoria and talking to our diverse communities. In the Mallee I've met passionate people who are working hard to build a bright and prosperous future for their families. Having grown up in the Mallee, I personally know the value of an honest day's work and the can-do attitude of our regions. The Albanese government values hard work and we invest in it. We're delivering targeted cost-of-living relief to ease the immediate pressures faced by regional families and businesses. On 1 July this year the Albanese Labor government will deliver a tax cut for every Australian taxpayer, not just some. This includes 67,000 people in the Mallee. The average tax cut for taxpayers in the Mallee will be $1,283. And on 1 July 2024 more than 10 million households will receive a total rebate of $300 and eligible small businesses will receive $325 for their electricity bills. We're putting regional Victoria at the centre of our budget by supporting thriving regions through our investments in infrastructure, jobs and skills. The Albanese government is funding infrastructure in the Mallee, including an additional $8.3 million for the Horsham Junction upgrade; $1 million for the Ballarat to Ouyen intersection upgrade; and $1.2 million for the upgrade of the intersection between Stawell and the South Australian border. This brings our total five-year investment in local roads in the Mallee to $153 million. People will also hear very soon about the Growing Regions Program, and I hope there will be good news for locals in the Mallee. Labor governments have a strong record of boosting local manufacturing, harnessing economic opportunities and making our regions more productive. Our $22.7 billion plan for a Future Made in Australia will secure a future of well-paid jobs in the Mallee. Attorney-General 58 13:59 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus is getting that rare distinction of making Lionel Murphy look like a half-decent Attorney-General! This is the Attorney-General who is spending a billion dollars to change one letter—to go from the AAT to the ART: $1 billion! The letter 'R' has become the most expensive letter in the alphabet! But of course this is the Attorney-General who has the odious honour of being the first law officer, the first person, to be referred to the NACC for allegations of corruption. Shame on the Attorney-General! He's the first law officer and the worst law officer of this country. The PRESIDENT 112096 The time for senators' statements has concluded. STATEMENTS 59 STATEMENTS New Caledonia 59 14:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia by leave—I wish to update the Senate on developments in New Caledonia. The government continues to closely monitor the situation in New Caledonia, and we echo calls from all parties for calm. As senators may know, a state of emergency has been declared, and a curfew remains in place. New Caledonia's La Tontouta International Airport has been closed. I advise the Senate that the government has increased the level of travel advice for the Noumea metropolitan area and now advises Australians to reconsider their need to travel, due to civil unrest, travel disruptions and limited essential services. The government has also increased the overall level of advice for New Caledonia and now advises travellers to exercise a high degree of caution. Those are increases to level 3 of four and to level 2 of four. DFAT is also advising Australians in Noumea to minimise movement, monitor the media and follow the advice of local authorities. The Australian consul-general in Noumea has been sharing this advice on social media. Australians in need of consular assistance should contact DFAT's 24-hour consular emergency centre on 1300555135 within Australia or +61262613305 from overseas. Australians in New Caledonia should subscribe to Smartraveller for updates as the situation on the ground continues to evolve. I thank our consul-general and all of the staff at the Australian Consulate-General in Noumea for their work supporting Australians in New Caledonia. I take this opportunity to repeat Australia's call for calm. We respect and support the referendum process under the Noumea Accord and the discussions underway between all parties. We encourage all parties to work together constructively to shape New Caledonia's institutional future. 14:02 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia on indulgence—I rise to associate the opposition with the remarks of Senator Wong to encourage calm and a return to peace in New Caledonia as soon as possible. New Caledonia is an important part of our Pacific family. It is a most beautiful part of the world, with beautiful people with whom Australia shares a special relationship. We remain concerned by the present situation and by the distress faced by many in New Caledonia. We urge those responsible for violence and disruption to cease and cooperate with law enforcement and for negotiation to ensure resolution of the issues before them. We echo the remarks of the government, in relation to Australians who are considering travel, about the need to reconsider, follow travel advice on Smartraveller and use the emergency contact information provided. We also extend our thanks and acknowledgement to Australian officials working in New Caledonia and others who are engaged in supporting Australians or other foreign nationals there and trying to achieve peace in the situation. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 59 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Budget 59 14:03 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Australians needed a budget that addressed the causes and not the symptoms of Labor's homegrown inflation by increasing the supply of energy and housing. Instead, Australians got a budget that, in the words of independent economists, was 'extremely expansionary', 'smoke and mirrors' and 'a political trick'. Minister, isn't your budget simply a political sugar hit, rather than addressing inflation at the source—a bandaid on a bullet wound? 14:04 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Hume for the question. I think yesterday I used the word 'audacious' for one of the questions I got asked by the opposition. But, really, honestly, to come in here and ask that after everything this government, in two years, has done on stabilising the energy system in this country, driving renewable energies after decades and—how many policies was it; 22 policies? You had 22 policies and not one of them landed. You wasted a decade fighting amongst yourselves rather than putting the nation's interest at heart and front of mind. That is what we have done, since the moment we came to government. If there are two stark areas where we have been the opposite of how you behaved in government, wasting a decade, it is energy and housing. In two years, what we have done in terms of energy policy, in terms of energy bill relief, in terms of the caps—all of that you voted against. On the Housing Australia Future Fund, how did you vote on that? You opposed it. Everything we have done to increase housing supply in this country after a decade of no interest from the Commonwealth other than a suggestion—which we might see again tonight—to ransack super so that young people don't leave with any retirement savings and so that you inflate housing prices across Australia. We'll see that rejigged tonight, no doubt. This budget puts the Australian people and the national interest right at the centre of our decision-making, whether it be cost-of-living relief without adding to inflation or dealing with the many challenges that we inherited, including in energy policy and housing policy, which had been abandoned by you when you were in government. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, first supplementary? 14:06 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Paul Bloxham, the chief economist at HSBC, said of this government's budget: We expect some of this additional income will be spent, supporting consumer demand and adding to inflation. Stephen Halmarick, of CBA, said: The risk is now more real the first interest rate cut could be delayed … Do you disagree, Minister, with independent economists of every stripe that have said that your budget is simply going to mean that interest rates stay higher for longer? 14:07 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory We stand by the inflation forecasts that are outlined in our budget. They incorporate the decisions that we have taken in this budget, Again, we'll hear from the Leader of the Opposition tonight about whether there are any decisions that he supports or whether he's going to continue with his negativity and no plan for the country by voting no to everything, including the $300 energy bill relief. That energy bill relief will put downward pressure on inflation, as will the assistance we're providing through Commonwealth rent assistance, which was overlooked by those opposite. You didn't really care about the people who rely on Commonwealth rent assistance when you were in government. We have increased it twice in two years, the first time that that's been done in 30 years. That provides much-needed assistance to those households and puts downward pressure on inflation. We're also capping the price of medicines so those who rely on medicines won't have any increased costs there. We're focused on the people, focused on the economic challenges that we face and focused on the future. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, second supplementary? 14:08 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria This government has had three budgets now to address the causes, not the symptoms, of inflation—getting energy prices down by injecting more supply, streamlining approvals to deliver more houses and lowering aggregate spending to put real downward pressure on inflation. This budget is propped up by the hard decisions of Australian families, who are paying more for everything. Minister, when will you make the hard decisions so that Australian families don't have to? 14:08 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I would like to remind those opposite that inflation was over six per cent when we came to government. Interest rates had begun increasing, and inflation now has a three in front of it and is projected to have a two in front of it. So all this rubbish that they go over about how we are exacerbating inflation—we have halved it! The quarter with the highest inflation was under your government. We have been dealing with this every single day since we came to government. We have found savings in the budget. We have delivered two surpluses—well, one and we have another one in sight. The first government to do that— An opposition member interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING If it was so easy, why didn't you do it? If it was so easy, why did it elude you? You had a decade with no surpluses. We have made savings, lowered debt, lowered interest on that debt, delivered surpluses, and inflation is half what it was when we came to government. Budget 60 14:09 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. I note the Treasurer's comments on Tuesday night that one of the most important things about Australia is the way we look after each other. Could the minister please inform the Senate how the Albanese Labor government's budget will ease cost-of-living pressures for millions of Australians and in particular what the government is doing to build on its impressive record of supporting these Australians by strengthening Medicare? 14:10 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank Senator Ciccone for his question. He, like every senator on our side, understands the importance of Medicare. We are the party of Medicare, and Labor is the party of stronger Medicare. That is who we are. Tuesday's budget only reinforces that fact. We on this side understand that Medicare goes to the heart of who we are as Australians. We understand that everyone deserves access to affordable health care, to accessible health care, to quality health care. This is why we have announced we will be funding 29 more Medicare urgent care clinics across the country. Earlier this year, in South Australia, I visited the Marion urgent care clinic with the fantastic member for Boothby from the other place. I saw firsthand the role of these clinics in taking pressure off our emergency departments and in making care more affordable and more accessible to more Australians. This is a good thing. This is another good policy those opposite don't support. Not only have we established more than 50 of these clinics; there are more on the way. In this budget and in previous budgets you've seen Labor's commitment to stronger Medicare, tripling the bulk-billing incentive. We've made medicines cheaper, also opposed by those opposite, and we are freezing the cost of PBS medicines. Those opposite might remember that Tuesday's budget was 10 years on from the infamous 2014 budget—10 years on from what might have been Mr Dutton's only real idea when it comes to health care. His one idea as health minister? Make Australians pay more, tax medicines, tax patients going to hospitals and impose a GP tax. That's what Mr Dutton really thinks about Medicare. No surprise that this bloke was voted by Australia's doctors as the worst health minister in a decade. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ciccone, first supplementary? 14:12 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Thank you, Minister. Along with health costs, people in my home state of Victoria tell me that energy prices are a major driver of the cost-of-living pressures they are currently facing. Can the minister please update the Senate on the effect the government's energy price relief has had on inflation and how the 2024-25 budget adds to this relief? 14:12 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia From 1 July this year everyone who has an electricity bill will receive an energy bill rebate under the Albanese Labor government. We're building on our 2022 energy bill relief by delivering all households a $300 credit to be automatically applied to their electricity bills. Over 10 million Australian households will benefit. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU I hear the complaint from those opposite. I hear them yet again not wanting to support cost-of-living relief for Australians. They are true to form; they keep opposing it, just as they have always opposed higher wages for working people. They always want to make people work longer for less. We actually want people to have good wages, and we also want to help people with cost-of-living relief—something those opposite have never been prepared to support in this place. Tonight we will see what they're really about. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ciccone, second supplementary? 14:14 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Thank you again, Minister. Noting the Albanese government's No. 1 priority is taking pressure off Australians, can the minister please explain how the government's responsible economic management is helping to do just that while at the same time building a much more secure future for all Australians? 14:14 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The budget the Treasurer handed down on Tuesday night is a responsible budget. It's a budget that helps Australians under pressure today and invests in our future. We are projected to produce another surplus. We are continuing to fight inflation, we are continuing to help Australians with the cost of living, and we are investing in a future made in Australia to grasp the opportunities of the future. We will build more homes, and we will continue to support Medicare. And what do we hear from those opposite? They seem to think that 'no' is a plan. 'No' is not a plan—I hate to break it to you. We've already heard them, including today, saying there's too much spending. Well, you know what? It's time to front up and to fess up. It's time for you to tell Australians what you're going to cut. What are you going to cut? What are you going to oppose? It's time for you to be upfront with Australians. Are you going to front up? What are you going to oppose? What are you going to— (Time expired) Budget 61 14:15 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Aspiring homeowners were the biggest losers in Tuesday night's budget. There is no support for first home buyers or any initiatives to address the drain on supply. Labor remains blind to the impact of record levels of migration and booming construction costs, which are locking Australians out of the housing market. IFM Investors's chief economist, Alex Joiner, says 'the overwhelming consensus' of economists is that the budget drives inflation, which will hurt aspiring and current homebuyers by keeping interest rates higher for longer. Why did Labor have no policies at all that support homeownership in this budget? 14:16 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Oh my goodness! Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order on my right! Senator GALLAGHER ING I welcome the question. I thank Senator Bragg for giving me the opportunity to talk about the Homes for Australia Plan. It may have passed him by as he was developing, hand in hand with the Leader of the Opposition, a rehash of the super raid that he'd like to see young people forced to do to get into homeownership, which we expect we will see tonight—a rehash of an old idea that will do nothing to enable younger Australians to get into homeownership. I can talk to you about all of the initiatives. Over the next six years, we will be investing around $32 billion in a range of programs, including programs that support people into homeownership, like the shared equity Help to Buy scheme, like the regional homeownership scheme—which I think has been so successful. In addition to that, we're driving supply of new housing across the country, working with states and territories. Maybe Senator Bragg didn't see that we put more money in to get more homes built sooner, working with states and territories. I know it's something that those opposite never did in government. They always liked to divide and have fights with states and territories, but we find that it's much more productive for the Australian people if we are able to work with those that make decisions about planning to build more houses. There is no government in the history of the Federation that has done more and is doing more to drive housing supply in this country. We have our eye on this—this is a major challenge, one that we inherited after a decade of absolutely no action from those opposite—whether it be supportive accommodation, whether it be accommodation for women, whether it be looking at ways to support the provision of rental accommodation, whether it be assistance through Commonwealth Rent Assistance and more. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bragg, first supplementary? 14:18 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales While more Australians sleep in tents and cars, the Labor government has continued the big lie that it will achieve its 1.2 million— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bragg, you will need to withdraw that. Senator BRAGG 256063 I withdraw—continued the mistruth that it will achieve the 1.2 million homes target by mid-2029. Why is the government ignoring its own Labor premiers, such as New South Wales Premier Minns, who have repeatedly told them that this target is totally unachievable under Labor's current policies? 14:19 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I will essentially start where I finished around working with states and territories. We remain committed to our target for 1.2 million homes. We have the Housing Australia Future Fund, which is going to build 30,000 homes. Where the states and territories raise issues with us we respond, and you've seen it in this budget. We've put more money in to get more homes built sooner. We've finalised the national agreement on social housing and homelessness. We're directing more money towards crisis and transitional accommodation. These are all issues that have been raised by the states and territories and dealt with in this budget. We are also dealing with skills development to make sure that we are getting the workers into the jobs that we need in the construction workforce, including 20,000 new fee-free TAFE places. Tonight, when that Leader of the Opposition stands up, he should outline his plan, and it should go beyond raiding your superannuation. What are you going to do about jobs? How are you going to find the skills and how are you going to deal with the challenges in the housing market? (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bragg, a second supplementary? 14:20 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales It's not only the Labor state premiers who agree that Labor's housing policy is a shambles. In fact, the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council—your own committee—recently reported that Labor's target 'will not be achieved'. Minister, when will the Labor government be honest about the housing crisis and the failure of your own policies? 14:20 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory We are certainly very honest about the challenges in the housing market. I don't think anyone pretends they aren't there. We will also be honest about what we inherited when we came to government, which is absolutely zero attention to this for a long period of time. State and territory leaders told us that. They told us that the Commonwealth, under your government, did nothing—wasn't interested, didn't deal with them, didn't provide them any support in order to deal with this. We have more programs. We remain committed to the target. It is a challenge, but it's a challenge that we are going to have to meet, and we will work with the states and territories to meet it. Our programs are rolling out now. The Minister for Housing is doing an incredible job. There is housing being opened almost every week, across this country, thanks to some of the programs that the Commonwealth has supported, including that we're helping more than 110,000 people into their own homes through the expanded Home Guarantee Scheme. (Time expired ) Budget 63 14:22 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Minister, Labor's budget entrenches economic inequality and exacerbates the climate crisis. It does little to help people getting smashed by cost-of-living pressures but lines the pockets of Labor's corporate donors—property developers, banks, coal and gas corporations and supermarket giants. Why have you locked in obscene levels of expenditure on things like AUKUS, tax cuts for the rich and subsidies for burning fossil fuels, rather than raising the rate of JobSeeker and youth allowance, capping rents, wiping student debt or putting dental and mental health into Medicare? How can you justify a budget that so clearly prioritises corporate greed over people doing it tough and the health of our planet's climate and ecosystems? 14:23 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I completely disagree with the question that Senator McKim asked. I think it's not an unexpected question from the Greens political party, who see things in such black-and-white ways. We have, in this budget, focused our priority on cost-of-living relief. We have done, over three budgets, more than, I think, any government—certainly in recent times—around improving payments, responding on rent assistance, making child care cheaper and expanding Medicare so that more people can see a doctor without paying. Our urgent care clinics have been used, with around 400,000 presentations to those clinics, where people don't have to pay. The work we have done in medicines, to keep medicines low, and the work we're doing in housing, to generate crisis, affordable and social housing, is all aimed at people doing it tough. In terms of the shift to renewable energy, I would have thought that there were things in this budget that would have got a bit of an applause from the Greens political party—the shifting of focus with the Future Made in Australia, under the 'renewable energy superpower', to try and promote new industries, new jobs and new opportunities in clean energy, with hydrogen and critical minerals. This is the first budget that puts a serious investment in those new energy sources, and we have not changed any arrangements. Listening to your question, it's like we've found new money to put into older industries or new areas. That's not true. There are areas under the tax system which remain in place. But, at the same time, we are trying to incentivise new jobs and seize the opportunities that come with a shift to a net zero economy. I would have thought that, even if you named all the other areas, you would support at least that area in this budget. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim, first supplementary? 14:25 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Minister, in the face of dire warnings about the health of our planet's climate and the need to move rapidly away from fossil fuels, how can you defend the budget's decision to increase gas production, which underpins so much of the budget? How can you continue to justify approving new coal and gas mines and destroying native forests? How can you look Australians in the eye and tell them that you are caring for their future? 14:25 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I think any reasonable person who would look at this budget would see exactly what the government is trying to do: show leadership and incentivise and support communities on the shift to net zero, whether it's the planning that the Net Zero Economy Authority is going to do in areas of this country where workers and communities will be affected, to support them through the transition, or whether it's in promoting new opportunities for industry and business to get involved. I'm sure that those here would have to recognise that, in the two years that we have been here, we have done more not only to support the transition to net zero but to address climate change and to deal with some of the challenges that we've inherited in the environment department and in the environment policy space that had, again, been left unattended after a decade of wasted time; it was not addressing the issues that the Australian people face. We are doing this. Every single budget we tried to shift the dial— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim, second supplementary? 14:26 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Saying you're doing better than the previous government is clearing an extremely low bar. Minister, in the face a cost-of-living crisis pushing Australians to the brink, why are you failing to tackle rampant profiteering and price gouging by corporations? Will you work with the Greens to make price gouging illegal or introduce a corporate superprofits tax to rein in profiteering and put downward pressure on inflation? If not, why not? 14:27 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Again, this is a question I think Senator McKim has asked me in various ways over the last two years, and my answer remains the same. We have outlined our plans in relation to tax reform. There are a number of those bills that currently sit before the Senate. That is our focus. Of course, the main priority was to get the tax cut legislation, with every Australian getting a tax cut on 1 July this year. That has been our focus. It remains our focus with the bills that are before the parliament. In relation to some of the work that has been happening on the supermarket front, which I think is the other part of Senator McKim's question, there are a number of pieces of work underway, including the work that the consumer group CHOICE is doing around providing transparency and comparison reports on a quarterly basis for the next three years. There's the work that Dr Craig Emerson has done, the work that the ACCC is doing and the work that the Senate is doing as well. Future Made in Australia 64 14:28 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. The Treasurer has said that this is a budget designed to help people while also setting Australians up for the future. We just heard from Minister Wong earlier about the important cost-of-living measures contained in the budget. Can you update the Senate on how the Albanese Labor government is setting Australians up for the future? And, Minister, how will the government's Future Made in Australia policy gear up the Australian economy to grow into the future? 14:29 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Sterle for the question and acknowledge that WA has some real opportunities under the Future Made in Australia policy. I know that people in Western Australia will be looking closely at the plans that the government has outlined in the budget. The Albanese government believes in planning for the future and creating opportunities for all Australians to benefit from the huge economic and energy transformation that the world is currently undertaking. The government's Future Made in Australia package is all about encouraging and facilitating the private sector investment required for Australia to succeed and become an indispensable part of that future global economy. A Future Made in Australia, as the Treasurer said yesterday, will maximise our geological, meteorological, geographical and geopolitical advantages, making more things here, creating secure, well-paid jobs and responding to the net zero transition that offers so many opportunities for all Australians. A Future Made in Australia will attract investment in renewable hydrogen, green metals, critical minerals, solar and batteries. It will make Australia a renewable energy superpower, it will strengthen economic resilience and security, it will back Australian innovation and science and it will invest in people and places where this transition will take place. Our policy includes production tax credits for renewable hydrogen and processed critical minerals. It involves investment in the Australian Renewable Energy Agency that's been so successful despite the attempts to shut it down from those opposite. The Future Made in Australia innovation fund, the $1 billion Solar Sunshot and $500 million Battery Breakthrough Initiative, the quantum computing investment and a range of other reforms will accelerate approvals. We know that this country can be a renewable energy superpower—solar, wind, green hydrogen—and harness the cleaner and cheaper energy that can come from the power of a new generation of manufacturing. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sterle, first supplementary? 14:31 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia Finally, Australia has a government thinking about the future. I am so rapt. As you've outlined, Future Made in Australia is a significant policy that responds to the great opportunities the energy transition presents. Can you please outline some of the ways Australians will benefit from a Future Made in Australia? Listen up. 14:31 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Sterle for the supplementary. Making more things here in Australia will mean creating more secure and well-paid jobs in our suburbs and regions—something that you've spent your working life on, Senator Sterle. We've committed investments over five years to support world-class skills training and tertiary education, including financial support for apprentices, including accelerating the development of the clean energy workforce and making sure that women get an opportunity in that, including supporting the growth of the construction workforce and including our payments for the practical time that nurses, teachers, midwives and social work students spend doing prac placements. These are all about investments in the workforce of the future that underpin and form part of the Future Made in Australia. Through that plan, the Albanese government is investing a further $1.3 billion in our people and the places at the centre of this economic transformation. We want to support the transition of workers whose skills we will need in the new industries. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sterle, second supplementary? 14:32 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I'm absolutely rapt. Thank you, Minister, and congratulations to yourself and the Treasurer for producing this important budget for all Australians. Can you please, Minister, outline the approach you took in putting this budget together, and why it is important that political leaders are upfront about their policies? 14:33 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Senator Sterle. We know that Australians are doing it tough, so that's why we had a cost-of-living focus in this budget. And we know also that the country faces the biggest economic transition in history, so we have to plan for that future. But what do we hear from those opposite? We hear them deriding the cost-of-living support and laughing at the Future Made in Australia policy. They're not coming up with plans about how to support workers or communities, unless it's about where to place a nuclear reactor, of course, which we look forward to hearing about tonight. Where are all those nuclear reactors going to go? Whose electorate are those nuclear reactors going to go in? While the pressure is on, while we're planning for a future as part of the global transition to net zero, we've got the opposition I think working on their 23rd or 24th energy policy, and they still haven't even been able to land that. They can't land it in opposition. You can't trust them with their plans on nuclear energy. Tertiary Education 65 14:34 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Senator Watt. This week's budget announced payments for students doing mandatory practical placements in teaching, nursing, midwifery and social work courses. Students have told me how hard it is for them to take on these mandatory placements, which can see them do months of work for no money. They're forced to choose between finishing their degree and paying their rent. But this policy doesn't do anything to trim the amount of government money going to universities for placement units. Minister, why does your paid placement policy ask taxpayers to pay for student training yet doesn't put any of the responsibility on the universities? 14:34 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Tyrrell. I'm glad you asked this, because this is an issue that so many younger Australians are facing when undertaking their university studies. We know that many university courses do require students to undertake a placement as part of their degree. The types of courses I'm particularly thinking about are nursing, teaching, social work and like courses. The Universities Accord review that the government commissioned—which Minister Clare commissioned—made recommendations that we fund students to undertake those practice placements. That's exactly the recommendation we followed. I'm not aware of the accord review having recommended that the responsibility be put on universities in the way that you're suggesting. Really, in the end, the reason we have followed this recommendation is that what happens in practice is that students who, for instance, give up their part-time job or their full-time job in order to undertake that practice placement end up out of pocket. In many cases, that's deterring them from undertaking those courses. I'm sure you'll agree with us on this, Senator Tyrrell: Australia needs more people with more qualifications. We need more people with university degrees and we need more people with TAFE qualifications, because the jobs of the future, increasingly, are going to require formal qualifications like those. And we don't want to see a system going on that actually deters students from undertaking really important courses like nursing, teaching, social work et cetera simply because they can't afford to undertake that practical component. I think this is a really great measure contained in this year's budget, and I commend Minister Clare for acting on that recommendation. I'm very confident that it will encourage more of those students to pursue those careers into the future. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrrell, a first supplementary? 14:36 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania Universities charge students full course fees for placement units, despite the training taking place off-campus and out of university classrooms. If the intention is for the government to help struggling students, does the government believe it's fair that universities are piling money onto student HECS debts for training being delivered by someone else? 14:37 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Tyrrell. As I said, I'm not aware, as the representing minister, of whether the accord review had anything specific to say on that point. But I would surmise that the reality is that, while students do undertake that kind of practical training outside the university environment—it might be in a classroom, it might be in a hospital or it might be in another environment—there's still a requirement on universities to supervise. That's not on a day-to-day basis but to check in, to moderate the course and to assess the student's performance. So there is still a requirement on universities to deliver some kind of service to the students and to the employer who is hosting that student in a practical environment. I recognise the point you're making, but it's not without cost to universities. Of course, you would have seen in our announcements this week that we do expect universities to provide a high-quality education to students at an affordable price. Some of the measures that we've undertaken will help to deliver that. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrrell, a second supplementary? 14:38 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania Practical placements are especially hard on rural and regional students, who often have additional travel and accommodation costs, and many of them won't get a cent under your paid placement policy. What does the government say to Tasmanian students who need to undertake a practical placement but who aren't completing the four that you have put into this policy? 14:38 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Sorry, Senator Tyrrell, I didn't hear the last part of your question but what I think you were talking about was the fact that rural and regional students, obviously, incur other fees in their living costs while undertaking that kind of training. That's exactly what this payment which will now come through the federal government— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Tyrrell? Senator Tyrrell 300639 President, a point of order. If I may redirect this a little: my question was, basically, what are you saying to the people of Tasmania—the students who are not completing nursing and midwifery? The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Tyrrell. Minister Watt. Senator WATT 245759 Thanks for clarifying that, Senator Tyrrell. As I may have said in my answer to your primary question, the Universities Accord review did recommend that government should fund support for students undertaking nursing, care and teaching professions courses, and employers—public and private—should provide funding for other fields. We do expect employers to be able to provide funding towards students who are undertaking other courses, but, really, this comes back to the recommendations of the Universities Accord review. As I understand it, the reason for their recommendation was that training to enter care and teaching professions needs to be accessible. (Time expired) Albanese Government 66 14:40 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Earlier today, you voted to agree that the slogan 'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free' opposes Israel's right to exist, is a call for the abolition of the State of Israel and is frequently used by those who seek to intimidate Jewish Australians via acts of antisemitism. Tragically, this phrase is increasingly being used in Australia and elsewhere as part of an unprecedented wave of antisemitism. The Prime Minster has agreed that this is a very violent statement and that it doesn't have a place in our political debate. However, yesterday, Senator Payman, a Labor senator, proudly repeated this very phrase in front of assembled media. Has the Prime Minister now spoken with Senator Payman about her use of the phrase and asked, or demanded, that she retract it? What apology and other action has he demanded of her? 14:41 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I acknowledge the question from Senator Cash. She would have heard me, in my contribution on that motion, provide an answer to the topics that she is raising. The point I have made is that this is a government that does represent the community more completely than any government in Australia's history. It is a government that does have members and senators from a wide range of faiths, perspectives and cultural heritages. Senator Ruston 243273 You were asked a question! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, order! Senator Thorpe 280304 She's the only who had the guts to say it. You should all be ashamed! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, order! Senator WONG 00AOU What I also said in that contribution—and I think it is demonstrated by the interjections of Senator Thorpe, Senator Ruston and Senator Cash—is that all of us in this place ought be peacemakers. We ought try and bring people together. We know— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Just as I asked for silence when Senator Birmingham moved the motion earlier in the day, I'm going to ask for silence once again. Senator Cash, you've asked your question. The minister is on her feet. There needs to be silence. Senator WONG 00AOU I said earlier today, and I stand by it, all of us need to be peacemakers. We understand what has occurred and what is occurring from the abhorrent attack by Hamas—a terrorist organisation—to the humanitarian catastrophe that is incurring in Gaza and the loss of life. We mourn all lives, all innocent lives. I laid out in detail, in our response, our policy position, including in relation to that phrase, and I would refer the senator to it. She knows it. I ask the Senate to consider whether using this, and these issues, for political division is the responsible thing to do. What you saw you saw today in response, by the collective that is the Labor Party, was a position that sought to be clear about our policy position but also to lead by example— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, a first supplementary? 14:43 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I ask again: has the Prime Minister of Australia, Anthony Albanese, shown any leadership and spoken with Senator Payman about her use of the phrase and demanded she retract it? What apology and other action has the Prime Minister of Australia asked of Senator Payman? 14:44 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The Prime Minister of Australia has articulated, including today, but on numerous occasions— Senator Cash I0M He's done nothing! The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Once again, senators, you are being disrespectful and disorderly. I've asked for silence; that is what I expect. Senator WONG 00AOU The Prime Minister of Australia and the foreign minister of Australia have articulated our position in relation to the two-state solution and in relation to that particular phrase. We have done so on numerous occasions. I did so just a couple of hours ago, and the senator knows this. What I know from engagement with Jewish community organisations is that they do not want antisemitism in this place used as a politically divisive issue. What they want— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Hughes, you are out of order and you are being incredibly disrespectful. I've asked for silence a number of times. I should not have to keep having to sit the minister down. You are free to make a contribution at some other point, not in question time. Minister, please, continue. Senator WONG 00AOU What Jewish Australians do want is for us to speak with one voice against antisemitism, and that is what I sought to do today. Similarly, we should be respectful of the trauma and distress that is felt by so many in our— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, which part of my request—my order—for silence does not apply to you? Which part? I should not have to keep drawing the chamber to order. If you want to make a contribution, find another place during the sitting of the Senate, not here. Senator Cash, second supplementary? 14:46 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Has the Prime Minister of Australia now spoken to Senator Payman about her use of the phrase, yesterday, 'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free'? Senator Thorpe 280304 Yay! Yay! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, once again: I've asked for silence; it applies to you. I should not have to keep calling individuals senators by name. That includes you. I'm asking for silence. 14:46 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia It does say something about the motivation of those opposite that, after the government senators voted in support of a motion which specifically— Senator Cash I0M Mr Albanese is the Prime Minister. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, I've asked for silence. It applies to you. You've asked your question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, no. Silence! You're not in a debate with me. I've asked for silence. I'm the President. Minister Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU I will go back to the beginning. It does say something about the motivation of those opposite that, after the government senators have voted for a motion which makes clear our position on that phrase, they seek to make political division about it. It says something about their motivation. Senator WONG 00AOU It says something about their genuineness. I am always happy, and I have been for all of my political life, to stand— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, order! I am waiting for silence. Senator Birmingham H6X I raise a point of order. The Prime Minister, in the other place, has twice today been asked whether he has intervened in this matter. The Minister representing the Prime Minister in this place has now thrice been asked whether he has acted on this matter. I ask that the minister respond directly to the specific question asked by Senator Cash, which could not have been worded more precisely, about whether or not the Prime Minister has spoken with Senator Payman. The PRESIDENT 112096 I believe that the minister is being relevant. I have asked for silence. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Cash, I do hope that comment was not directed to me. It is my job, as the President, and my authority— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, be quiet!—to demand order in this place. Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU The Deputy Leader of the Opposition should withdraw the imputation about the President. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Cash and Senator McGrath! Senator Cash responded by saying it wasn't directed at me. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, you are not in a debate with me or Senator Watt. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash! No, Senator Cash. It's time for silence. I'm going to ask the minister to finish her contribution, and I do want silence and I want some respect. Senator WONG 00AOU We know what the motivation is from those opposite. They're not interested in the government— Senator Hughes 273828 How dare you support terrorists? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt? Senator Watt 245759 I'm sure you heard— The PRESIDENT 112096 I did. I don't want it repeated. I'm simply going to ask Senator Hughes to withdraw that comment. Senator Hughes 273828 I think everyone would. I withdraw The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes, I'm going to ask you once again to withdraw the comment without commentary. Senator Hughes 273828 I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU We support security for Israel, and we support the establishment of a Palestinian state. (Time expired) Senator Hanson-Young I0U I'm on a point of order, President. There are rules in this place about treating people with respect and about having a safe workplace. What I have just seen is intimidation, bullying and harassment of a high order. If you're going to come into this place and do it, you should be called out and thrown out. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson-Young, thank you very much. You are not on a point of order. I can assure you that I was neither bullied nor intimidated, and the comments were withdrawn. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson-Young, please resume your seat. All of the offensive comments have been withdrawn. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator Wong 00AOU On the point of order, this is an issue on which there are strong emotions and strong views. I would really encourage all senators to not engage in personal attacks in the context of this debate. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes, I didn't hear the comments, but, if you made the comment, I would invite you at this point— The PRESIDENT 112096 Please don't talk to me when I am speaking. I didn't hear the comment. Senator Waters 192970 I heard the comment. The PRESIDENT 112096 The same applies to you, Senator Waters. You can't stand up and demand respect in this place if you don't then respect me when I'm responding. The fact of the matter is— Senator Thorpe 280304 President— The PRESIDENT 112096 No, Senator Thorpe, I'm not entertaining any points of order. Please resume your seat. That is my prerogative, to not— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator McGrath, order! Senator Hughes, if you did make a further comment, I invite you to withdraw. That is up to you. I am going to move on. I am going to continue to ask for respectful silence, and I remind people of the Jenkins review and what we've all committed to: to be respectful. Budget 69 14:53 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria My question is for the Minister representing the Attorney-General, Senator Watt. The First Nations legal sector, which is under hugely increased demand, as you know, needed $229 million in the budget to ensure they can continue to deliver their critical services, including assisting women and children escaping domestic violence. The $15 million in your budget is shamefully inadequate and is an insult to our people and the sector. Will the federal government increase funding for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services this year beyond the measly $15 million in the budget? 14:54 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Thorpe. I'll answer this question in a couple of ways. The legal services that you're talking about are, of course, covered by the broader National Legal Assistance Partnership agreement that the government has. We do as a government recognise the pressures that legal assistance services are under, whether it be Aboriginal legal services or more broadly. We definitely support and note the importance of strengthening this sector because, of course, legal assistance is essential to ensuring access to justice and equality before the law. That is exactly why the Albanese government announced in this budget $44.1 million of urgent funding for 2024-25 to help legal assistance providers address current resource and workforce issues until the new National Legal Assistance Partnership agreement commences on 1 July 2025. The National Legal Assistance Partnership between the Commonwealth and all states and territories is a five-year agreement to fund vital legal assistance services for the most vulnerable Australians. As I understand it, one of the ways in which that funding will be used will be to index the wages of the very hardworking staff in those legal services, many of whom I know personally. That's the first way in which we're dealing with the issues that you've raised, Senator Thorpe. The second way, of course, is through the ongoing funding that we're providing for Indigenous justice initiatives. Achieving justice targets under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap is a key priority for the Albanese government, and it is vital— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt. Senator Thorpe, a point of order? Senator Thorpe 280304 On relevance, this is about black women and black children escaping violence, and he's talking about something else. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, resume your seat. That's not a point of order. The minister is being relevant. Please continue, Minister. Senator WATT 245759 Senator Thorpe, I've already spent the bulk of this answer talking about the additional funding that we're providing to legal assistance services, including Aboriginal legal services. Under the National Legal Assistance Partnership, overall we're providing more than $2.4 billion over five years for legal assistance services across Australia. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, first supplementary? 14:56 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Assistance for First Nations women and children experiencing family violence requires tailored approaches that only Aboriginal legal services can provide—put your mates aside. Why hasn't the government's response to the urgent crisis of gender based violence included adequate funding for First Nations legal services that support our women and children? 14:57 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As I say, the government has, through this year's budget, provided additional, immediate crisis funding to help the legal assistance services that perform that incredibly important work of assisting First Nations women, among others, who are escaping domestic and family violence. As I say, in this budget we've committed $44.1 million in immediate crisis funding to help legal assistance services address current resource and workforce issues, while negotiating— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Thorpe? Senator Thorpe 280304 Point of order—relevance. The PRESIDENT 112096 The minister is being relevant to your question. Thank you, Senator Thorpe. Please resume your seat. Minister Watt. Senator WATT 245759 As I was saying, that funding that we provided in the budget this week will flow to legal aid commissions, community legal centres, including women's legal centres, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services and family violence prevention legal services. They're exactly the kinds of services that you're asking about, Senator Thorpe. That funding includes $16.9 million to provide an indexation boost to legal aid commissions, community legal centres and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services for the last year of the Legal Assistance Partnership, in addition to $27.2 million for crisis funding. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, second supplementary? 14:58 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Senator, what do you say to the black women watching right now, particularly those from family violence prevention legal services who are listening, Minister—or senator or whatever you are? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, you can either address the senator— Senator THORPE 280304 He's not listening. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe— Senator THORPE 280304 I'm not repeating myself and then calling a point of order. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, you are not in a debate with me. You can address Senator Watt as either Senator Watt or Minister. You asked the question. I've responded. Please continue. Senator THORPE 280304 What do you say to the First Nations women watching right now who are being denied access through the door for justice to leave the violence right now? What do you say to them? 14:59 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Thorpe. What I say to those women is that the Albanese government is providing the funding that those legal services need to provide the vital work to protect them— Senator Thorpe 280304 You're not. They can't even get in the door. Senator WATT 245759 from domestic and family violence. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe! Senator WATT 245759 So— Senator Thorpe 280304 Another black death in custody— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Thorpe, you are out of order. I've asked you to listen respectfully. The minister is responding— Senator Thorpe 280304 This place is out of order! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe! Minister Watt, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 Senator Thorpe, as I say, the $44 million—and I note Senator Thorpe seems to be on her way out of the chamber— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please withdraw that. We don't— Senator WATT 245759 Okay, I withdraw. The funding that we're providing includes $16.9 million to provide an indexation boost to community legal centres— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Are you on a point of order, Senator Thorpe? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, it doesn't need a response. If you're not on a point of order, please sit down, or, if you are leaving the chamber, that's fine. Minister Watt, please continue. You're done? Okay. Budget 71 15:00 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. The Prime Minister has said that helping Australians with cost-of-living relief is the government's No. 1 priority. I note that Tuesday's budget included tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer, provided new energy relief, invested in affordable housing, delivered cuts to student debt, strengthened Medicare and delivered cheaper medicines to Australians. How does the Albanese Labor government's budget help Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn, and why is it important that Australians receive the cost-of-living support that was outlined in the budget? 15:01 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Ghosh, for arguably the best question of the week, I think. There have been some other good questions, but that's an absolute cracker. This budget is responsible and restrained, which eases cost-of-living pressures, puts downward pressure on inflation and invests in a future made in Australia. Tonight, of course, it is the opposition's turn to set out their plan for Australia. We've seen a lot of noes from Mr Dutton and the opposition, but Australians now want to know what he will say yes to. We know what the Albanese government is for. We're for more cost-of-living help, including energy bill relief for every household and a tax cut for every taxpayer. But where does Mr Dutton stand on that? Will he back that in tonight? It is really hard to know where Mr Dutton and the coalition stand on these issues, given the reactions of their colleagues over the last few days. A couple of days ago on 7.30, Mr Taylor, the shadow Treasurer, was asked if he will support the government's cost-of-living relief going to Australian households. Mr Taylor said, 'Sure.' But the next morning, on ABC NewsRadio, Mr Littleproud, the temporary Leader of the Nationals, was asked about energy price relief, and he said, 'No, I think it should have been means-tested.' So we're yes one day and we're no the next. We're yes when we're a Liberal; we're no when we're a National. But it didn't stop there. They're all over the shop when it comes to what we should do about spending. On 14 May—this week—on 7.30, Mr Taylor is asked about spending, and he says: … most of all we would have been showing restraint. Senator Hume, the shadow finance minister, backed him in the same day when she said: What we want to see is restoring a standard of living, taming inflation, fiscal restraint, bringing back that fiscal discipline … But, unfortunately, Senator Hume couldn't even last 24 hours before contradicting herself, because the next day she was on TV, saying: Well, everybody needs $300 off their power bill. In fact, we'd like to see more. So on Tuesday she's for less; on Wednesday she's for more. That's the kind of finance minister we'd get under the coalition. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ghosh, first supplementary? 15:03 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia Low wages were an intentional design feature of the Liberal-National economic plan when they were last in government, and Australian workers this week have welcomed continuing growth in real wages in Australia— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, I'm struggling to hear the question. Senator GHOSH 257613 but we know that wage stagnation cannot be fixed overnight. Minister, can you tell us what we're doing for cost-of-living relief in this budget? 15:04 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Ghosh—and aren't they touchy about their record for being about low wages! For starters, under Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, all 13.6 million Australian taxpayers will get a tax cut. But we know that, under Mr Dutton and the Liberals, those tax cuts would be taken away. It wasn't that long ago that Senator Hume, as the shadow finance minister, was saying about the tax cuts, 'We'll have to go back to the drawing board.' Well, tonight's the night for the drawing board to come out of the closet! Tonight's the night. Under Labor, wages growth is up, which is helping Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn. We know Mr Dutton wants to strip back workers' rights and force Australians to work longer for less. Our cost-of-living plan has been widely endorsed, even on radio station 2GB, where Chris O'Keefe this week said: 'I reckon it is pretty good. I don't see what the issue is with giving every household $300 off their power bills. It's one of the great misnomers that the coalition are better economic managers.' Imagine being Mr Dutton, turning up for a weekly cuddle with Ray Hadley on 2GB, and then his own announcers turn around and stab him in the back. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ghosh, second supplementary? 15:05 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia We know Australian workers are under pressure. Minister, what are the barriers that stand in the way of Australians receiving much-needed cost-of-living relief under this budget? 15:06 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Ghosh, I actually am surprised you had to ask that question, because those barriers are sitting right in front of you—from about there right through to about there. That's where all the barriers are for the cost-of-living question. Our plan to combat the cost of living is putting downward pressure on inflation and helping working Australians right now. I've spent the last few months, as I know many of my colleagues, including Senator Ghosh, have been, going around the country meeting with workers, with farmers and with business owners, and searching far and wide for one single idea of what Mr Dutton stands for. I was in Armidale recently, in the electorate of Mr Joyce, where the mayor of the town in his own electorate is backing a number of renewable projects in the region. But could I find any hint of a plan from Mr Dutton? None whatsoever. Last week I was at the beef exhibition, with every member of the National Party and a few of my own colleagues in Rockhampton, and I bumped into Mr Dutton in a brand-new checked blazer from Mitchell Ogilvie in Brisbane—all $5,000 worth—but could I find evidence of a plan? No. Tonight is the night. Tell us what your plan is. Senator Wong 00AOU I ask that further questions be placed on notice. DOCUMENTS 72 DOCUMENTS Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water 72 Order for the Production of Documents 72 15:07 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia In relation to this attendance, the government acknowledges Senator Thorpe for moving this order for the production of documents. We recognise her strong interest in the matter; however, providing these documents would disclose and pre-empt cabinet deliberations on a matter of national importance. The process of reforming our environmental laws is ongoing. We are committed to developing a First Nations engagement standard, the purpose of which is to ensure First Nations views are considered early in all projects and planning decisions under our environmental law. This will ensure that traditional owner groups and organisations have an early opportunity to protect their cultural heritage and enable their traditional knowledge to be factored into project design. I table the response from the Minister for the Environment and Water. 15:08 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I share Senator Thorpe's concerns around what is actually happening, or, more to the point, what is not happening here. We were promised at the last election by this government that they would have this comprehensive First Nations cultural heritage plan, that they'd get cracking on this—that they'd actually do the work that needed to be needed to be done to give effect to this plan. Here we are nearly two years on—I think we're just one week short of two years since the last election—and they've done nothing. Diddly squat. We have a government here trying to explain away the lack of action. We've got to remember the backdrop against which this substandard response has been given. It's a backdrop of nil activity in the environment portfolio. We were also promised, at that same point in time, that we would have a full and comprehensive response to the Samuel review of our national environmental approval laws—that by the end of 2023 we'd have laws in this parliament. We still don't. Another six months have passed—no laws. It sounds like we won't be having those laws in parliament this term either. A broken promise—but, hey, let's not worry about it. I do want to go to some of the comments that were made by Minister Plibersek in relation to the importance of getting these First Nations cultural heritage laws in place, and of course the promises that were made about acting on the need for policy reform. They said: An Albanese Labor government will work with the First Nations Heritage Alliance and other stakeholders to reform our national heritage protection framework and prevent such destruction occurring in the future— referring to the Juukan Gorge disaster— This includes through new stand-alone First Nations heritage protection legislation. This was part of their First Nations Peoples Plan. Referring to that, and in relation to introducing standalone federal Indigenous cultural heritage protection legislation, Minister Plibersek said this: 'There's never been a better moment to take this step.' That was on 24 November 2022—quite some time ago now. 'Never been a better moment' than 24 November 2022. We're now in 2024, and the moment has well and truly passed. The Nature Positive Plan document which was tabled a couple of weeks later, in December 2022, states: A National Environmental Standard for First Nations engagement and participation in decision-making will be developed as a priority. It's such a priority that nearly two years can pass and we have nothing. Senator Thorpe is rightly angered by this, and I support her in that. It goes on: This will ensure that First Nations interests and cultural heritage are identified early and can be protected as projects are designed. I emphasise the word 'early'. That's not happening. It says, 'These will ensure that cultural heritage is identified and protected early,' providing certainty to traditional owners. Well, there is no certainty because there are no standards. No work has been done. In estimates in October last year I was wondering what was going on, giving the government the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they were getting some work done. I asked a senior official from the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water where things were at. I said, 'Is there a chance that what we are talking about here, the standards that were so critically important to have out the door and in place, will be done before the next election?' The official, a deputy secretary in the department, said, 'It's unclear.' Not even those who are notionally doing this work on this critically important piece of policy could tell us when work would be done. It won't be done before the election, in much the same way that the national environmental laws won't before the election. I go to this ridiculous claim of public interest immunity, the suggestion in the letter that has been provided by the minister that this would pre-empt cabinet deliberations—that the documents relating to this order, the order that Senator Thorpe sought, would both disclose and pre-empt deliberations of cabinet. If those who make these claims would read Odgers', they would understand that this claim does not stack up, which is why we reject it. To claim loosely that cabinet documents are immune from production in the courts or at least orders by this place is not supported. Only documents which record or reveal the deliberations of cabinet are immune. The documents we're talking about here don't fit into that category. That's supported by case law, the case of the Commonwealth and the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. The government hasn't got a leg to stand on here. They haven't done any work. It's an embarrassment. I applaud Senator Thorpe for moving this motion. 15:13 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Twelve months ago, this government was advocating a voice to parliament for Indigenous Australians. Of course they talk a big talk in terms of their attempt, their suggestion, that they would act with transparency, accountability—all of these big words that they like to throw around, particularly when it comes to engaging with Indigenous Australians and planning for the betterment of the lives of Indigenous Australians. However, they have a terrible record. We know that this government was funding the EDO, which was found by the Federal Court to have been exploiting traditional owners. However, despite this, they continued to think that clearly this sort of conduct, this sort of behaviour, is perfectly acceptable and would continue to fund the EDO. Justice Charlesworth broadly criticised Dr O'Leary for having lied to the Tiwi Island witnesses, because he wanted his cultural-mapping exercise to be used in a way that would, of course, stop the pipeline. The problem with this Albanese government is that they are not actually interested in any level of transparency, accountability or consultation with Indigenous Australians on matters that relate to Indigenous Australians. We've heard all kinds of rhetoric around this. We have heard the Prime Minister himself say, in his passionate speech about the Indigenous Voice to Parliament, that once you start to listen to Indigenous Australians then that is when we will get the results that are needed. Well, they've clearly demonstrated that they're not actually interested or prepared to listen and properly consult or be accountable for lack of consultation with Indigenous Australians right across the issues that concern us. In their review of the EDO's conduct, this government didn't even know if traditional owners could make a submission to their review. It would be funny if it weren't so insulting and so ridiculous. They wax lyrical about their responsibilities, which, again, goes back to that issue of transparency. The reality that we know and that we've come to learn over and over again is that this simply is not true. I think it's time for the minister to show what responsibility looks like and what transparency looks like and to fess up about how serious they are about engaging Indigenous Australians. As the shadow minister for Indigenous Australians, I'm acutely aware of their lack of responsibility in this space from moment to moment, from the action on the ground in my own home community of Alice Springs, and aware of those that they failed to be honest with about conversations that they're having with regard to issues like the rollout of the $250 million that's supposedly to help in Central Australia. You've got a prime minister who flies in and flies out for photo opportunities in Indigenous communities such as the Binjari community to have the lovely backdrop of the community and of the housing to announce a new housing policy, while the Binjari Community Aboriginal Corporation stands there, waiting for their moment to have a conversation with the Prime Minister, who actually showed up in their community, only to be shoved to the side once the conference is done and dusted. Then, of course, the Prime Minister jumps in the car and runs away. Not good enough. More transparency is what needs to occur. (Time expired) 15:18 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales We all know that this Prime Minister is all hat and no cattle. That was on display at beef week just recently. We know he's all talk and no action. He's all promise with no follow-through. I just want to share with you some quotes that the now Prime Minister was wont to say, almost on repetition. 'Transparency is always a good idea,' he told ABC Drive. On Sunrise in July 2022, he said: Well, what we need is transparency. …   …   … And I want politics to be cleaned up. That's why my Government will establish an anti-corruption commission. And that's why we will have strict adherence to the code of conduct. Code of conduct? I mean, we know that doesn't really apply, because when we last had estimates Minister Ayres was in so many breaches of it. It was so blatant, yet not even an eyebrow was raised by those opposite. The Albanese Government is committed to integrity, honesty and accountability and Ministers in my Government (including Assistant Ministers) will observe standards of probity, governance and behaviour worthy of the Australian people. That's part of the code of conduct. Behaviour worthy of the Australian people? I think today showed that, no, they're not—certainly not their backbench, when they call for genocide and the destruction of Israel. But there we are. Mr Albanese tweeted: 'We do need to restore faith in our political system. We need to make sure that there's transparency, accountability and integrity.' This is a government that is incapable of any of these things, and that's why we're here. To Senator Price's point, last year $456 million was spent on the Voice to Parliament—the Voice to Parliament that was going to be so important because we cared so much about Indigenous Australians. We were so wanting to make sure that Indigenous Australians had a direct voice into government, affecting decisions and having an impact on decisions that were going to have significance in their lives, yet here we are again. That was just part of an ideology. It was part of something Mr Albanese thought was a good idea. Again, once it failed, and spectacularly so—another great waste of money. To be fair, though, $456 million on the Voice now seems just like a little flurry, a bit of a flush, when you compare it to the billion dollars they're going to spend on the rebranding of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. These guys have just got absolutely no clue. Fiscal responsibility be damned. We know that there is no accountability, no transparency and no honesty when it comes to the Australian people. Senator Thorpe has just made a request for some documents. She just wants to know what consultations happened, who's been spoken to and what the impacts are going to be, but we get arrogance and hubris from this government. We see it every Monday when we come back to parliament, on NDIS Monday, when we ask for documents that underpin the modelling of the NDIS and the assumptions that are made there. This is a program that's now going to cost more than Medicare, but these guys are unable to provide any modelling to show how they're going to dramatically impact the budget changes in that area, so why would they tell anyone what they're going to do around the national Indigenous heritage sites? I'm in New South Wales, but I used to live in Perth, so I do pay a little bit of attention to what's happening over in WA and WA politics. They had an absolute disaster over in Western Australia because the state Labor government brought in legislation that meant that, in effect, if you wanted to trim the hydrangeas or dig a little hole to put a new tree in, you had to pay to get an Indigenous heritage assessment. It took away the limits of what you could do on your land. It was increasing costs and it was completely disastrous, and it had to be revoked. For some reason, the federal Labor government is determined to push on with these sorts of legislative programs. Because they're so arrogant, because they are so carried away by their own importance and significance, and their belief in their own belief, they're not even going to tell you about it before the next election. They assume they'll be re-elected and they can just do it without your imprimatur, without the Australian people knowing what they're even trying to push through. Shame on you all. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 75 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 75 15:24 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to move a motion relating to the division of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023, as circulated. Leave not granted. Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended that would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the division of a bill. As all of us in this place know, Australians are getting totally dudded when it comes to the export of our gas. We're a gas powerhouse, exporting 75 per cent of the gas that we produce. In 2022 export revenue for LNG was close to $93 billion. That's more than double the federal government education budget for the same period. Yet not a single cent of petroleum resource rent tax was collected. Four major foreign gas producers—Exxon, Shell, INPEX and Chevron—have not paid a single cent of petroleum resource rent tax on the combined income of the nearly $300 billion that they've received from exporting our gas over the nine years to 2021-22. The cost of this failure in our tax system is huge. Every dollar of tax avoided by the gas industry is a dollar not available to fund our understaffed and underpaid frontline services. It's a dollar that we can't put into having more GPs for Australians to access through Medicare. It's a dollar that doesn't go to nurses and teachers. Every dollar of tax avoided is a dollar not available to invest in decarbonising the economy with the urgency that is required. Every dollar of tax avoided is a dollar not available to adapt our homes, our food systems and our ecosystems, in a budget that had nothing for nature—absolutely nothing for the places that Australians love and want to see protected. We're told that the budget is tight and that we can't afford to look after the environment, yet we're willing to let these multinationals export our gas for free. It makes no sense, and I think most Australians would ask: What are our politicians doing about it? How do they change this? And then they find out that we've got this petroleum resource rent tax bill before the Senate. They think, 'Maybe that could get us more tax, as we've seen other countries do.' Qatar exports about the same amount of gas as we do but collects 20 times more tax on gas than Australia. Norway has a taxation rate on gas of 78 per cent, nearly double the petroleum resource rent tax. The result is that they're now sitting on a sovereign wealth fund of $2.4 trillion. In 2023 the fund made a profit of $320 billion. We could be doing that for our resources; we could be getting a fair return for them. But we've got the major parties and now the Greens stitching up a deal to just move on with things: 'We don't care.' The 90 per cent cap in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill does not even bring in additional revenue. It just brings forward payments that would have happened anyway. And it will bring forward only around $500 million a year. In 2022 that would have been around half a percent of the revenue earned on Australian gas. That seems really pitiful to me. That seems inadequate. I'm certainly hearing from the people I represent in the ACT that they want a better deal. We have huge challenges in front of us as a country, and this is revenue we could put to work to make Australians' lives better and set us up for the future. PRRT receipts since the policy was announced have been revised down by $500 million. So you basically wipe out these really weak changes that are being proposed by the government. We in this place should have a duty of care for young people and future generations. We should be making decisions that are good for young people and future generations. And this change to the petroleum resource rent tax bill is not that. It doesn't uphold that duty to ensure that we are benefiting young people from our resources and from the burning of gas that we know will saddle them with many challenges through their lifetime. 15:29 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland This is just a ridiculous motion. I'm sorry to say, Senator, that you have been wildly misled and are misleading in your comments, because, in the 2022-23 year, $1.85 billion was paid in PRRT. That's with a 'b', not an 'm'—$1.85 billion. That's still at a time when that is a lot of money. That's from the PRRT around the country. That's because the PRRT, if you understand it, is a delayed depreciation mechanism. If you don't explain the full tax system, then you are potentially leaving Australians not fully informed, and that has got to be one of our singular roles in this place. We have seen a dirty deal between Labor and the Greens this afternoon, with their terrible guillotine measures, that is managing to throw the car industry and the gas industry under the bus. It is the lack of proper examination of legislation in this place that leads to senators not understanding the way the PRRT works and not understanding how the LNG system works. This is a complete backflip on Labor's own strategy, because it was only a week ago that they announced a key tenet of the Future Gas Strategy, yet here we are, a week later—showing that you can't trust their word. You can't follow through on what Labor will say on gas last week and what they will say on gas today. The government is all talk on future manufacturing, future energy supply and future energy prices, but no action. Today the Prime Minister and his cabinet have capitulated to noisy backbenchers and to the Greens. And it seems there is no Labor Minister for Resources any more. The deals that we're seeing this afternoon just confirm that Albanese has actually appointed Adam Bandt into the Labor cabinet as the resources minister. This is new news, I think, to most of Australia, handing the keys— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Ciccone? Senator Ciccone 281503 Deputy President, I'm always reluctant to interrupt senators' contributions in this place, but I do ask that you ask the good senator to address members of the other place, as well as members in this place, by their correct titles. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Please be mindful of that, Senator McDonald. Senator McDONALD 123072 Thank you very much for that reminder. What has happened is that Prime Minister Albanese has appointed Mr Bandt, from the other house, into the Labor cabinet as the resources minister. Just to clarify that again, Minister King is no longer the Labor Minister for Resources. It is Mr Adam Bandt, a member of the other place, the Greens political party leader, who is now the Labor cabinet Minister for Resources, it seems. This is terrible for the gas industry, it is terrible for energy policy and it is terrible for the cost of living for Australians, because what Labor are doing today, by the dirty deal they have done with the Greens political party, means they will be voting for higher taxes, for more red tape, for slower approvals and for gas shortfalls. This notion that Australia can just claw back the gas that it's exporting to its allies is shocking. Imagine the moment that we say to our close allies, 'Good news: we're going to turn your lights off because we can't keep ours on. Good news: those contracts that you were relying on are now not worth the paper they're written on.' Won't that be fantastic for our relationships in this geopolitical region that relies on Australia being a reliable source of gas, energy and minerals more broadly. It's just one more nail in the coffin for investor confidence in this country. Over the last two years we've seen interventions in the gas market, price caps, the introduction of unreliable renewables with no firming plans, additional green tape, cultural heritage expansion and the introduction of a new EPA. We're seeing further delays on the very things that will see Australians have lower electricity prices, more jobs in this country—to keep some manufacturing jobs. You know when Sorbent, when toilet paper manufacturers, leave Australia, as they have—they have moved to Indonesia—that it is a bad day for Australians. That is exactly what is happening right now, unless we wake up and take control of our resources and bring more gas to the market. 15:35 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania There is no doubt that the PRRT is one of the great tax rorts of Australia's history. The PRRT is what happens when Labor and Liberal governments over many decades allow fossil fuel corporations to write their own tax codes. That's what happens. They make out like bandits, and all the while they are cooking our planet, rendering this planet uninhabitable for human life and destroying the ecological systems that ultimately sustain all life on this planet, including human life. What has happened today is an absolute win for the planet, an absolute win for First Nations people, an absolute win for the environment movement, an absolute win for the climate movement and an absolute win for all Australians who support First Nations rights, protecting the environment and taking real climate action. The big losers are the gas cartels. I will tell you why. Today the Greens have killed off Labor's fast-tracking gas bill. Let's be clear about what has happened. Santos, the big gas corporations, Labor and the Liberals wanted to collude to bypass First Nations voices and environmental protections so that they could fast-track more gas mines in the middle of a climate crisis and in the middle of ecological collapse. First Nations people, the environment movement and the climate movement, supported by the Greens in this place, fought back, and today we have had a great victory, because Labor's fast-tracked gas bill is now dead. It has been killed off by the Greens working together with so many Australians who do not support gas corporations having so much influence in this place and who do not support gas and other fossil fuel corporations—who are obscenely profiting while they are cooking the planet—being able to write their own laws in this parliament. Labor's fast-tracked gas laws were designed by the gas corporations for the gas corporations. They gave the resources minister the power to approve more gas mines with the flick of a pen—right in the middle of a climate crisis. Labor not only tried to deliver that; they tried to hide that provision in the middle of laws that are otherwise very beneficial to workers in fossil fuel corporations. The major parties may be able to be bought by their massive donors, bought by the highest bidder, but the Greens are not for sale. Our message today to the big gas corporations is we see you, we know what you're up to and you are on notice. You might control the Labor and Liberal parties, but you do not control the Australian Greens, you do not control First Nations people in Australia and you do not control the millions of Australians who form part of the environment movement and the conservation movement and who want to see genuine and real action on climate change. Today we have used our leverage, our power, in this parliament. This is what happens when you put the Greens in the balance of power. When you elect Greens MPs into the House of Representatives, into lower house seats, and when you elect Greens into the Senate, we will fight for you. We will fight for the environment, we will fight for climate action and we will fight the big corporations who are cooking the planet and rampantly profiteering and price gouging. We will fight for you by creating leverage, like we did by blocking Labor's PRRT legislation right up until today, and using the leverage to kill off Labor's fast-tracked gas bill. We make no apology for using our power in this place. We make no apology for using the leverage that the Australian people gave to us when they elected us into the Senate and the House of Representatives. We make no apology for using that leverage provided to us by the millions of Australians who voted Green to deliver outcomes like the one we have today, which has killed off Labor's fast-track gas bill. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Bragg, are you contributing on this? The minister has the priority, unfortunately for you. 15:40 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Did you say 'unfortunately'? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 No; it's unfortunate for him. You take the call. Senator GALLAGHER ING I thought you meant, 'Unfortunately, the minister has priority.' I certainly won't take up the Senate's time, so Senator Bragg can make his contribution. I did want to stand and briefly put the government's position, which is that we don't support the suspension of standing orders and don't support the motion as a whole, which is being moved by Senator David Pocock. The Senate has already determined its program for this afternoon, with a number of votes having been held. I would say to Senator Pocock that, if he wants to see money come to the budget sooner than it otherwise would have, he should support the sensible and modest changes to the PRRT that are being brought forward. I accept there's a difference in view about whether it's too much or not enough and whether the arrangements are right, but the passage of this bill is a better way of raising more revenue to come to the budget to assist with budget repair and all the priorities that Senator Pocock outlined. 15:41 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I want to take the opportunity to speak to the bizarre situation we have, where this PRRT measure is bundled in with significant corporate governance reforms that have been flagged after the PwC scandal. This is a very consistent pattern. Minister Jones, who is notionally the minister for corporate governance in the government, seems to have some role in this particular bill. Often his bills, which are tax bills or bills on matters related to corporate governance, are introduced by Dr Leigh, though sometimes they are not. It is a bizarre way to treat a very serious reform package that I think everyone accepts is important. There's been good work done on the PwC matter by Senators Pocock, O'Neill and Colbeck. To bundle it up with a PRRT measure seems very strange and is quite poor governance in and of itself. But the Labor government's commitment here to parliamentary scrutiny and governance of all these matters is strange. Either there is a deliberate judgement made in the executive to have a covering-up of information that should be publicly available, or there is a Treasury official drafting all the bills and the ministers are not paying any attention to detail. This is another of three or four attempts in the past few months in which corporate governance and financial services bills have had major deficiencies. We know this because of the detailed scrutiny that the Senate Standing Committees on Economics undertake, where the non-government senators work to look at the government's efforts on legislation. I have to say that it's been pretty ordinary. Only in the last few weeks the coalition and the Greens had to issue dissenting reports to tell the government its judgement to remove the parliamentary scrutiny in proposed changes to ASX ownership are to be rejected. That's because we believe that parliamentary oversight is a good thing. If there is to be a change in the ownership of something like the Australian Securities Exchange, then it should be subject to a disallowance. Similarly, the government is proposing to issue the Reserve Bank with enormous payments powers. I believe that, from a geopolitical and an economic perspective, payments policies will be very significant judgements in the coming years. The government's view is: 'We're not going to give any of these things to the parliament. This is all going to be outsourced and delegated to the central bank.' The central bank can effectively make laws without any parliamentary oversight or any capacity for the parliament to disallow an instrument. All you have to do is read the Economist from the last few weeks and you'll see there is a massive proliferation of payments systems around the globe. The Labor government's position is: 'That is not a matter for us. That is going to be a matter for the central bank.' It is the delegation of authority to agencies which is fundamentally undemocratic. That's why I want to put on the record the work that the coalition has done with the Greens, particularly Senator McKim, to highlight the government's commitment to covering up and neutering this parliament from having its proper role as a house of review. The ASX ownership, this bizarre meshing of issues in this bill and the payments policy matter are all instances of poor governance and either appalling drafting or a deliberate judgement made by the Treasury ministers. We imagine it's Minister Jones; we're not sure what he's doing. It is to be called out, and I appreciate the opportunity to put these remarks on the record. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the suspension order moved by Senator David Pocock be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [15:51]
(The President—Senator Lines)

30 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 34 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. 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. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 78 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Budget 78 15:55 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of answers given to questions without notice (1), (2) and (4) asked today. I know question time was some time ago. The main point I want to make in taking note of these answers is that the budget this week is a budget which has paid off the big unions and the major donors and favourite fellow travellers of the government. When I say that this is a government for vested interests, this is perhaps the best example of it. You see nothing for small business. You see efforts to reintroduce unionisation at universities, and, of course, you see the endless gravy train of more and more super for their best friends at the super funds. This is part of a classic Labor approach to budget management. You've seen the essential desire of the government to increase taxation because spending is so high. While we see a surplus this year, we see deficits as far as the eye can see in the out years of the budget. So the government has made a conscious decision to spend up big over the course of these forward estimates. Of course, the people who will pay the bill are the people of Australia because the government has no money of its own. The only money the government has is the taxation it levies on its citizens. We've already seen new taxes on superannuation and franking credits. We've also seen higher taxes in the personal income tax space. Who would have thought when we started this parliament almost two years ago that we would reinsert a tax bracket of 37c? We've gone back to the future. Who could have believed that? The reality is that the reinsertion of the 37c threshold means that bracket creep is back. Bracket creep is now a permanent feature of the Australian tax system. That is going to be one of the legacies of this bad government. We have gone back to the future, in a DeLorean perhaps, to a system where you have a 37c threshold and, if you do an extra shift or if you do a second job, you are on the hook for more tax. Bracket creep is back. That is going to be one of the shocking economic legacies of this government, which has unwound one of the very few reforms of the past few years. We are living in an era where governments have very low ambition. One of the only reforms to the tax system in recent years was the removal of that tax threshold, and now it is back. So you see more taxes to pay for the big spending. You also see an obsession with these boondoggle schemes and funds: the National Reconstruction Fund, the Housing Australia Future Fund and now the made in Australia fund. All of these funds are chock full of union people—on their boards—so they can pay off, in financial terms, their favoured vested interests. It's a government for vested interests in terms of policy, and a government for vested interests in terms of the payment of taxpayer funds to special interests. That is the reality of this budget. The other big failure is housing. It's hugely disappointing. We see pages and pages in Budget Paper No. 1 on Labor's housing policy. What is the centrepiece of Labor's housing policy? The centrepiece is this hilarious commitment to 1.2 million new houses, a commitment which has been laughed at by the Premier of New South Wales, Chris Minns, who says that New South Wales will never meet its allocation of houses. Furthermore, Budget Paper No. 1 says clearly that the government will never meet the target of 1.2 million new houses. This is a huge fail on supply, and their only policy on the demand side is a policy called Help to Buy, a friendless scheme already run by the states and territories that no-one wants. The reason no-one wants it is that people don't want the government to own their house. No-one wants to co-own their house with the government. That is not the Australian way. That is not the Australian dream. The Labor Party is putting the Australian dream to death, as it governs for its special interests. It is a government for vested interests, which is killing the Australian dream. 16:00 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Isn't it interesting when those opposite get the chance to talk about our budget, because we start to learn a little bit about what they have planned for Australians. Our budget, as you are aware, Madam Acting Deputy President Polley, and as many Australians are aware, was focused squarely on cost of living as a priority for the economic times but also on delivering an economy for the future. That's why we are delivering a tax cut for every Australian. We made sure that we were able to deliver a tax cut for every taxpayer out there. On top of the tax cuts that were already committed to, we made sure that there would be tax cuts for the lowest-paid workers. It's interesting when you hear those opposite talk about these tax cuts or about changes to the tax system that they're not quite able to say—they don't quite have the guts to—whether they would change these tax cuts if they were elected. They're not able to say that because we know that they will. We know that they want to rip those tax cuts away from low-paid workers, and they would if they had the chance. But our government is delivering those tax cuts on 1 July, and we're very excited to make sure that every taxpayer in regional Queensland, across Queensland, gets the tax cut that they deserve. We're also making sure that we can deliver an economy for the future. That means delivering a future made in Australia—more manufacturing jobs all over Australia, particularly in our regions. When we talked about this commitment, when we talked about manufacturing, those opposite were very quick to say that they wouldn't be supporting a future made in Australia. Imagine saying you don't want to support more things being made here by Aussie workers! We know that this is an important policy for the future, and that's why we're delivering it. We know that it's important for manufacturing workers right now, but we also know that it's important for those manufacturing workers of the future that we are skilling up. Those opposite would tell those workers that they don't have a job here in Australia, that they would send their job overseas, because they don't support our plan to make more things here in Australia. Of course, you've heard those opposite talk about housing and our housing plan. What Senator Bragg did not mention in his criticisms of our plan is the $32 billion of investment that we are putting behind our commitment to build more homes in Australia. We are making sure that we're doing that in conjunction with the states. It is ludicrous to hear from those opposite any criticism of our plan to build housing when, after 10 years, they refused to hand over any money for social housing, any money for homelessness or any money to support the building of homes that are so drastically needed, particularly in regional areas. It's interesting: I want to know which parts of this housing plan those opposite oppose. Do they oppose the $1 billion that we are setting aside to build more homes for women and children fleeing domestic violence? Is that the bit that they would cut? Do they oppose programs like the regional first home buyers grant, a program that is rolling out homes in regional Queensland right now? Is that what they are against? Do they oppose us skilling up construction workers to make sure that we have people out there who are able to build homes right now and into the future? Are those the jobs that they would cut? When it comes to the most important issues facing Australians right now, we know that energy prices are putting pressure on households, so we are delivering relief through our energy relief package—$300 for every household. If you're in Queensland, we've managed to keep those assets in public hands, so you will get an even bigger package because the state government is delivering relief and the Australian government is too. When it comes to energy prices, we know that those opposite voted against our package the last time we put it through this place. We know that, given the chance, they'll probably vote against it again. We know that they've criticised it one day and flip-flopped and supported it the other. They want higher electricity prices. They literally voted in this chamber to have higher electricity prices—to make prices higher for people doing it tough. And they want less electricity in the market because they oppose renewable energy. On this side of the chamber, we're for more energy into the system and lower electricity prices. Those opposite are for higher energy prices and less electricity into the market. It is clear when they come in here and criticise our budget that they don't support us delivering a tax cut for every single Australian and energy bill relief for every single household. (Time expired) 16:05 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I'm not sure what Senator Green is smoking, but whatever it is she needs to get off it. Senator Green 259819 Point of order. I think the senator should withdraw that and apologise. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x It was a reflection on a colleague in the chamber. It would be helpful if you could withdraw, please. Senator RENNICK 283596 I withdraw. The speech that we just heard by Senator Green was riddled with a number of factual inaccuracies. The idea that Labor has kept assets in Queensland's hands is complete and utter rubbish. We saw under the Bligh-Beattie government the reckless sale of Queensland's infrastructure. The Port of Brisbane was sold for six times earnings and the forestry plantations were sold for five times earnings. The solar and wind farms back then were sold. We should never forget that it was the great Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen who built the coal-fired power stations that are the backbone of the eastern states' energy grid. Today we have the southern interconnector that basically sends energy down to the southern states and keeps the lights on in this country. In 1989, at the end of the Nationals government, we had the cheapest energy in the world. That is something that we need to reflect on this week, because this budget was a show about nothing. It reminded me of the Seinfeld episode 'The Hamptons' when George Costanza got out of the pool and all we saw was shrinkage. The best that this budget could come up with was a measly $300 to offset the thousands of dollars that energy prices have risen. It's a measly $6 a week. That is the best that Albanese could come up with. What a joke. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Senator Rennick— Senator RENNICK 283596 Here we go. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x I would ask you to refer to those in the other place with their correct title. Senator RENNICK 283596 All Prime Minister Albanese could come up with was a measly $6 a week to deal with the cost of living that has risen by tens of thousands of dollars during his term of government. And here they are claiming credit for the tax cuts. These tax cuts were initially introduced in our first week in parliament back in July 2019, and over the long term they're actually going to cost Australians more due to bracket creep. What the Labor government don't like to talk about is the fact that they're giving a little bit back now, but it's going to cost you more later. Mark my words: this side of the chamber will be going to the next election with more income tax cuts. I've been openly critical of the fact that we didn't cut income taxes enough in the nine years we were last in government. Something that I've advocated for in every backbench meeting that I go to is lower income taxes because it is the people in this country who get out of bed every day and put their noses to the grindstone who are going to drag us out of this inflation mess that we have got into. Senator Green's question about what we would like to cut is accusing the coalition of wanting to cut things. We do want to cut things. We want to cut immigration because that is completely unsustainable. The growth in immigration from 200,000 people to 500,000 people has been completely unmatched by the supply of new dwellings. The other thing we'd like to cut and get rid of is the $23 billion subsidy to wealthy billionaires for green energy. The sad reality of it is that they're going to give the hardworking Australian family $6 a week and yet they are going to turn around and give wealthy billionaires like Andrew Forrest, and his green hydrogen fantasy, billions of dollars. That is a complete and utter joke. If Labor really wanted to lower energy prices in this country, they would get on and continue to build base-load power stations—especially coal, because that's readily accessible now—and they would also abolish the nuclear prohibition in this country. We need to be adopting nuclear power as soon as possible, because we have a vast abundance of resources in this country. Why on earth would you turn your back on homegrown resources, like uranium, coal and gas, only to turn around and subsidise billionaires to import foreign-made renewables? It's a bit rich for the Labor Party to claim that somehow the coalition doesn't want to bring back manufacturing. It was the Button plan of 1985 that sent manufacturing offshore. How could we ever forget that? If you want to bring manufacturing back onshore in this country, back our base-load energy supplies of coal, gas and uranium. (Time expired) 16:11 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia I, too, rise to take note of answers to questions without notice. The coalition's history of financial irresponsibility is a nightmare from which this country is still struggling to awaken. When we came to government, inflation in this country was running at 6.1 per cent. In the 12 months to March 2024, it has reduced to 3.5 per cent—that is, nearly halved in the time we've been in government. One of the main challenges that the Albanese government has had to deal with is the inflationary hangover from the Morrison government—profligate spending, underinvestment in economic infrastructure and a complete neglect of systems of social support in this country. That's despite the fact that, across nine years, there was budget deficit after budget deficit, whereas what Labor has delivered now, for a second year running, is a budget surplus. Following a budget surplus of $22.1 billion in 2022-23, the budget is forecasting a surplus of $9.3 billion in 2023-24. Though, once again grasping the nettle, the Treasurer does acknowledge that fiscal pressures intensify after that and that there will be future deficits. But progress has been made in strengthening the budget over that time. That is the serious effort of budget repair. Since Prime Minister Albanese has taken government, we have identified $77.4 billion in savings. This budget identifies $27.9 billion in savings and reprioritisations. It limits real spending growth to an average of 1.4 per cent per year over the period since we came to government to 2027-28. That's less than half the average of the last 30 years and around a third of our predecessors. The budget improves the position by a forecast $214.7 billion over the six years to 2027-28, compared to at the time of the election, and it reduces debt as a share of the economy, with gross debt projected to peak at 35.2 per cent of GDP—almost 10 per cent lower than at the time of the election. So we've grasped the issue of inflation, we've grasped the issue of deficits and we've engaged in the hard work of budget repair. The second wicked problem that we were left with, as reflected in the questions and answers at question time today, was a cost-of-living crisis. We address that at a number of different levels, including with a tax cut for all Australians, energy prices relief and, importantly—finally—real wages increase, after a long period of stagnation under the previous government. Annual real wages rose by 0.5 per cent in the year to the March quarter of 2024, and they're forecast to grow by 0.5 per cent for the next three years. Working Australians will have more money in their pockets as a result of higher real wages under an Albanese Labor government. When the coalition was in power, low wages growth was a deliberate design feature of the economic system that they sought to advance. It was an architecture that deliberately hurt working Australians. The coalition suppressed wages growth, adding to the current cost-of-living crisis. We heard a lot about housing today in the questions and answers given, but this is a government that's committed to improving housing supply in Australia and providing demand side assistance. There are a number of policies that my colleague Senator Green referred to. Perhaps the most relevant, in terms of our future planning opportunities, is that this government is supporting investments in infrastructure around housing. So there's a billion dollars in the budget that will help get homes built sooner, because it funds states and territories to build roads, sewers, and energy, water and community infrastructure that are essential not only to assist in building new houses but to make sure that those houses are in areas that are livable and that Australians can find a true home. (Time expired) 16:16 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales The Minister for Climate Change and Energy has done it again. He is sometimes the truthteller of the ALP. He has gone out and admitted that the $300 off everyone's electricity bill is the ALP's attempt to buy lower inflation. It is just an extraordinary lack of understanding of economics. When people have more money in their pocket and they go out and spend it, prices go up and inflation increases. Supply and demand equals price: that is the basics of economics. I wish Senator Scarr were here because he could pass around his book so that a few people could read it. It is extraordinary that this is what this government has managed to come up with: an attempt to buy inflation reduction. But we know that that's not going to happen because the $300 is going to every household. We've got a place in Queensland and a place in Canberra that we own. I stay here, and we rent our house in Sydney, so I've got three power bills. That's three households. Am I getting a $900 reduction? We don't actually know because it's not very clear. No-one knows who is getting it. Everyone is talking about the millionaires and billionaires who are getting it who don't need it, but how many times are they getting it? It might not just be $300. We know that there are senators in this place with seven houses. Jim Chalmers, the Treasurer, has got two. Is he getting 600 bucks? I think some of the Greens have got four or five houses each. Is that 1,200 or 1,500 bucks coming their way? Who knows? Like everything with this Labor government, the devil is in the detail, which doesn't exist, and the transparency with which they share their plans with the Australian people is non-existent. Guillotine Thursday happened again today, as they buddy up with their mates to make sure that they can cover up all of their bad mistakes by not putting anything to the committee stage if they can help it, and ensuring that there is no oversight, no transparency and no integrity. There is just arrogance and hubris and a constant display of incompetence, with them needing to come back in and say: 'Oops, we made a mistake on that one. We'd better fix it up.' In the most recent case, the Attorney-General had to go and make some changes before the bill was even put to the House. But don't worry! We could have had a surplus of $10.3 billion if we weren't spending a billion dollars on the AAT rebrand. Never mind that. What we do know about this budget is that it has gone down with every economist around the country like a lead balloon. Yesterday I heard the Minister for Finance say that, if you put 10 economists in a room, you'll come up with 10 different opinions, and I agree with that sentiment. It's usually the case. There's usually quite a big split among economist about what's going to happen and what they think the impacts will be going forward, but at the moment, for the first time I can recall, there seems to be universal damnation of this budget by every leading economist in this country. Not one has come out and said, 'This is a great budget.' They've said it's an election budget. They've said it's a budget that's going to lead to longer and more sticky inflation. They've said it's a budget that the Labor government thinks will be short-term gain but definitely long-term pain for the Australian taxpayer. It is literally universal. I applaud the Minister for Finance and the Treasurer for their ability. It has never occurred before that every economist in the country thinks the budget is a stinker. And they are 100 per cent correct, because we have $315 billion worth of spending. This is a true Labor budget. It's another moment of truth-telling: tax and spend, tax and spend, tax and spend. Your income tax receipts are going through the roof. If you look through the budget estimates into the forwards, you are giving more and more of your money to this government. But going into the future, they are spending $4 more than that for every dollar. So they are contributing to this inflation. They are contributing to the issues the country is going to face long into the future due to the structural damage that they are continuing to do. The fact that they refer to their changes to the stage 3 tax cuts as cost-of-living relief shows their complete inability to understand that stage 1, stage 2 and stage 3—remember, there were other stages—were about tax reform. Those opposite don't understand what reform means. They don't understand economics. It's an absolute embarrassment and a shambles. The sooner we see the back of this government, the better. Question agreed to. Budget 82 16:21 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the response provided by the minister representing the Treasurer to the questions I asked her earlier today. Labor's budget is handed down while the climate is collapsing around us, while ecological systems are crashing and while millions of Australians are getting smashed by cost-of-living pressures. Labor's response is a managerial, business-as-usual budget that proposes to solve those great challenges by continuing the very actions that cause them or that allow them to happen. It's a turgid, bland, chaff-ridden budget. It's a betrayal of Australians who want action on climate change, action to protect nature and relief from the cost-of-living pressures that are smashing them. It's classic modern Labor: talk up an absolute storm on climate change and cost of living, then abjectly fail to take the strong and urgent action needed to respond to those challenges. It locks in worsening economic inequality and exacerbates the breakdown of the planet's climate and ecosystems. It's a budget for the wealthy, it's a budget for corporate interests and it's a budget for the donors that line the coffers of the Labor Party. Australians are crying out for genuine government intervention to stop price gouging, to stop corporate profiteering and to have genuine, meaningful relief from cost-of-living pressures. Yet this budget does next to nothing to support those who really need our support. It has a pittance of rent relief for a handful of renters while containing tens of billions of dollars every year in subsidies for property investors who own multiple investment properties. There's lip service to renewables but over $50 billion worth of subsidies to encourage the burning of fossil fuels. There's handwringing about the pain people are feeling at the supermarket checkout but nothing to make price gouging illegal, nothing to break up the supermarket duopoly and no new money or measures to bring down food and grocery prices. It's becoming harder and harder to tell the Labor and Liberal parties apart. At the last election people voted for change. They didn't vote for a Labor treasurer to bring down a Liberal budget. This budget reflects a party doing everything it can to cement the status quo that allows corporations and the wealthy to profit to the detriment of people and the planet. Where Labor is claiming to help people, it is providing the bare minimum of relief, and it's doing that because it's not really interested in solving problems; it's interested in trying to reduce the political pressure on it to solve problems, whether it's student debt, housing, rent caps or income support payments. Remember, Labor used to be a party of free education. It used to be a party of universal health care. It used to be a party of affordable housing. Now it is a party that bows to corporate vested interests, and nowhere is that more stark than in relation to coal and gas corporations. On the very same day that scientists warned we are on the edge of a climate abyss, the Labor Party announced a plan to make Australia reliant on gas expansion well beyond 2050. This is an absolute capitulation to the coal and gas corporations—enforcing the burning of our planet, watching our coral reefs bleach and die, watching our ecosystems collapse, with thousands of species marching towards extinction. This is what state capture looks like. It is unconscionable and it is shameful. To renters struggling to afford rent hikes, to mortgage holders struggling to cope with record rate rises, to students skipping meals to keep a roof over their heads or dumpster diving to put food on the table, to everyone who can no longer afford to insure their own homes because vast parts of the country are becoming uninsurable because Labor continue to approve more coal and gas mines, know this one thing: Labor could have, in this budget, acted to help you. They simply chose not to. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 83 DOCUMENTS Senate Estimates 83 Order for the Production of Documents 83 16:27 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank senators Birmingham and Waters for allowing me to be the minister that attends the Senate to give this explanation. On Tuesday the government tabled its guidance to departments on responses to estimates questions on notice without requiring any order of the Senate to do so. So it is bizarre that Senator Birmingham and Senator Waters rail against what they continue to erroneously describe as a secret document. They are more interested in conspiracy theories than facts. Senator Birmingham and Senator Waters decided to take the word of a media report rather than just asking the government for the document, which we were only too happy to provide. Then, having provided it, they still went ahead with the motion requiring Senator Wong's attendance today. This is despite there being ample opportunity to ask Senator Wong about it ad nauseam at estimates in just over a week's time. This a stunt worthy of student politics, not leaders of parties in the Senate, one allegedly a party of government. I can confirm that the Prime Minister did not see or review this document, but now anyone can read it because we've tabled it in the chamber and have put it on the public record. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet distributed this document to agencies to assist in the timely and efficient response to Senate estimates questions on notice. It was then shared with ministerial officers. Consistent with the Government Guidelines for Official Witnesses Before Parliamentary Committees and Related Matters, successive governments have seen departments consult with each other as part of the drafting process, including instances where similar questions are asked of all or multiple departments. Individual ministers, departments and agencies are ultimately responsible for the answers they provide. I can also confirm that there has been no subsequent advice or revisions in response to media reporting. These guidelines exist because we've seen an extraordinary surge in the number of questions on notice tabled in the Senate in the 47th Parliament. When those opposite were in government, the median average of questions they received each estimates round was roughly 3,800. In some rounds they received fewer than 1,000 questions. By comparison, the government is now receiving twice that number of questions—7,600—including more than 9,200 questions from February's session alone. Some of these questions then contain numerous subquestions, meaning that the true number is far beyond that. This government wants the Public Service focused on working for all Australians. This includes answering questions that are genuinely in the public interest. But what we are too often seeing from the opposition are questions seemingly written to waste the resources of the Public Service. This is the grand irony of the feigned outrage from those opposite. Senator Birmingham wrote an op-ed overnight, bemoaning our efforts to rebuild the Public Service and complaining about perceived waste and inefficiencies. But Senator Birmingham himself tabled a question on notice that asked the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet what temperature their office thermostats were at. Yet he must stand in awe of the efforts of Senator Hume, who has asked nearly 13,000 questions since May 2022, including over 330 questions about the use of paper alone. This newfound interest in accountability is particularly galling from the coalition, given that they boast a former prime minister who secretly appointed himself to five other ministries, including Senator Birmingham's areas; a current shadow attorney-general who refused to cooperate with an AFP investigation; and a leader of the nationals in the Senate who only gave evidence to an inquiry into sports rorts after the Senate forced her to do so. They also left more than 1,000 questions on notice unanswered when they left government, including some questions they refused to answer that dated back to October 2019. Across the board, our government is delivering a higher standard of integrity, transparency and accountability than those opposite ever did. We have lifted the country's ranking on Transparency International's annual Corruption Perception Index from 18 to 13, after a decade-long slide under the coalition. The National Anti-Corruption Commission has been established. We've strengthened the ministerial code of conduct, increased funding to the ANAO, restored transparency to AAT appointments, reinstated a standalone privacy and FOI commissioner and implemented the recommendations of the Bell inquiry. The Albanese government is receiving far more questions than the previous government, and we're answering them at a higher rate than the previous government. We do so because we are committed to accountability and transparency, and the vexatious use of questions on notice by the Liberals and Nationals diminishes the capacity for us to respond in substance to legitimate questions asked by other parties and Independents. We believe that the Public Service, like this government, should spend its time working for Australian people and not auditing thermostats for Senator Birmingham's amusement. 16:32 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the statement by the minister. This is a shameful and shameless attempt at systemic cover-up and obfuscation by the Albanese Labor government. The benignly named Approaches to SEQoNs asked of all (or multiple) agencies was provided by the government—let's be clear—only after journalists had found and published extracts of it and only after every single non-government senator had indicated their support for a motion requiring that it be tabled. The tabling of this document shows the systemic approach of the government to avoid answering questions. There is no defence to the blatant attempt to subvert legitimate processes of this Senate and no defence to the contempt shown by the government in this document. We've heard Senator Gallagher try to make a virtue out of tabling the document, yet the reality is that they were pushed and forced to table the document. And credit goes to the journalist at Capital Brief for uncovering it. The hypocrisy of the government in claiming time and again that a Labor government would herald a new era of transparency is on show. The minister often tells us how much words matter, and she's right—words do matter. They mattered when, in the lead-up to the election, the opposition promised Australians greater transparency, and when the Prime Minister said, pre election, that there would be a deeper respect for the Australian people and for the integrity of our democracy and real accountability. That's what he promised. After the election, he said that transparency is always a good idea. And he was still claiming that it was a good idea in January this year, just a few months ago, even as his office and/or his department were working on this manual—a manual of opaqueness and obfuscation. His own code of conduct promises integrity, honesty and accountability and that his ministers 'will observe standards of probity, governance and behaviour worthy of the Australia people'. Yet, remarkably, when this document has been exposed for what it is the government stands by it. How does this government act? It instructs department heads and departmental officials on how to avoid answering questions. Now we know what the Labor government means by 'transparency'. If a departmental secretary is asked how many meetings they've had with a minister: 'Don't answer the question; just say you've had lots of meetings with ministers.' If they're asked how much money is spent on retreats and external speakers: 'Don't actually detail that; just say it would be a diversion of resources to answer that.' If they're asked whether a department is spending taxpayer dollars on training or giving advice—even advice on how to answer questions at estimates—they should just say, 'We don't know, because it's not centrally recorded.' If they're asked for data or information that is routinely provided to senators through estimates, the Labor government's advice is to tell senators to just google it: 'Go and look it up elsewhere.' If they're asked detailed questions around estimates variations by government agencies and departments, the response is, 'Go and look in the parts of the budget paper that don't actually detail those estimates variations to the same extent.' This is apparently how the Albanese Labor government demonstrates integrity, honesty and accountability. Senator Gallagher may say the Prime Minister had not seen this statement prior to its publication, but he certainly should have heard about it by now and he should not be standing by it. The Prime Minister should have torn this document up and instead said: 'Consistent with what I promised pre election, my instructions to ministers and departments are: do the best you can to answer the questions that are asked. Do it as directly, as straightforwardly, as you possibly can.' But that's not what we get. The Labor government is remarkably standing by this document, claiming it's because they're getting too many questions, and then having the gall to claim that they are answering more questions than had been answered before. Guess what? It's not answering the questions if you respond with the rubbish that's in this document. If your responses are what is written in this document, then you are avoiding answering the questions. If the government's responses are consistent with what's in this document, then it is a deliberate contempt and obfuscation of the Senate. The government can expect more questions to be asked of this document, about how it was developed and about what it means for the government's contempt of this chamber and how it can be held accountable in the future. 16:37 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland Once again, we find ourselves in the uncomfortable and very rare position where all the non-government senators have agreed that the conduct of the government is deeply underwhelming. We saw a leaked version of this document, which is effectively a cheat sheet on how to not answer senators' questions in Senate estimates—a core part of our democracy—and, after pressure from this chamber, the government, five seconds before that, coughed up the full document and then wanted to leave it at that. They thought that was enough, that the document was tabled. The reason we are here today again is we need to know who wrote that document. We want to know how the Prime Minister ticked off on that document, and we want to know who had been sent a copy of that document. I'm grateful the minister representing today has answered some of those questions. She said the Prime Minister hadn't seen it or reviewed it. We will be asking in estimates how that's possible—for a document emanating from the Prime Minister's Office to somehow not have come to the attention of the Prime Minister or have his imprimatur on it. That'll be a question for estimates. We now know it was distributed to agencies and through ministerial offices. We still don't know who authored it. I would like to understand the process of how a Prime Minister's Office document doesn't have the imprimatur of the Prime Minister; that doesn't make sense to me. Maybe I'm missing something; I've never been the Prime Minister before and I never will be, but I'd like to understand the level of involvement of the Prime Minister in this document. We will be pursuing this in estimates. I thank the minister for the invitation to do so; we will certainly be doing that. This is a manual on how to not answer questions, and it's deeply disappointing because we were promised a more accountable and more transparent government. That's what people voted for, and that's why it's deeply shocking when a manual like this indicates that, in fact, that's not at all the approach that this administration is taking to important issues like transparency in Senate estimates. As I called for multiple times yesterday in my contribution, the Prime Minister needs to retract this document. This is not an appropriate level of guidance. This is not what a government that wanted to be better on transparency and accountability should be telling their officers to do. The Prime Minister must retract this document and issue a fresh edict that says, 'Answer the question to the best of your ability in the most succinct and efficient way.' I don't understand where the chain of communication is failing here. The Prime Minister should have voluntarily done that already. Perhaps it will take further questioning in estimates and further consideration of this chamber for the Prime Minister to do that. It's deeply embarrassing yet again that it has to be this chamber that requires this government to conduct itself better. You should have coughed up this document in the first place. It shouldn't have taken a joint motion of all of the non-government senators to force you to disclose it. It shouldn't now be taking another move by all of the non-government senators to disclose who drafted it and where it was sent. We still don't know who actually drafted it. It shouldn't take the rest of us to call on the Prime Minister to make good on his promise to be more accountable and more transparent. The Prime Minister must retract this document. There are no two ways about it. The reason for that is that the author of this document could be in contempt of the Senate. Privileges resolution No. 6 is very clear about not interfering with the free exercise by the Senate or a committee of its authority. It's also very clear about an offence by a witness to not answer a relevant question or to give evidence that's false or misleading in any material particular or not substantially true in every material particular. We have those rules for a reason. It is deeply inappropriate for a document from the Prime Minister's office to essentially be instructing officials to ignore those rules and to do everything possible to avoid answering questions. That is not a government of accountability and transparency. You're not doing what you said on the tin. People didn't want to buy that tin, and they're not going to want to buy that tin next time if you don't fix this now. For the last time, we are urging the Prime Minister, through his representative in the chamber here today, to retract this document, have some ethics and stop showing contempt for the proper processes that you said you'd stand up for. 16:42 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Since being elected, the Labor government under Anthony Albanese has been one thing: incredibly consistent. They've been consistently disregarding the democratic principles not just of this chamber but indeed of the great privilege of holding government and the executive. This chamber exists to hold executive government to account. We are known worldwide for our estimates process that other parliaments wish they had. They wish they had a process as robust and genuine as the Australian Senate estimates process. But it is being absolutely trashed by Anthony Albanese, aided and abetted by senators in senior ministerial positions, who should know better. I know that Senator Wong and Senator Gallagher are two ministers in Albanese's government who respect the Senate, but they are being expected to mop up after Albo for this shocking document. This is a cheat sheet of how to evade scrutiny and genuine, legitimate questions not just from the crossbench but from the opposition, who have a right and entitlement to ask sensible and legitimate questions. This is a training manual for government departments. The government have made a big deal this week about expanding the APS, with 36,000 new Australian public servants coming to serve the Australian public. Yet they trash the professionalism of those very public servants by assuming that they don't know how to do their job—that they don't know how to fulfil the government's orders and also submit themselves to legitimate public scrutiny through the estimates process. This is essentially a document that gags the APS from doing their due diligence and duty as Australian public servants. It's one thing for the CPSU to clap for this government on the tens of thousands of new public servants; meanwhile the government is trying to silence them from doing their job, as other senators have made very clear—the whole chamber, bar the Labor Party, has done this. It seems that this is just business as usual for the Labor Party under Albo. It's BAU to be shutting down debate in the Australian House of Representatives on the biggest change to our transport industry since we got rid of the horse and cart. That happened this morning. They're shutting down inquiries. They're guillotining today, not because it's the end of the year or the end of the financial year or because there's some technical reason we have to get legislation through this afternoon by close of business because otherwise the legislation will be moot—no, it's only for political reasons. It's so that the public doesn't know what's happening here, that a new tax is being implemented. It's that it doesn't need to know what this government is doing. The government is shrouding these public chambers and our public processes in secrecy. Mr Albanese swore that he'd operate a classic cabinet process, yet we've got ministers here refusing to answer questions and refusing to respond. It's a trashing of our very institutions, day in and day out. I just want to remind the Leader of the Government in this place of things she spoke about prior to becoming Leader of the Government in this place. Senator Wong said: Each time a minister comes in here and refuses to give an answer or refuses to table any information where documents are ordered to be produced, the Senate is diminished. Yes, it is! And you are diminishing this Senate daily and diminishing our democracy every time you use the guillotine for political purposes. This is not a student union where you just get to walk in with your constitution, do your numbers, wham, bam, we win, you don't and you're shouting us beers at the union pub. This is the Australian Senate. This is the Australian parliament. We talked a lot about respect today. The President was talking about respect. Respect also means giving space for opposing voices to be heard. You will still win. Your legislation will still get passed, but you would have given the millions of people who don't agree with you an opportunity for their perspective to be put. I just think this is appalling and I have nothing more to say. 16:47 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Wow! What are we actually taking note of today? We are taking note of the pathetic explanation that was given by Minister Gallagher, on behalf of Minister Wong, in relation to why the Albanese government prepared a document that, as we know, has been provided to public servants and sets out for them (a) how not to answer questions in Senate estimates and (b), worse than that, gives them the actual suggested draft response. In all my years in this place—and I'm going on 16 years in this place—I don't think I have ever seen a bigger flouting of democracy by a prime minister and a government. Can you honestly imagine if a coalition government had prepared such a document? This is not a rumour. This is not a suggestion. The document is right here. We have in the Senate a document provided by the Prime Minister's office for all of the Australian public to see. Senator Waters is right: if it's provided on behalf of the Prime Minister's office then quite frankly it's provided by the Prime Minister himself to the apolitical public service. I say 'apolitical' with tongue in cheek, because it's anything but when you've been provided a document by the Prime Minister of Australia's office that tells you how you should and should not answer questions in Senate estimates. Mr Albanese talked a big game on transparency prior to the last election. Mr Albanese actually said to the Australian people, in fact, that it was one of the reasons they should vote him in. He said to the Australian people that if they elected him and the Australian Labor Party to office he and his ministers would deliver transparency, integrity and accountability in every single thing they did. This is a government that in relation to so much of what it said prior to the election came falsely to power on the promise of a new era of transparency. Since that time, since that day in May 2022, it has done everything in its power to avoid scrutiny and transparency. But did anyone in this place ever think that Mr Albanese, his office and the Australian Labor Party would draft a document and provide it to agencies, who are there to provide frank and fearless advice and to answer questions put to them in Senate estimates in an honest and responsible way, a document that says to them, 'If you are asked this particular question, under the Albanese government we don't actually believe in transparency. We certainly do not believe in providing the opposition with answers to questions they are asking on behalf of the Australian taxpayer, and we want you to say this.' For example: 'How many meetings has the secretary or agency head had with the ministers in their portfolio since whatever date?' You would have thought the secretary could flip through their diary and say, 'I have met with the minister once a week. I have met with the minister once a month.' Instead, this is what the Albanese government says its secretaries or departmental offices should say: 'The secretary regularly meets with portfolio ministers and, at times, ministers outside the portfolio.' You've got to be kidding me. Seriously? Yes Minister or Yes, Prime Minister could not have scripted this, because it doesn't happen in countries like Australia. We are proud of our democracy. Mr Albanese, with a secret document, has done everything he can to undermine it. Shame on Mr Albanese. 16:52 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I note the minister's statement. I thank Minister Gallagher for her attendance and explanation, her explanation about Labor's destruction of democracy. The utter disrespect and contempt shown for this Senate and for the estimates process is beyond reproach. It's not just this instruction; it's the conduct of the bureaucrats that ministers allow. As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I remind all senators that our Senate is the house of review. It is constitutionally empowered to get what it asks for. The government seems to think it can decide what we can and can't see based on what is politically convenient to them. That is contempt. You are frustrating the ability of the Senate and its committees to receive the information it has requested. At every single round of Senate estimates hearings hundreds of questions on notice are simply ignored. This information is available, but the minister has simply decided they won't hand it over. When officials do the right thing and give the information, as they are constitutionally required to, they are intimidated and berated. Immigration minister Clare O'Neil left immigration official Stephanie Foster in tears after she produced information to an estimates committee. This is evil, anti-democratic behaviour. Quite frankly, there's no reason a question on notice needs to go to a minister. The department should simply answer to the best of its ability without the censorship. Labor's culture of secrecy isn't limited to what we're talking about at estimates, though. We see orders for the production of documents ignored almost every single time, often with complicity from the Labor-Greens coalition, sometimes with teal Senator Pocock and sometimes from the Jacqui Lambie Network. I'll again flag to the Senate my proposal—I've introduced it many times—for a method to confidentially review a document subject to an order for the production of documents. We acknowledge that there may be arguments for not letting information be released to the public in a very narrow set of circumstances, but it's senators who should judge that; it should not be left to a minister's whim, a minister that wants to hide, to obfuscate. This estimates manual doesn't surprise me. Even if it didn't exist, my repeated experience is that there's a deeply embedded cultural problem in all government agencies to avoid answering questions to protect the minister, so-called, above them. There's more than one contempt of this parliament happening almost every sitting day. What we need to do as a Senate is punish that contempt, to stop it. That's the only way democracy is going to work in this chamber. This disrespect will continue because it has been allowed to continue. To the opposition I say: you're more than happy to roll into this chamber and gently slap Labor over the wrist with five-minute puff pieces and then walk out, all forgotten; yet you won't move a contempt motion on the dozens of examples that have already happened, as we have repeatedly suggested. That's what we need to do: move contempt motions. As a Senate we need to hold people who have breached Senate orders in contempt—hold breachers in contempt. The Senate has more powers than a royal commission. It has more powers than any upper house in the world except for the United States Senate. Sadly, the senators in here refuse to enforce those powers. It would only need to be done once or twice. Start taking real action against the contempt of this Senate or it will continue as it has and democracy will die. Senators, let's hold in contempt those who treat the people's Senate with contempt, to revitalise democracy, truth and accountability, and let's see less guillotining from the government as well. I know the Greens and some of the crossbench senators are regular supporters of guillotining, but guillotines don't allow the voice of the people to operate in this chamber. You're squashing democracy with guillotines, which we'll see in another couple of minutes. How many bills are going through? Is it about 18—16? I'm losing count now. We've had the most far-reaching bill in recent history, the Digital ID Bill, go through with not one word of debate—not one word. Then we saw it go through with some significant amendments, with not one word on any of them. That's what the people of this country face. We need democracy. We need to revitalise democracy, truth and accountability. Let's hold breachers in contempt. 16:57 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland This is incredibly disappointing, absolutely incredibly disappointing. When you sit in a court of law as a witness, you're asked to take an oath. That oath is that you swear that you're going to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I think those opposite have forgotten the middle phrase: the whole truth. That means you don't deflect, you don't divert, you don't intentionally withhold information from the Senate which you would be able to provide to the Senate. That's the mal-intent behind this manual which Senator Waters from my home state of Queensland touched upon. It's the mal-intent behind that manual, where you've got the information, you've got access to the information, you've had time to get the information, but you intentionally withhold that information and deflect. The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth—that's what the people of Australia expect. As my friend and colleague Senator Cash said, it is like something out of Yes Minister. I've got the volume of Yes Minister at home. I'm going to bring it down for estimates. I'm also going to sit there with the manual, and every time a poor old public servant utters a phrase that's in the manual expect someone to say, 'Well, that's from page 4 of the manual, that's from page 5 of the manual.' Senator David Pocock 256136 Estimates bingo! Senator SCARR 282997 Estimates bingo—absolutely, Senator Pocock—a new game brought to you by the Labor Albanese government! The poor old public servants and bureaucrats—I feel for them! They're being placed in this invidious position by the Albanese Labor government. I actually really feel for them because of the pressure they're being placed under by this awful, awful manual. Who wrote this thing? It's extraordinary. And they put it in writing! It's shameless. It's obnoxious. It breaches every point of good public policy that has ever been invented. It just fails in so many avenues. 'The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth' is a standard which I think the people of Australia reasonably expect their governments to uphold. It's a standard which the Prime Minister, when he was in opposition, said he was going to bring in via a new era of transparency. It's a new era, but it's not of transparency. It's a new era of obfuscation, deflection and not answering the question. The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth—that is the reasonable expectation that the people of Australia have of people sitting in this chamber and of those who participate in the estimates process. Again, how dare you put our public servants in that invidious position? Most of them are trying to do their best. Then you apply this brutal political power to them when they are doing their best to answer questions from those on the crossbench and in the opposition. You put them all in a terrible, terrible position. It really is shameful. It's made even more shameful by the pledges and promises before the election. Before the election, we were promised openness and a new era of transparency. After the election—exhibit A, your honour—this is the manual. 'How to avoid answering a question.' It's about how to obfuscate legitimate questions in the Senate and stop them being answered. 'Deflect, divert, and refuse to respond.' It's absolutely shameful. And then they're trying to deflect with this nonsense like, 'You've asked questions about X, Y or Z.' Sorry; that isn't the point. The point is the manual, which speaks for itself. The people of Australia have every right to expect senators in this place and from bureaucrats and public servants to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 89 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 89 17:03 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The time allotted for consideration of the bills listed in the order agreed to earlier today has expired. 17:03 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name as Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent further consideration of the bills without limitation of time. The Albanese government and the Greens have joined forces to rush Labor's family car and ute tax through without any debate on the impact of this tax on families, car dealerships and the automotive industry. This will result in millions of dollars in billionaire Elon Musk's back pocket and in the back pockets of Chinese EV manufacturers. It is absolutely appalling that the Australian House of Representatives was gagged in a Bowen head blowout this morning, when he thought there was an inquiry. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, please refer to— Senator McKENZIE 207825 Minister Bowen—who lost the plot in the House of Representatives this morning and slammed through the legislation without any debate, only to get it up here in time to be part of the Greens' and the Labor Party's guillotine. Labor refuses to allow contributions to the second reading debate in both the House and the Senate. Labor refused debate and blocked attempts to investigate this. It is a right of the Senate to have an inquiry. Labor has been incredibly secretive about the impacts of the family car and ute tax from the start. They refused to release the modelling. Today they were prepared to ride roughshod over our democratic institutions to deny debate, investigation or questions to ministers—legitimate questions that still need to be asked on behalf of the Australian people. Labor has refused to release the modelling that cost Australian taxpayers $750,000. What will the cost of this tax be for everyday Australians who can't afford an electric vehicle or where there isn't an electric vehicle in production that meets their needs on a continent like ours? It is a policy that will increase the cost to families of buying a new car in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis. What a way to finish budget week! We support a policy that will result in families actually holding onto their existing vehicles for longer. That's actually what is going to happen because they won't be able to afford what's coming to them. Under Labor only one type of road user is exempt from contributing to the maintenance and safety of our roads, and they are those Australians who can afford to purchase an electric vehicle. They are not low-income earning Australians. They are not vulnerable families. They are not people in rural and communities. Everyone else—our tradies, apprentices, teachers, nurses and retail workers who are driving regular cars and can't afford electric vehicles—is actually going to be paying fuel excise to make sure our road maintenance is funded and to make sure our roads are safe. That includes truck drivers, bus drivers and families who drive ICE or hybrid engine cars. Let's not forget that this particular policy, which is going to be slammed through this chamber in the next few hours without debate, actually taxes hybrid vehicles. The coalition believes there should be a technology-neutral approach to achieving net zero and a low-emissions transport future, and that includes hybrids as a transition technology. It includes biofuels, hydrogen vehicles and other technologies which could be commercialised over the next decade. We are seeking to amend this bill, and we wanted to have an inquiry to get well-rounded, well-thought-out amendments to make this a better bill. We are not against a transition to net zero by 2050, but you cannot hurt and harm low-income families and rural and regional families through the bill that's going to be slammed through. We are seeking to amend the bill to oppose the family car and ute tax. We want to delete the ratchet mechanism and make sure the minister is required to give consideration to price impact on Australians. We want to know what the emissions reductions will actually be because Australians are just going to keep these cars in the garage for longer because they won't be able to afford to transition in the timeframe and with the penalties that you're going to subject them to. We want to understand vehicle choice. We have one of the greatest ranges of choice in the world. You can buy cars here that you can't buy anywhere else, and it is because we need them to be different. We have vast differences. We have a lot of rurality and dirt roads and quite a challenging environment. We don't think it's fair to ask car manufacturers to subsidise their competitors. We're actually subsidising Elon Musk and Chinese EV manufactures as a result of the policy that Labor will push through tonight. 17:09 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That the question be now put. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the question be put.    

The Senate divided. [17:13]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 31 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. 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. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 28 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 17:20 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the motion to suspend standing orders moved by Senator McKenzie be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [17:20]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 27 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. 31 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. 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. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Consideration of Legislation 91 17:21 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent further consideration of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023 for a minimum of three hours. Ramming through bad legislation in this way cannot be justified, particularly the utterly inadequate changes to the petroleum resource rent tax. It's not surprising that the government doesn't want scrutiny of this legislation. Senator Gallagher called the amendment to the PRRT 'sensible and modest changes'. I would like to point out to the chamber and to Australians that the government were offered three options by Treasury, and they went with the weakest option: the one that doesn't increase it. It simply brings forward payments for our gas that's being exported. This is a weak change, and it deserves scrutiny from this chamber, despite Senator McKim's explanation that they have done a deal to basically keep our approvals process as is—an approvals process that has approved hundreds of fossil fuel projects, multiple awful offshore gas projects that we're not getting petroleum resource rent tax from. I'm still surprised the Greens have backed them into this. We could definitely put dental into Medicare if we raised the petroleum resource rent tax. Here are some quotes from the Greens' dissenting report into this omnibus bill that bundles 'sensible changes' in light of the PwC scandal with the utterly inadequate changes to the petroleum resource rent tax: The proposed change to the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) … co-authored by the Government and the gas industry, is so bad that it will raise less revenue after these changes than has been raised in previous financial years. … … … How does a change touted as ensuring 'the offshore LNG industry pays more tax, sooner' raise less revenue than today? Because it was co-sponsored by the gas industry … Yet here we are with a guillotine that prevents us from actually digging into this and asking questions, as I, Senator Whish-Wilson and many other senators did with the sea dumping bill. You could argue that was also co-authored by the gas industry. Australians deserve better than a parliament that's allowing multinationals to export our gas while we get so little in return. I was up in Darwin recently with Senate colleagues for the Middle Arm inquiry. We were out on Darwin Harbour, looking at INPEX's big export facility. They export billions and billions of dollars worth of LNG every year. We heard about the issues fishers on the harbour were facing—the decline in marine life—and I asked the NT government representative, 'What do you get for hosting this big export terminal in Darwin?' Their response was sheepish. They said: 'We get payroll tax. There are about 280 employees at INPEX, and the NT government gets payroll tax, but the federal government gets petroleum resource rent tax.' They were mistaken. We haven't had a cent from them yet—not a cent. Yet, here we are, throwing our communities under the bus. The former government used to talk about us having have lifters and leaners. Here are the leaners. Here are the ones who aren't contributing. They're taking our gas, shipping it overseas and not even paying us for it. Then, to add insult to injury, they are minimising their corporate tax bill. Those big exporters, who are not paying PRRT, a couple of years ago collectively paid less than one per cent corporate tax. Here we are: 'We'll just let them keep doing it. We'll just keep the approvals process as it is.' We had a press conference earlier with lower house independents. I have not seen them this fired up before. Someone who I think we all probably wish was our local MP, Dr Helen Haines, had this to say: 'We are here to represent the constituents that sent us here. Every member of parliament has a right to speak on a bill. This deal, and the stitch-up between the Greens and the government, to prevent an opportunity to improve a tax that the Greens themselves say is co-sponsored by the gas industry is a disgrace.' We can do better. There are models out there; we can do better. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, we are now into the guillotine; I shouldn't have allowed Senator Pocock's contribution to the debate. Yes, go ahead. Senator Birmingham H6X On a point of order, my understanding is that Senator Pocock moved a motion under contingent notice, consistent with standing order 142 being suspended, to enable the bill he specified—namely, Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023—to be debated without limitation on time. The PRESIDENT 112096 The senator was entitled to move the contingency but not to debate it, because the time had passed, so I am now going to put the motion as moved by Senator Pocock. Senator Birmingham H6X On the ruling, President, you had facilitated, on a separate bill, the same motion to be put by a separate senator from a separate party and, in it being put, you enabled a suspension debate to happen. Why is it that Senator Pocock's attempt, on a separate bill, is not able to be debated in the same way? The PRESIDENT 112096 It's as I explained, but I'll seek further advice from the Clerk. I'm informed by the Clerk that it's correct as you describe it: Senator McKenzie moved a contingency and spoke to it. The time then moved on and we were under the guillotine, so, under those provisions, Senator Pocock was able to move a contingency but shouldn't have spoken to it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, I have your leader on his feet. Senator Birmingham? Senator Birmingham H6X I seek clarification for the understanding of the chamber. Your contention is that, because the time for the limitation on the consideration of the bills had not expired previously, Senator McKenzie was able to move her suspension at that time, but because it has expired, Senator Pocock should not have been able to move his—is that the way you are defining— The PRESIDENT 112096 No, he could not speak to it. And I assumed you jumped to speak. Senator Birmingham H6X I did— The PRESIDENT 112096 So it is my contention that I now need to put Senator Pocock's contingency. Suspensions of standing orders can continue to be moved but not spoken to. I intend to follow the precedent set by previous presidents, and that is that there are only two, and Senator Pocock's is the second. The PRESIDENT 112096 That is really not helpful. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, that isn't helpful either. Senator Birmingham H6X President, for absolute clarity, despite the sound effects from the Greens, I wasn't seeking to move a separate motion. I was seeking to speak to Senator Pocock's motion. And your ruling is that he shouldn't have spoken to that motion either? The PRESIDENT 112096 No. I erred there, and rather than interrupt him I allowed him to continue. I shouldn't have given him the call to speak to the motion he moved. Senator Birmingham H6X Thank you, President. We will review the ruling but that is your ruling for now. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion moved by Senator David Pocock be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [17:35]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 28 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Davey, P. M. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. 32 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. 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. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 BILLS 93 BILLS Modern Slavery Amendment (Australian Anti-Slavery Commissioner) Bill 2023 93

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

The Senate divided. [17:43]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 13 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. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 36 NOES Antic, A. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Davey, P. M. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Liddle, K. J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Third Reading 97 17:48 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 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 97

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 97 17:48 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will first deal with the second reading amendment moved by the Australian Greens. The question is that the amendment on sheet 2618 be agreed to. Question negatived. 17:49 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania by leave—I ask that the Greens' support for that amendment be noted, please. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator McKim. The PRESIDENT 112096 You want it recorded? Thank you, Senator Thorpe; we will do that. The question now is that these bills be read a second time. A division having been called and the bells being rung— An honourable senator: Four minutes. The PRESIDENT 112096 No, after successive divisions— Senator Cash I0M It's a 'real'. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, please stop being disorderly. Senator O'Sullivan? Senator O'Sullivan 283585 We have senators outside the chamber, so we will need four minutes. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator O'Sullivan 283585 It was a 'mickey'. The PRESIDENT 112096 Under standing order 101(3)— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! If you raise a point of order, have the decency to listen without interrupting. It's a one-minute bell because we are using standing order 101(3), where there are successive divisions and where there's no debate. It will be a one-minute bell. Set the timer for one minute. Senator Canavan? Senator Canavan 245212 To seek a point of clarification for the future, I thought the rule was that if a vote goes from a 'mickey' to a 'real', it's a four-minute bell. Is that not true? The PRESIDENT 112096 No. I've given you the standing order. It's 101(3).    

The Senate divided. [17:51]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 34 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. 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. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 26 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bills read a second time.

 17:54 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland by leave—President, I ask that my vote be recorded as being in favour of that previous vote. The PRESIDENT 112096 I shall now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments, starting with the amendments circulated by the government. I understand the minister has documents to table. 17:56 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments and an addendum to the revised explanatory memorandum to the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2024. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the amendments on sheet TC112, circulated by the government, be agreed to. Government 's circulated amendments— ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TRIBUNAL BILL 2024 (1) Clause 84, page 69 (line 15), omit "the applicant". (2) Clause 84, page 69 (lines 16 to 22), omit paragraphs (1)(a) and (b), substitute: (a) the applicant: (i) dies; or (ii) becomes bankrupt; or (iii) is wound up or otherwise ceases to exist; or (iv) becomes subject to any form of liquidation or administration (however described); and (b) the Tribunal considers that the applicant cannot continue with the substantive application because of the event mentioned in paragraph (a). (3) Clause 84, page 69 (lines 23 to 25), omit subclause (2), substitute: Another person may apply to continue with substantive application (2) The following persons may apply to the Tribunal to continue with the substantive application: (a) a legal personal representative, executor, administrator, liquidator or trustee of the applicant for the substantive application; (b) a person whose interests are affected by the decision. (4) Clause 84, page 70 (lines 3 and 4), omit "the decision does not affect any person's interests other than the applicant", substitute "there is no person mentioned in subsection (2) who can continue with the substantive application". (5) Clause 84, page 70 (lines 7 and 8), omit "or (b) occurring in relation to the applicant for the substantive application". (6) Clause 264, page 220 (lines 6 to 20), omit subclauses (2) and (3), substitute: (2) The report for a financial year must include: (a) a description of any systemic issues related to the making of reviewable decisions that the President has informed the Council of during that year; and (b) a description of any information given to the Council under section 294B during that year. Note 1: One of the President's functions is to inform relevant Ministers, relevant Commonwealth entities and the Council of any systemic issues related to the making of reviewable decisions that have been identified in the caseload of the Tribunal: see paragraph 193(i). Note 2: Section 294B requires Ministers and Commonwealth entities to inform the Council of action taken or proposed to be taken in relation to some systemic issues. (3) The report for a financial year may include a description of any actions taken by the Council during that year in response to a systemic issue related to the making of reviewable decisions. (7) Clause 273, page 230 (lines 7 to 9), omit "There are a number of situations where disclosure by entrusted persons is authorised.". (8) Clause 273, page 230 (line 23), after "this Act.", insert "There is also a requirement that Ministers and Commonwealth entities inform the Council of action taken or proposed to be taken in relation to some systemic issues.". (9) Clauses 276 and 277, page 232 (line 1) to page 233 (line 25), omit the clauses, substitute: 276 Application of confidentiality provisions in other Acts and instruments (1) If: (a) a provision of an Act (other than this Act) or an instrument made under an Act prohibits the disclosure of information by persons who: (i) are included in a particular class of persons; and (ii) obtain the information in the performance or exercise of functions or powers under the Act or instrument; and (b) an entrusted person obtains any such information in the performance or exercise of the entrusted person's functions or powers as an entrusted person; the provision applies to the entrusted person as if the entrusted person: (c) were included in the particular class of persons; and (d) obtained the information in the performance or exercise of functions or powers under the Act or instrument. (2) Paragraph (1)(a) applies whether the provision prohibits the disclosure of information absolutely, in certain circumstances only or subject to conditions. (10) Page 249 (after line 24), at the end of Division 5, add: 294B Minister and Commonwealth entities to inform Council of action on systemic issues Within 3 months after the President informs a Minister or Commonwealth entity in writing of a systemic issue related to the making of reviewable decisions that has been identified in the caseload of the Tribunal, the Minister or entity must inform the Council of the action the Minister or entity has taken or proposes to take in relation to the systemic issue. Note: For the President's functions in relation to systemic issues, see paragraph 193(i). For the Council's functions and reports in relation to systemic issues, see paragraph 249(1)(c) and section 264.  

The Senate divided. [17:58]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 35 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. 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. Roberts, M. I. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 25 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 18:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendments on sheet 2508, circulated by the Australian Greens, be agreed to. Australian Greens ' circulated amendments— ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TRIBUNAL BILL 2024 (1) Clause 237, page 203 (after line 17), at the end of the clause, add: Registrar in each State, in the Australian Capital Territory and in the Northern Territory (3) The Principal Registrar must ensure that at least one registrar is appointed in each State, in the Australian Capital Territory and in the Northern Territory. (2) Clause 243, page 208 (lines 2 to 4), omit the clause, substitute: 243 Registries The Minister must cause such registries of the Tribunal to be established as the Minister thinks fit, but so that at least one registry shall be established in each State, in the Australian Capital Territory and in the Northern Territory.    

The Senate divided. [18:01]
(The President—Senator Lines)

13 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. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 44 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Farrell, D. E. Fawcett, D. J. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Sheldon, A. V. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Third Reading 101 18:05 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bills be agreed to and the bills be now passed.    

The Senate divided. [18:05]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 34 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. 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. Roberts, M. I. 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. 24 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bills read a third time.

 Fair Work Amendment Bill 2024 102

Fair Work Amendment Bill 2024

Second Reading 102 18:08 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the Fair Work Amendment Bill. I will first deal with the second reading amendment circulated by Pauline Hanson's One Nation. The question is that the amendment on sheet 2412 revised to be agreed to. Pauline Hanson's One Nation circulated amendment— At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes that: (i) the bill only addresses one small aspect of Australia's workplace relations system and there are many other issues that still need to be addressed, and (ii) the bill does not address concerns about underpayments of casual miners working under enterprise agreements in the black coal mining industry; and (b) requires the Government to investigate claims that casual miners working under enterprise agreements in the black coal mining industry are, and have been, underpaid; and (c) if underpayments are found to have occurred, facilitate the reimbursement of the underpayments". Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the bill be read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments circulated by the opposition. The question is that the amendments on sheets 2415, 2416 and 2417 be agreed to. Opposition's circulated amendments— SHEET 2415 (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute: (2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 4 to 7), omit the item, substitute: 1 Section 12 (definition of right to disconnect term ) Repeal the definition. 2 Section 149F Repeal the section. 3 Section 321 (paragraph beginning "Division 6") Repeal the paragraph. 4 Division 6 of Part 2-9 Repeal the Division. 5 Subsection 539(2) (table item 10E) Repeal the item. 6 Division 5A of Part 16 of Schedule 1 Repeal the Division. _____ SHEET 2416 (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute: (2) Page 3 (after line 7), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 2 — Civil penalties Fair Work Act 2009 1 Section 333Q (note) Repeal the note. 2 Subsection 539(2) (table item 10E) Repeal the item. _____ SHEET 2417 (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1), omit the table item, substitute: (2) Page 3 (after line 7), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 3 — Employers that employ fewer than 20 employees Fair Work Act 2009 1 Before Subdivision A of Division 6 of Part 2-9 Insert: Subdivision AA — Application of this Division 333MA Division does not apply to certain employers and employees (1) This Division does not apply in relation to: (a) an employer that employs fewer than 20 employees; or (b) an employee of an employer that employs fewer than 20 employees. (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), in calculating the number of employees employed by an employer at a particular time: (a) subject to paragraphs (b) and (c)—all employees employed by the employer at that time are to be counted; and (b) a casual employee is not to be counted unless, at that time, the employee is a regular casual employee of the employer; and (c) a part-time employee (including a part-time casual employee counted under paragraph (b)) is to be counted as an appropriate fraction of a full-time equivalent. 2 Clause 111D of Schedule 1 Repeal the clause.    

The Senate divided. [18:10]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 26 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 32 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. 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. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Third Reading 104 18:14 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Legislation Amendment (Safety and Other Measures) Bill 2024 104

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

Second Reading 104 18:15 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will first deal with the second reading amendments circulated by the opposition. The question is that the amendments on sheets 2496 and 2624 be agreed to. Opposition's circulated amendments— SHEET 2496 At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes that: (i) gas has been and will remain a crucial energy and manufacturing fuel for Australia, and our international partners, and we must continue supporting the development of new gas supplies to bring down energy prices which have skyrocketed under this Government, (ii) the Government's disastrous record of gas policies over the last two years has left Australia's gas market in a state of disarray, (iii) the last offshore petroleum acreage release was in August 2022, and the release was originally initiated under the previous Coalition Government, (iv) since the Tipakalippa decision of the Federal Court in September 2022, the offshore petroleum industry has faced significant regulatory uncertainty, with some approval times extending to over 560 days without a decision, (v) the Coalition has been calling for urgent regulatory reform since November 2022, and this has yet to occur, (vi) the Coalition offered bipartisan support for the passage of this Bill, to enable the Government to progress the reforms needed to provide certainty to the offshore oil and gas industry, (vii) a misinformation campaign from the Greens, Teals, Independents and environmental activist organisations has plagued the progress of this Bill, (viii) pressure from activists within the Labor Environment Action Network forced the Government to amend their own legislation, weakening the Resources Minister's authority, (ix) the amendment puts unnecessary additional burdens on the offshore oil and gas sector and gives the Environment Minister additional powers to undermine the Resources Minister; and (b) calls on the Government to: (i) support the Opposition's amendment removing unnecessary red and green tape, (ii) urgently release new offshore petroleum acreage to allow for continued development of new gas supply, and (iii) curtail the powers of environmental activists by cutting taxpayer funding to the Environmental Defender's Office". _____ SHEET 2624 At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that: (a) there is an urgent need to clarify consultation requirements for offshore petroleum and greenhouse gas storage activities; (b) gas plays a critical role in Australia's economy; (c) natural gas supports our standard of living and Australia's energy security, providing over a quarter of our energy needs; (d) natural gas is needed through to 2050 and beyond; (e) we need continued investment in, and development of, gas supply and transport infrastructure; (f) we cannot turn off Australia's gas without significant adverse impacts on Australians and our region; and (g) Australian gas will continue to be required, not only by us, but by our trading partners".    

The Senate divided. [18:21]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 26 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 33 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. 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. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 18:22 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I table a supplementary memorandum relating to the government amendments to the bill. The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments, and I will start with government amendment (2) on sheet SK114. The question is that part 2 of schedule 2 stand as printed. The government opposed part 2 of schedule 2 in the following terms — (2) Schedule 2, Part 2, page 61 (line 1) to page 64 (line 21), to be opposed.    

The Senate divided. [18:23]
(The President—Senator Lines)

26 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 33 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. 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. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 18:26 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that amendment (1) on sheet SK114 and the amendment on sheet SK115 be agreed to. Government's circulated amendments— SHEET SK114 (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4), omit the table item, substitute: _____ SHEET SK115 (1) Schedule 1, item 130, page 53 (after line 18), after clause 88D, insert: 88E Extended meaning of employee and employer For the purposes of clauses 88 to 88D, if: (a) a person carries on an activity at a facility; and (b) an individual is a contractor of the person; the person is taken to be an employer and the individual is taken to be anemployee of the person. Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT 112096 The Australian Greens have circulated amendments on sheet 2425 revised that are identical to the government amendments that we just dealt with. I will therefore not put the question on those amendments. I will now deal with the amendments circulated by the opposition on sheet 2490. The question is that subsections 790E(1A) to (1D) and subsection 790E(6) in item 6 of schedule 2 stand as printed. The opposition opposed item 6 of schedule 2 in the following terms — (2) Schedule 2, item 6, page 61 (line 23) to page 63 (line 2), subsections 790E(1A) to (1D) to be opposed. (3) Schedule 2, item 6, page 64 (lines 10 to 21), subsection 790E(6) to be opposed.    

The Senate divided. [18:28]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 33 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. 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. 26 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 18:31 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that amendment (1) on sheet 2490 be agreed to. Opposition 's circulated amendment— (1) Schedule 2, item 6, page 61 (line 9), omit "Subject to paragraph (1C)(b) and subsection (6), if", substitute "If".    

The Senate divided. [18:32]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 26 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 33 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. 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. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Third Reading 108 18:34 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. New Vehicle Efficiency Standard Bill 2024, New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2024 108

New Vehicle Efficiency Standard Bill 2024

New Vehicle Efficiency Standard (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2024

First Reading 108 18:34 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That these bills be now read a first time. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the bills be now read a first time.    

The Senate divided. [18:36]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 34 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. 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. 27 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) 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.
Bills read a first time.

 18:40 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments circulated by the opposition. Senator Cash I0M A point of clarification: the bills were read a first time. The PRESIDENT 112096 That's right. Senator Cash I0M The bills were then read out by the Clerk. The PRESIDENT 112096 Yes. Senator Cash I0M Was there a second reading vote? The PRESIDENT 112096 No. We are not there yet. I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments circulated by the opposition. The PRESIDENT 112096 Standing order 142 requires us to deal with the bills expeditiously, and all other matters are captured in the final amendment. I will now deal with— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I would advise you, I've read the standing order. Please look at the standing order. I am moving on. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 As I've said, standing order 142 requires that we expeditiously— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, I intend to put the amendment. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, we are in a guillotine. I intend now to put the question. Please resume your seat. I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments circulated by the opposition. I will first deal with (11) and (12) on sheet 2523 to the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard Bill 2024. The question is that clauses 79 to 82 and clause 90 stand as printed. The opposition opposed clauses 79 to 82 and clause 90 of the New Vehicle Efficiency Standard Bill 2024 in the following terms— (11) Division 8, clauses 79 to 82, page 68 (line 1) to page 69 (line 10), to be opposed. (12) Clause 90, page 75 (line 16) to page 77 (line 5), to be opposed.    

The Senate divided. [18:43]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 34 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. 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. 27 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) 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.

 18:46 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the remaining amendments on sheet 2523 and the amendments on sheet 2524 and sheet 2525 revised be agreed to. Opposition's circulated amendments— NEW VEHICLE EFFICIENCY STANDARD BILL 2024 SHEET 2523 (1) Clause 4, page 3 (line 11), omit "Failure to achieve this may result in a civil penalty.". (2) Clause 11, page 10 (lines 16 and 17), omit "Failure to achieve this may result in a civil penalty.". (3) Clause 17, page 15 (lines 8 and 9), omit the penalty. (4) Clause 17, page 15 (line 10), omit the note. (5) Clause 46, page 36 (lines 8 and 9), omit "(other than section 17)". (6) Clause 57, page 42 (lines 22 and 23), omit "(other than section 17)". (7) Clause 70, page 55 (lines 13 to 15), omit the paragraph beginning "This Part also". (8) Clause 75, page 61 (line 7), omit "(other than section 17)". (9) Clause 76, page 64 (lines 12 and 13), omit paragraph 76(7)(a). (10) Clause 78, page 66 (line 7), omit "(other than section 17)". _____ SHEET 2524 (1) Clause 11, page 10 (line 15), omit "third", substitute "fourth". (2) Clause 17, page 15 (line 11), omit "third", substitute "fourth". (3) Clause 17, page 15 (line 13), omit "2028", substitute "2029". (4) Clause 37, page 27 (line 19), omit "3 years", substitute "5 years". (5) Clause 42, page 33 (line 14), omit "second 31 December", substitute "third 31 December". (6) Clause 42, page 33 (line 21), omit "2027", substitute "2028". (7) Heading to clause 44, page 34 (line 8), omit "3", substitute "5". (8) Clause 44, page 34 (line 14), omit "third", substitute "fifth". (9) Clause 44, page 34 (line 21), omit "2029", substitute "2031". (10) Clause 44, page 34 (line 29), omit "3 years", substitute "5 years". (11) Clause 45, page 35 (after line 6), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) The transferor must give the Secretary: (a) a declaration that the transferor and transferee are the same business; and (b) such evidence (if any) as is specified in the rules that the transferor and transferee are the same business. (2B) A declaration must be in writing and meet the requirements (if any) prescribed by the rules. (12) Clause 45, page 35 (after line 12), after subclause (3), insert: (3A) However, the Secretary must not take the actions described in subsection (3) to transfer units from the transferor to the transferee unless the Secretary is satisfied that the transferor and the transferee are the same business. ____ SHEET 2525 (1) Clause 22, page 17 (lines 2 to 12), omit subclause (1), substitute: Years in introductory period (1) The headline limit for a vehicle for a year in the introductory period is: (a) if the vehicle is a type 1 vehicle—the number determined in an instrument in force under section 31 for type 1 vehicles for the year; or (b) if the vehicle is a type 2 vehicle—the number determined in an instrument in force under section 31 for type 2 vehicles for the year. (2) Clause 31, page 24 (lines 3 to 17), omit subclause (2), substitute: Minister must consider effect of number for headline limit (2) The Minister may determine a number for the headline limit for type 1 or type 2 vehicles for a particular year only if the Minister has considered the effect of the number on consumer prices, emissions reduction, choice and fairness. Statement and tabling (2A) If the Minister determines a number for the headline limit for type 1 or type 2 vehicles for a particular year under subsection (1), the Minister must cause to be laid before each House of the Parliament: (a) a copy of the determination; and (b) a statement explaining how the number supports the achievement of net zero by 2050. (2B) The Minister must comply with subsection (2A) within 2 sitting days of each House of the Parliament after the day on which the determination is made under subsection (1). (3) Clause 31, page 24 (after line 22), at the end of the clause, add: (4) Subsection (3) does not apply to the determination of a number for the headline limit for type 1 or type 2 vehicles for a year in the introductory period.    

The Senate divided. [18:47]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 27 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. 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. 34 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. 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. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Third Reading 112 18:50 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the remaining stages of the bills be agreed to and the bills be now passed.    

The Senate divided. [18:50]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 34 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. 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. 26 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. 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.
Bills read a third time.

 Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023 113

Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Accountability and Fairness) Bill 2023

Second Reading 113 18:53 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will first deal with the second reading amendment circulated by the opposition. The question is that the amendment on sheet 2623 be agreed to. Opposition's circulated amendment— At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes that: (i) the Treasurer has failed to engage in negotiations with the Opposition on sensible proposals to support investment in the gas industry, which is the revenue base for this tax, (ii) the Government still cannot answer simple questions about this tax, including whether it is new or a bring forward of revenue, its impact on investment in the industry, and its impact on energy prices, despite having had more than six months to do so, and (iii) that the cynical and absurd stapling of changes to the Petroleum Resource Rent Tax to measures with cross-party support responding to the PwC and Tax Practitioners Board issue demonstrates the lack of seriousness from the Government towards this legislation; and (b) calls on the Government to support the Opposition's proposals to acknowledge its own Future Gas Strategy and support the future of the gas industry".    

The Senate divided. [18:55]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 27 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. 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. 33 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. 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. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

18:56 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the second reading amendment circulated by Senator David Pocock. The question is that the amendment on sheet 2559 be agreed to. Senator David Pocock's circulated amendment— Omit all the words after "That", substitute "The Senate: (a) notes that: (i) in 2022, offshore gas exports were $92.8 billion, (ii) to date, not a single cent of petroleum resources rent tax has been paid from the export of offshore liquefied natural gas, (iii) Australians pay more HECS-HELP than gas companies pay in petroleum resources rent tax, (iv) in 2020-21, Australian nurses paid three times as much tax as the gas industry paid in company tax, (v) petroleum resources rent tax receipts have been revised down by $2.4 billion over the four years to 2026-27, effectively wiping off any benefit from the change proposed in Schedule 5, and (vi) taxation of Australian gas is an issue that the Australian community expects to be the subject of Parliamentary scrutiny, including debate in the Senate; (b) requires that further consideration of the bill be made an order of the day for the next sitting day and that the bill be considered in committee of the whole for not less than three hours".    

The Senate divided. [18:58]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 3 AYES Babet, R. Pocock, D. W. (Teller) Roberts, M. I. 41 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hodgins-May, S. Kovacic, M. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 19:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the bill be read a second time.    

The Senate divided. [19:01]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 31 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. 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. 26 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

19:04 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments circulated by the opposition. The question now is that schedule 5 stand as printed. The opposition opposed schedule 5 in the following terms— (2) Schedule 5, page 32 (line 1) to page 38 (line 23), Schedule 5 to be opposed.    

The Senate divided. [19:04]
(The President—Senator Lines)

31 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. 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. 25 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McKenzie, B. 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.

 Third Reading 116 19:08 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.    

The Senate divided. [19:08]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 31 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, B. 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. 26 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.

 Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards and Other Measures) Bill 2023 117

Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Enhancing Consumer Safeguards and Other Measures) Bill 2023

Second Reading 117 19:09 The PRESIDENT 112096 I understand the minister has a document to table. 19:10 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I table an addendum to the explanatory memorandum relating to this bill. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 117 19:10 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Attorney-General's Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Bill 2023 117

Attorney-General's Portfolio Miscellaneous Measures Bill 2023

Second Reading 117 19:10 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments, starting with the amendment circulated by the government. I understand the minister has documents to table. 19:11 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendment to the bill and an addendum to the explanatory memorandum. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment on sheet UU101, circulated by the government, be agreed to. Government's circulated amendment— (1) Schedule 4, page 55 (after line 18), after Part 2, insert: Part 2A—Membership of Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 10A Subsection 5(1) Omit "10", substitute "12". 10B Paragraphs 5(1)(a) and (b) Omit "5", substitute "6".    

The Senate divided. [19:12]
(The President—Senator Lines)

32 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. 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. 24 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 19:15 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that part 2 of schedule 4 stand as printed. The opposition opposed part 2 of schedule 4 in the following terms— (1) Schedule 4, Part 2, page 55 (lines 1 to 18), to be opposed.    

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

 32 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. 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. 24 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Liddle, K. J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 19:19 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that amendments on sheets 2442, 2486, 2510 and 2592, as circulated by Senator Thorpe, be agreed to. Senator Thorpe's circulated amendments— SHEET 2442 (1) Schedule 4, page 55 (after line 18), after Part 2, insert: Part 2B — Consideration of UNDRIP Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 10C Subsection 3(1) (after paragraph (g) of the definition of human rights ) Insert: ; (h) the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations as General Assembly Resolution 61/295 on 13 September 2007. 10D Subsection 3(1) (note to the definition of human rights ) Omit "Note", substitute "Note 1". 10E Subsection 3(1) (at the end of the definition of human rights , after the note) Add: Note 2: The text of United Nations General Assembly resolutions could in 2024 be accessed through the United Nations' website (https://www.un.org). _____ SHEET 2486 (1) Schedule 4, page 55 (after line 18), after Part 2, insert: Part 2C — Removal of requirement for Attorney-General's consent to commence proceedings for certain offences Criminal Code Act 1995 10F Sections 270.3B, 273B.6 and 274.3 of the Criminal Code Repeal the sections. 10G Application of amendments The repeal of sections 270.3B, 273B.6 and 274.3 of the Criminal Code by this Part applies to proceedings for an offence commenced on or after the commencement of this Part, whether the offence to which the proceedings relate is alleged to have been committed before, on or after that commencement. _____ SHEET 2510 (1) Schedule 4, page 55 (after line 18), after Part 2, insert: Part 2D — Consideration of Refugees Convention and Protocol Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 10G Subsection 3(1) (before paragraph (a) of the definition of human rights ) Insert: (aaa) the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28 July 1951 ([1954] ATS 5); (aa) the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees done at New York on 31 January 1967 ([1973] ATS 37); _____ SHEET 2592 (1) Schedule 4, page 55 (after line 18), after Part 2, insert: Part 2E — Consideration of Universal Declaration of Human Rights Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 10H Subsection 3(1) (before paragraph (a) of the definition of human rights ) Insert: (aaaa) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations as General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III) on 10 December 1948; 10J Subsection 3(1) (note to the definition of human rights ) Omit "Note", substitute "Note 1". 10K Subsection 3(1) (at the end of the definition of human rights , after the note) Add: Note 2: The text of United Nations General Assembly resolutions could in 2024 be accessed through the United Nations' website (https://www.un.org).    

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

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. 25 NOES Askew, W. Birmingham, S. J. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Chisholm, A. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Third Reading 120 19:21 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.    

The Senate divided. [19:22]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 32 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. 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. 23 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.

 Public Service Amendment Bill 2023 121

Public Service Amendment Bill 2023

Second Reading 121 19:25 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will first deal with the second reading amendment circulated by Senator David Pocock. The question is that the amendment on sheet 2481 be agreed to. Senator Pocock's circulated amendment— At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes that effective whistleblower protections are a central feature in ensuring transparency, integrity and accountability in the Australian Public Service; and (b) is of the opinion that: (i) reform to the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 must be a priority before the end of this term of Parliament, with comprehensive, accessible reform that ensures public servants can speak up safely and securely about wrongdoing, (ii) until such reform is enacted, Australian whistleblowers will continue to be discouraged from speaking up about wrongdoing, (iii) law reform for public and private sector whistleblowers must be accompanied by institutional changes to ensure whistleblowers are appropriately supported and assisted to blow the whistle; and (iv) following the bipartisan recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Public Interest Whistleblowing in 1994 and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services in 2017, a whistleblower protection authority must be established to oversee and enforce whistleblowing laws and support whistleblowers".    

The Senate divided. [19:26]
(The President—Senator Lines)

14 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. (Teller) Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 34 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 19:28 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments, starting with the amendment circulated by the government. I understand the minister has a document to table. 19:28 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that items 3 to 5 of schedule 1 stand as printed. The government opposed items 3 to 5 of schedule 1 in the following terms — (2) Schedule 1, items 3 to 5, page 3 (line 17) to page 5 (line 8), to be opposed. Question negatived. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that amendments (1) and (3) to (10) on sheet PM101 be agreed to. Government circulated amendments— (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 7 and 8), omit the definition of APS Purpose Statement in section 7. (3) Schedule 1, item 8, page 6 (after line 27), after paragraph 44A(4)(b), insert: (ba) ensure that the person or persons who undertake the review consult the Agency Minister of the Agency in undertaking the review; and (4) Schedule 1, item 8, page 6 (after line 31), after paragraph 44A(4)(c), insert: (ca) decide whether to do either of the following under subsection (11): (i) remove material from the copy of the report that is to be published; (ii) not publish the report; and (cb) give the Public Service Minister: (i) the report; and (ii) notice of the decision mentioned in paragraph (ca); and (iii) if material is removed as mentioned in subparagraph (ca)(i)—the copy of the report that is to be published; and (5) Schedule 1, item 8, page 6 (line 32), omit paragraph 44A(4)(d), substitute: (d) unless a decision not to publish the report is made under subsection (11)—ensure that the report or the copy mentioned in subparagraph (ca)(i) of this subsection (as the case may be) is published on an Agency website as soon as practicable after the report is given to the Public Service Minister. (6) Schedule 1, item 8, page 7 (after line 14), after subsection 44A(8), insert: Report to be tabled (8A) Subject to subsections (8B) and (8C), the Public Service Minister must cause a copy of a report of a capability review under subsection (1) or (3) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister. (8B) If the person who caused the capability review to be undertaken has removed material under subsection (11), the copy of the report that the Public Service Minister must cause to be tabled for the purposes of subsection (8A) is the copy that is, or is to be, published. (8C) Subsection (8A) does not apply if the person who caused the capability review to be undertaken has decided under subsection (11) not to publish the report. (7) Schedule 1, item 8, page 7 (line 21), omit "Despite paragraph (4)(d)", substitute "For the purposes of paragraph (4)(ca)". (8) Schedule 1, item 8, page 7 (line 24), after "that is", insert "to be". (9) Schedule 1, item 10, page 9 (after line 11), after subsection 64A(3), insert: (3A) As soon as practicable after a long-term insights report has been completed, the Secretaries Board must give the report to the Public Service Minister. (3B) The Public Service Minister must cause a copy of a long-term insights report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister. (10) Schedule 1, item 10, page 9 (lines 12 and 13), omit "it has been completed, a long-term insights report", substitute "a long-term insights report has been given to the Public Service Minister, the report". Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with amendments circulated by Senator Thorpe. The question is that amendments on sheet 2606 and 2611 be agreed to. Senator Thorpe's circulated amendments— SHEET 2606 (1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 10), after item 1, insert: 1A Subsection 10(3) Repeal the subsection, substitute: Respectful (3) The APS respects all people, including their rights and their heritage, and specifically their human rights as per international human rights obligations by making decisions and providing advice consistent with human rights and actively implementing, promoting and supporting human rights. _____ SHEET 2611 (1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 10), after item 1, insert: 1A Subsection 10(3) Repeal the subsection, substitute: Respectful (3) The APS respects all people, including their rights and their heritage, and specifically their human rights as per international human rights obligations. Question negatived. 19:29 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania by leave—I ask that the Greens' position in support of those amendments be noted. Third Reading 123 19:29 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Health Legislation Amendment (Removal of Requirement for a Collaborative Arrangement) Bill 2024 123

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

Second Reading 123 19:30 The PRESIDENT 112096 I will first deal with the second reading amendment moved by the opposition. The question is that the amendment on sheet 2526 be agreed to. Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the second reading amendment circulated by Pauline Hanson's One Nation. The question is that the amendment on sheet 2621 be agreed to. Pauline Hanson's One Nation's circulated amendment— At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that: (a) extending the role of nurses and midwives working in rural areas should in no way be considered as a substitute for providing additional specialist medical practitioners who are in alarmingly short supply in many regional areas; (b) introducing programs to provide more doctors in rural and regional areas is a priority; and (c) a further option is to expand existing technology linking patients with specialist medical services via on the ground midwifery and nursing personnel". Question negatived. 19:30 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland by leave—I ask that One Nation's vote in favour be recorded, please. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you; we will do so. 19:30 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia by leave—Could you please also record the opposition's support for that amendment? The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you; that will happen. The question now is that the bill be read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. The PRESIDENT 112096 I will now deal with the requests for amendments circulated by the Australian Greens. With the concurrence of the Senate, the statements accompanying the requests will be incorporated in the Hansard. The question is that the requests for amendments on sheet 2478 be agreed to. Australian Green s' circulated requests for amendments— That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendments: (1) Clause 1, page 1 (line 6), after "Arrangement", insert "and Other Measures". (2) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add: (3) Schedule 1, heading, page 3 (line 1), omit "Amendments", substitute "Removal of Requirement for a Collaborative Arrangement". (4) Page 3 (after line 29), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 2 — Medicare benefits for services rendered to prisoners Health Insurance Act 1973 1 Subsection 8(1A) Insert: in gaol: see subsection (1B). 2 After subsection 8(1A) Insert: (1B) For the purposes of this Part, a person is ingaol if: (a) the person is being lawfully detained (in prison or elsewhere) while under sentence for conviction of an offence and not on release on parole or licence; or (b) the person is undergoing a period of custody pending trial or sentencing for an offence. 3 After subsection 19(2) Insert: (2A) Subsection (2) does not apply in relation to a professional service that has been rendered to a person if the person was in gaol at the time the service was rendered. __________ Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000 Amendment (4) Amendment (4) amends the Health Insurance Act 1973 to provide for Medicare benefits to be payable in respect of professional services rendered to persons in gaol. It is framed as a request because its effect will be to increase the scope of professional services in respect of which Medicare benefits are payable, thereby increasing the amount of payments made from the Medicare Guarantee Fund (Health) Special Account and expenditure under the standing appropriation in section 80 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 or in certain circumstancesthe standing appropriation in section 18 of the Medicare Guarantee Act 2017. Amendments (1) to (3) Amendments (1) to (3) are consequential to amendment (4). Statement by the Clerk of the Senate pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000 Amendment (4) If the effect of the amendment is to increase the amount of expenditure under a standing appropriation, then it is in accordance with the precedents of the Senate that the amendment be moved as a request. Amendments (1) to (3) These amendments are consequential on the request. It is the practice of the Senate that an amendment that is consequential on an amendment framed as a request may also be framed as a request.    

The Senate divided. [19:32]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 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. 35 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Polley, H. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Third Reading 125 19:34 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023 126

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

Consideration of House of Representatives Message 126 19:35 The PRESIDENT 112096 Pursuant to the order agreed to earlier today, I am required to put the question that the Senate not insist on its amendment to which the House has disagreed.    

The committee divided. [19:37]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 19 AYES Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. 39 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hodgins-May, S. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Sitting suspended from 19:39 to 20:14

 BUDGET 126 BUDGET Statement and Documents 126 20:15 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I seek leave to table the Leader of the Opposition's budget in reply speech and to have it incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— INTRODUCTION Tonight, I want to outline part of my vision for Australia. To get our country Back on Track. To keep our nation safe and secure. To make life easier and better for all Australians. Because this Labor Government has made life so much tougher for Australians. Because this Labor Government has set our country on a dangerous course. Almost two years ago, Prime Minister Albanese was elected promising a reduction of $275 each year in your power prices, cheaper mortgages, and that you would be better off under a Labor Government. All those promises have been broken. And this Government has been focused on the wrong priorities. It started with the Prime Minister's Voice referendum. Not only did it waste $450 million which could have helped with the cost-of-living pressures you're now facing—the referendum also divided the nation. And let's not forget that the Prime Minister called 'No' voters 'Chicken Littles' and 'doomsayers'. Today, millions of Australians are struggling to pay their bills. Even going to the supermarket and petrol station has become stressful for so many. Prime Minister—Australians are genuinely hurting under your Government—they're not 'Chicken Littles'. Electricity bills haven't gone down by $275 as was pledged on 97 occasions—they've skyrocketed. The Treasurer will give you a $300 rebate, but he knows full well that your annual electricity bills have increased by up to $1,000 since Labor formed government. Interest rates have gone up 12 times under Labor. A typical Australian household with a mortgage is $35,000 worse off. And that's if you're lucky enough to own a home. Under this Prime Minister, the great Australian dream of home ownership has turned into a nightmare. Even finding somewhere to rent is near impossible. The Government has brought in an additional 923,000 migrants in just two years. But on the available data, it has only built 265,000 homes. Then there's Labor's tax on the family car and ute. You're having to fork out thousands-of-dollars more simply for choosing some of Australia's most popular vehicles—like a Toyota Rav4 or Ford Ranger—all because the Government is trying to force you to buy an electric vehicle. All of this has happened in just two years. Paul Keating famously said, 'When Governments change, the country changes.' Prime Minister Albanese and his Government have changed our country. But as so many Australians can attest to, not for the better. You, your family, your children, and our country can't afford another three years of this Government. I know how to make the decisions to get our country Back on Track. Tonight, I will remind Australians of the Coalition's economic plan to lower your cost-of-living and restore confidence to our economy. I will also outline several policies which Australians can expect from a Coalition Government under my leadership. Policies to get power bills down and to shore-up our nation's future energy security. Policies to help alleviate our housing crisis and revive the dream of home ownership. Policies to improve workforce participation and health services. And policies to make our communities, our society, and our country better and safer. But first, I will respond to the Treasurer's Budget. RESPONSE TO THE BUDGET As I've said previously, we're an Opposition which supports good policy and stands against bad policy. Since Labor formed government, we've backed more than 180 Bills which have passed parliament. But we've opposed some Bills where Labor and the Greens have collaborated to pass legislation which is not in our country's best interest. Just as we endorsed some sensible measures in Labor's first two Budgets, we do the same for its third Budget. In particular, the $3.4 billion for medicines on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. And the extension of emergency payments to support women and children fleeing domestic violence which the Coalition established in 2021. In my 22 years in parliament, I've seen good and bad Budgets. But the Budget handed down on Tuesday is one of the most irresponsible I've seen. Inflation is a huge problem for Australia. On comparative inflation, Australia is worse than the US, Singapore, Germany, Spain, Japan, the Netherlands, Italy, South Korea, Canada, France, and the entire Euro area. The reason interest rates have gone up 12 times is because the Government can't control its spending—and because of its reckless energy policy. In three Labor Budgets, the Government has lifted spending by a staggering $315 billion—or $30,000 per Australian household. The Reserve Bank Governor has sounded the alarm on inflation being home-grown. In the last 48 hours, every credible economist has issued scathing assessments of this Budget because Labor has us in an inflationary hole and is still digging. Make no mistake, any further increase to interest rates and inflation also now rests squarely on the shoulders of this Prime Minister and Treasurer. Magic pudding spending and $13.7 billion on corporate welfare for billionaires doesn't help the economy, or make your life easier. Let's also be clear about Labor's $300 energy rebate which will cost the economy $3.5 billion. We will support this relief because we know Australians are hurting. But the Government is treating the symptom, not the disease. Labor's 'renewables only' energy policy is the reason your power bills continue to skyrocket. Here's some facts which show the troubling state of our economy: More than 16,000 businesses around the country have gone insolvent since the 1st of July 2022. Productivity has plunged by 5.4 per cent on this Government's watch. Household buying power has gone down by 7.5 per cent. Last year, Australians suffered the biggest increase in average tax rates of any citizens in the developed world. There's been double-digit increases for your essentials like electricity, gas, milk, bread and rent. Tragically, so many more Australians are living in cars and tents. And because of spending in this Budget, the economic outlook is one of deficits as far as the eye can see. THE COALITION'S ECONOMIC PLAN To alleviate cost-of-living pressures, we need to get inflation down. To get our economy Back on Track, we need a back-to-basics economic plan. That's what a Coalition Government will deliver. First, we will rein-in inflationary spending to take the pressure off inflation. As a start, we will not spend $13.7 billion on corporate welfare for green hydrogen and critical minerals. These projects should stand up on their own without the need for taxpayer's money. Second, we will wind-back Labor's intervention and remove regulatory roadblocks which are suffocating the economy and stopping businesses from getting ahead. For example, we will not force large firms to spend more than a billion dollars a year policing the emissions of every small business they deal with—as Labor is trying to do. We will condense approval processes and cut back on Labor's red tape which is killing mining, jobs, and entrepreneurialism. Only yesterday, Santos indicated it will have to let go 200 employees because of slow project approvals. I want mining to boom in Western Australia and around the nation. More mining means more revenue. More revenue means more roads, schools and hospitals. A turbocharged Western Australian economy means more national prosperity. We don't need to give out billions-of-dollars of taxpayer's money to get mining projects started. Third, we will remove the complexity and hostility of Labor's industrial relations agenda which is putting unreasonable burdens on businesses. For example, we will revert to the former Coalition Government's simple definition of a casual worker and create certainty for our 2.5 million small businesses. Fourth, we will provide lower, simpler and fairer taxes for all—because Australians should keep more of what they earn. You will hear our tax plan detail ahead of the election. Fifth, we will deliver competition policy which gives consumers and smaller businesses a fair go—not lobbyists and big corporations. And sixth, we will ensure Australians have more affordable and reliable energy. Our economic plan—with its tried and tested principles—will restore competitiveness and rebuild economic confidence. Small businesses are the lifeblood of our communities. I've run a small business, as have many of my colleagues—unlike most Labor parliamentarians. The Coalition understands small business. Tonight, I announce that we will extend the value of assets eligible for the instant asset write-off to $30,000 and make this ongoing for small businesses. This will simplify depreciation for millions of small businesses by cutting red tape, boosting investment in productive assets, lowering business costs and prices. ENERGY A respected senior journalist recently wrote, 'Energy is not part of the economy. It is the economy.' The Government's 'renewables only' policy continues to drive-up power prices. Electricity and gas prices have gone up by 18 and 25 per cent respectively. You can see this rise in your household power bills. But the energy bills of farmers, businesses and manufacturers have also skyrocketed. And that means the cost to make anything—from food to furniture—has also gone up. That's why you're paying more at the supermarket and shops. If energy is not affordable or reliable, more manufacturers will shut-up-shop or move offshore. That's why there's been a three-fold increase in the number of manufacturers who have closed their doors over the last two years. For all the Government's talk about a 'Future Made in Australia', their current approach has no chance if energy isn't cheap and consistent compared to other countries. Renewables have a role to play in our energy system. But we can't rely on weather-dependent energy alone. We need power 24/7—especially for our hospitals, factories and freezers that need to operate around the clock. Concerningly, the Government's 'renewables only' policy will see 90 per cent of that 24/7 power switched off over the next ten years. How are things progressing for the Government's plan for 5 gigawatts of renewables per year? Well, just last year, only 1.3 gigawatts were committed—almost 75 per cent off target. Re-wiring our country will cost at least $1.3 trillion. Who will bear that cost? You will. Farmers will. Manufacturers will. Businesses will. If you think you're paying high prices for power today, they will only get much higher under a 'renewables only' roll-out. Our nation has three energy goals: Cheaper power. Consistent power. Cleaner power. We won't achieve these goals under Labor's 'renewables only' policy. But we can achieve all three. By following the other top 20 economies in the world which use zero-emission nuclear power, or are taking steps to put it in their mix. And by ramping-up domestic gas production for affordable and reliable energy in the more immediate term. After two years of interventions into the gas market, skyrocketing prices, and repeated warnings of shortfalls, Labor's new gas strategy is just words on paper. There's little chance of Labor bringing new gas supply into the system because it's ideologically opposed to gas. And because it wants to win Green votes over in inner city seats. Unlike Labor, a Coalition Government will: speed up approvals; unlock gas in key basins, like the Beetaloo basin; defund the Environmental Defenders Office which is halting vital projects through lawfare; ensure gas is delivered to where it's needed by reinstating the National Gas Infrastructure Plan; and commit to an annual release of offshore acreage for exploration and development in the Northern Territory and Western Australia. On nuclear power, some 50 countries are exploring or investing in zero emission, next-generation technologies for the very first time. We hold the largest deposits of uranium on the planet. Do the Prime Minister and Minister Bowen have it right, and the rest of the developed world have it wrong? The Government have ordered nuclear-powered submarines. I simply pose this question: Why is the technology which is safe for our submariners unsafe for our citizens? Because of nuclear power, residents in Ontario, Canada pay up to a quarter of the cost of what some Australians pay for electricity. With nuclear power, we can maximise the highest yield of energy per square metre and minimise environmental damage. We do that by putting new nuclear technologies on- or near- the brownfield sites of decommissioned or retiring coal-fired power plants using the existing grid. There's no need for all of the proposed 58 million solar panels, almost 3,500 wind farms, and 28,000 kilometres of new transmission poles and wires. Bob Hawke was a strong leader who strongly supported nuclear power. As does John Howard, along with the Australian Workers Union, and many others who have a vision for our country—including some 65 per cent of Australians aged 18 to 34-years-old. Making Australia a nuclear-powered nation is right for our country and will secure a future of cheaper, consistent and cleaner electricity. We need the right policy—for you and for our nation. HOUSING Beyond Labor's energy crisis, we're also facing a housing crisis. The great Australian aspiration of home ownership has become out of reach for so many. It's wonderful that parents who have the financial means can help their kids into a home. But I will never accept a situation where the only people who can afford to buy a home are those with the support of their parents. The Coalition has already recommitted to allowing Australians to access up to $50,000 of their super to buy their first home. And extended this policy to separated women to help restart their lives. The money initially withdrawn from super will need to be returned when the house is sold to support retirement. But we need to do more. For almost 20 years, I've chaired my local Salvation Army Red Shield Appeal. Two weeks ago at our annual fundraising breakfast, I heard a heartbreaking account of a man in his 70s having to live in his car. Such a soul-destroying experience is sadly not an uncommon story. Australians are struggling to find homes to rent and buy—and not always due to a lack of money. Amidst this housing crisis, Labor is bringing in 1.67 million migrants over five years—more than the population of Adelaide. We celebrate the contributions of migrants over many decades who have helped build the achievement of modern Australia. But by getting the migration policy settings right, the Coalition can free up more houses for Australians. The Prime Minister has promised to build 1.2 million homes by 2029. But on the Government's current trajectory, they will fall short by 400,000 or 33 per cent. The Prime Minister is making the housing crisis worse. Australians need homes now. We're at an 11-year low of building approvals and to help Australians now we need to prioritise Australians for existing homes. The other impact Australians are feeling from the Albanese Government's poor management of the migration program is from congestion on our roads and pressure on existing services which are stretched, like seeing a GP. Tonight, I announce several measures a Coalition Government will implement to meet our housing crisis head-on by alleviating pressure on the housing market. We believe that by rebalancing the migration program and taking decisive action on the housing crisis, the Coalition would free up almost 40,000 additional homes in the first year. And well over 100,000 homes in the next five years. First, we will implement a two-year ban on foreign investors and temporary residents purchasing existing homes in Australia. Second, we will reduce the permanent migration program by 25 per cent—from 185,000 to 140,000 for the first two years in recognition of the urgency of this crisis. The program will then increase to 150,000 in year three and 160,000 in year four. We will ensure there are enough skilled and temporary skilled visas for those with building and construction skills to support our local tradies to build the homes we need. Similarly, we will return the refugee and humanitarian program planning level to 13,750—closer to the long-term average. The humanitarian program will remain one of the most generous in the world on a per capita basis. Third, we will reduce excessive numbers of foreign students studying at metropolitan universities to relieve stress on rental markets in our major cities. We will work with universities to set a cap on foreign students. And we will enhance the integrity of the student visa program by introducing a tiered approach to increasing the student visa application fee and applying it to foreign students who change providers. The usual CEOs and big businesses may not like this approach. But my priority is restoring the dream of home ownership. WORKFORCE While reducing migration numbers to ease pressure on housing, a Coalition Government will encourage thousands of people to engage more in the labour market. We recommit to increasing the amount older Australians and veterans can work without reducing pension payments. We will double the existing work bonus from $300 per fortnight to $600. It's estimated this will benefit over 80,000 pensioners and veterans who choose to work. We will look to further expand the work bonus arrangements beyond this commitment in consultation with older Australians and veterans and in consideration of labour market conditions. Pensioners will continue to accrue unused pension work bonus amounts up to a maximum of $11,800 which can exempt future earnings from the pension income test. We will also lift the number of hours those on student visas can work by 12 hours a fortnight. HEALTH Amidst our cost-of-living crisis, people's health and well-being are suffering. That's why we committed to restoring the number of Medicare-subsidised psychological sessions from 10 to 20—and on a permanent basis. As a Health Minister, I increased hospital funding year-on-year. I also established the $20 billion Medical Research Future Fund which, to this day, provides billions-of-dollars to medical research projects. Indeed, when I became Health Minister in 2013, we inherited a bulk billing rate of 73 per cent and increased it to 84 per cent. When we left government, bulk billing was 88.5 per cent. What Labor tried to hide in its Budget is that bulk billing has decreased to 77 per cent—an 11 per cent drop. The health of all Australians—particularly given our ageing society—is always a priority for the Coalition. Last year, I committed to an investment in best-practice for women's health issues, including endometriosis. Tonight, I welcome the Government's commitment of $50 million in this budget for longer consultations for endometriosis and pelvic pain. The Coalition will continue to support measures for women's health, particularly in primary care. More needs to be done to support women's health, including for menopause and peri-menopause. We will continue to develop and support good policy to this end. Concerningly, Australia is facing a looming shortage of GPs—some 11,000 by 2031. We need more GPs—especially in our suburbs and regional areas. Junior doctors who enter general practice earn about three-quarters of the salary of their counterparts in hospitals. Working with the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners and Australian Medical Association, a Coalition Government will invest $400 million to provide junior doctors who train in general practice with incentive payments, assistance with leave entitlements, and support for pre-vocational training. We also want better outcomes for Indigenous Australians. Led by Senators Liddle and Nampijinpa Price, we will provide practical solutions to improve education, health and safety outcomes for indigenous women and children—especially in our most disadvantaged remote communities. LAW AND ORDER In recent times, our nation has been rocked by many shocking and tragic events. The stabbings at Bondi where six people were murdered. Knife attacks on a bishop in Western Sydney and a man in Perth by radicalised youth—incidents reinforcing the enduring threat of extreme Islamism. Twenty-eight women killed in violent circumstances this year alone. More than 150 hardcore criminals—including murderers and sex offenders—released from immigration detention into the community by this Government, with some having re-offended. And since Hamas' barbaric terrorist attack on Israel, a 700 per cent increase in anti-Semitic incidents on our soil. Australians are unsettled by crime on our streets, ruptures to our social cohesion, and threats to our national security. A Coalition Government will provide much needed leadership in tackling knife crime. We will work with states and territories to develop uniform knife laws across all jurisdictions. Laws which give police the powers to stop and search using detector wands—like Queensland's 'Jack's Law'. And laws which limit and restrict the sale and possession of knives to minors and dangerous individuals. As a former police officer, the horrific scenes of beaten women and distraught children I encountered stay with me to this day. As do the memories of taking women who were shaking with fear to shelters and safe homes—and helping them relocate with their children to safety. It's why I've dedicated much of my career to protecting women and children. It's why, as Home Affairs Minister, I established the $70 million Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation and recommit to doubling its size. Recently Molly Ticehurst, a 28-year-old mother from New South Wales was murdered because her violent ex-partner was on bail. Our bail laws need to be tightened. And under a Coalition Government I lead, they will be tightened. Offences relating to partner and family violence generally fall under state and territory legislation. But there is also a role for the Commonwealth. A Coalition Government will make it an offence to use mobile phone and computer networks to cause an intimate partner or family member to fear for their personal safety, to track them using spyware, or engage in coercive behaviours. We will toughen the bail laws that apply to these new Commonwealth offences. I've been a Minister for Immigration and Home Affairs. They're demanding but rewarding jobs. I granted thousands of visas to sick children, parents with medical conditions, victims of sexual assault, and refugees who have become wonderful Australians. The public rarely hears about that side of the job. But in these roles, you must also make tough decisions. I cancelled more than 6,300 visas of dangerous non-citizen criminals—with a priority on those committing sexual offences against women and children—driven by my desire to stop these people harming Australians. If a minister doesn't have the backbone to do that, they're letting our country and citizens down. I made our country and citizens safer. As Prime Minister, I will do it again. It will take a Coalition Government—once again—to stop the people smugglers and to deport criminals. It will also take a Coalition Government to turn the tide of anti-Semitism afflicting our country. Anti-Semitism is not just a threat to one segment of our community. It's a threat to our social cohesion and democratic values. Some of the most strident anti-Semitic standard-bearers have come from our university campuses. We will also provide the moral and political leadership which makes it abundantly clear that we expect the law to be enforced readily—not reluctantly—against those inciting hatred and violence. TACKLING ONLINE CRIME Tackling crime in our communities also means doing the same online. There's been an uptick in young Australians committing, filming and uploading their crimes to social media. A Coalition Government will make it an offence to post criminal acts online. Those convicted will be banned from using digital platforms and liable for up to two years' imprisonment. As a father of three children who all grew up in the digital age, I'm troubled by the material our children are exposed to. That's why I announced in my Budget Reply last year that a Coalition Government will ban gambling advertising during the broadcast of sporting games. However, I'm more worried by the criminal dark underbelly of the internet. At the fingertips of our children is a concerning volume of sexually explicit and violent material, as well as content designed to indoctrinate. We welcome the Government's belated decision to back our policy for an age verification trial. But unlike Labor, a Coalition Government will include social media platforms like Instagram and TikTok in such a trial. DEFENCE Authoritarian regimes like China, Russia, Iran and North Korea are emboldened, expanding their militaries, conducting cyber-attacks, and engaging in foreign interference. The Prime Minister and his Deputy rightly say we're living in the most precarious period since the Second World War—a view echoed by our intelligence agencies and allies. Strenuous efforts are needed to maintain peace and deter acts of aggression—like those recently aimed at our navy and air force. The 1930s taught us that appeasement and weakness of leadership do not end well. In this critical period of risk, I will offer strong leadership backed by significant investment in defence. Labor's priorities are wrong. The Government has announced an additional 36,000 public servants in this Budget costing Australian taxpayers $24 billion over four years. The Coalition sees areas like Defence as much more of a priority than office staff in Canberra given the precarious times in which we live and threats in our region. We will reprioritise Canberra-centric funding and make an additional investment in Defence to rapidly enhance the capability of our men and women in uniform. We're working with leaders in defence industry to identify projects and investments that can be made in Australia to keep us safe in an uncertain world. CONCLUSION I say to every Australian tonight, my vision is to get our country Back on Track. To make your life easier. To make us safe and secure again. The job of the Prime Minister is to be strong, not weak. To be fair and firm. To be compassionate and definite. To unite, not divide—especially through referendums. As each day passes, this Government increasingly shows how disconnected it is from the views, values and vision of everyday Australians. Labor has forgotten the main principle of governing: It isn't the people who serve the will of the government—it's the government who serves the will of the people. I came to this parliament having served my community as a police officer and as a successful small business owner employing 40 people. I've had the honour of serving Australians on the front bench since 2004, in many portfolios, and under four prime ministers. My team and I have the experience to get our country Back on Track and to support everyday Australians. We live in the greatest country in the world. But at the moment, Australia is being held back. Australians are being left behind by this weak Labor Government with the wrong priorities. Our country deserves so much more. Ask yourself: Are you better off today than you were two years ago? Do you feel safer or more secure than you did two years ago? 'When Governments change, the country changes.' Australians can't afford another three years of Labor. At the next election, it will be time for a change. A better change for you, your family and our country. COMMITTEES 134 COMMITTEES Impact of Climate Risk on Insurance Select Committee, Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, Social Media and Australian Society Joint Select Commtttee 134 Membership 134 20:15 The PRESIDENT 112096 I have received letters requesting changes in membership of committees. 20:15 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania by leave—I move: That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows: Impact of Climate Risk on Insurance — Select Committee — Appointed— Senators Faruqi, Green and Sheldon Participating members: Senators Allman-Payne, Bilyk, Ciccone, Cox, Ghosh, Grogan, Hanson-Young, Hodgins-May, McKim, O'Neill, Payman, Barbara Pocock, Polley, Pratt, Shoebridge, Marielle Smith, Steele-John, Sterle, Stewart, Urquhart, Walsh, Waters and Whish-Wilson Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee Appointed— Substitute members— Senator Hodgins-May to replace Senator Whish-Wilson for the committee's inquiry into the Airline Passenger Protections (Pay on Delay) Bill 2024 Senator McKim to replace Senator Whish-Wilson for the committee's inquiry into the provisions of the Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024 Participating member: Senator Whish-Wilson Social Media and Australian Society — Joint Select Committee Appointed—Senators Hanson-Young, Henderson, Nampijinpa Price, Marielle Smith and Walsh. Question agreed to. 20:16 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia by leave—I move: That Senators McLachlan and Sharma be appointed as members of the Select Committee on the Impact of Climate Risk on Insurance on Premiums and Availability. Question agreed to. BILLS 134 BILLS Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023, Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment Bill 2024 134

Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023

Financial Framework (Supplementary Powers) Amendment Bill 2024

Returned from the House of Representatives 134 COMMITTEES 134 COMMITTEES Social Media and Australian Society Joint Select Commtttee 134 Membership 134 Appointment 134 20:17 The PRESIDENT 112096 A message has been received from the House of Representatives informing the Senate that the House concurs in the resolution of the Senate relating to the establishment of the Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society. The House of Representatives message read as follows— Message no. 380, dated 16 May 2024—Agreeing to the Senate resolution establishing the Joint Select Committee on Social Media and Australian Society. Senate adjourned at 20:18