DOCUMENTS

2024-06-26 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Wednesday, 26 June 2024

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

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 09:02 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised. BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 1 09:02 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That general business order of the day No. 69, Competition and Consumer Amendment (Divestiture Powers) Bill 2024, be considered at the time for private senators' bills today. Question agreed to. BILLS 1 BILLS Competition and Consumer Amendment (Divestiture Powers) Bill 2024 1

Competition and Consumer Amendment (Divestiture Powers) Bill 2024

Second Reading 1 09:02 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I rise to continue my comments on the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Divestiture Powers) Bill 2024. Before I was, sadly, interrupted last time we were speaking on this, I was talking about examples of the impact that the current model with the supermarket duopoly is having on our farmers, who feed and clothe this nation. Watermelon farmers are selling their produce for only $1.50 each and then walking into the supermarket and seeing them being sold for $5 or $6. That's only gone up in the intervening period. Since then we've seen the belated announcement by this government to make the voluntary Food and Grocery Code of Conduct mandatory. While we welcome that, when the Nationals first offered a hand of friendship to the government in December 2022 and said that we would work with the government to make that code of conduct mandatory, we were fobbed off by this government. They have belatedly come to the realisation that the supermarket duopoly are not acting in good faith against that voluntary code of conduct. They've belatedly come to the realisation that the code of conduct should be mandatory, and we welcome that. I also want to make the point that it is high time the supermarkets treated farmers fairly. It is high time that supermarkets honoured their contracts with farmers. If they say to a farmer, 'We need 10,000 heads of lettuce,' and the farmers then plant enough to ensure that they can produce 10,000 heads of quality lettuce to the standards the supermarkets insist upon, then the supermarkets should buy 10,000 heads of lettuce, not turn around after harvest and say, 'I'm only taking 5,000,' and only pay for 5,000. But, in doing this, this government is claiming that, through this mandatory code of conduct, it's going to fix the cost-of-living crisis. What a furphy! What it will do is help fix some of our supply chain issues, some of the issues between farmers and the supermarket duopoly. It will not fix the cost-of-living crisis, and it is high time this government took the cost-of-living crisis seriously and actually took action to address rising inflation, rising interest rates, higher electricity bills, higher insurance premiums and failing infrastructure in the regions. Start doing your job, government. On this particular bill, the Nationals absolutely support divestment powers, but I have always said, from the outset of my comments on this bill, that we need to get it right. We can't rush. We can't have a kneejerk reaction. At this point in time, the legislation that the Greens have drafted is not getting it right. 09:06 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Our government, the Labor government, has moved consistently and quickly to address the pressures that consumers are facing in our nation. It was only back in February of this year that the Labor Party announced its ACCC inquiry, as well as the Emerson review into the cost-of-living crisis in supermarkets. That review has resulted in announcements just this week that a mandatory code of conduct will be enforced. We know Australia's supermarket sector is among the most concentrated in the world. We know Woolworths, Coles and Aldi collectively have a 75 per cent market share, which is—as acknowledged by the proponents of this bill, the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Divestiture Powers) Bill 2024—a much higher share than exists in many other advanced countries, which is why the Labor Party has appropriately scrutinised this. It has absolutely been a high priority for our government. We saw just last week the results of the CHOICE quarterly price-monitoring exercise which was funded by the Commonwealth government. We funded CHOICE to the tune of $1.1 million to carry out quarterly price monitoring in every state and territory. Consumers should rightly have been alarmed at the significant price differences across jurisdictions and between supermarkets. It showed that in the jurisdictions where Aldi doesn't operate—Tasmania and the Northern Territory—shoppers are paying higher prices for their groceries. It showed the magnitude of gaps between the different supermarkets. What's notable about this in the context of this legislation is that in a divestment situation, if you were to look at who would be in a position to take over stores should, for example Coles and Woolies be forced to divest themselves of their stores, in many cases the competing store is already there next door and is already offering higher prices. So, in fact, forcing Coles, for example, to divest itself of my local Coles supermarket and sell it to a competing store is not necessarily going to result in increased competition. It may actually decrease competition. That is one of the findings of analysis done by Minister Leigh and other academics. Notably, even though Aldi has considerably lower prices and you can see those price point differences, Aldi themselves said to our supermarkets inquiry that they don't support divestment powers. So, we've had to get on with looking very carefully at how we can make a difference to both consumers and farmers. Our ACCC inquiry has looked at issues such as loyalty card discounts. One of the biggest impacts of concentration is indeed on consumers, so the ACCC, in looking at things like loyalty discounts, is there to ensure that shoppers are able to get a fairer deal. One of the significant stories we heard during the course of our Senate inquiry was the devastating impact on many suppliers, in particular suppliers of fresh fruit and vegetables and other fresh goods, as well as nursery suppliers to Bunnings. The key issue here regarding their bargaining power, in that they are just price takers, is the fact that their produce is fresh and has a short shelf-life. And it was absolutely alarming to see, time and time again, that farmers and producers did not feel comfortable talking openly to our inquiry for fear of retaliation and backlash from Coles and Woolworths. Often they did not feel able to tell us what was really going on. But we did have a few brave souls step forward who were able to explain to us the kinds of practices displayed by Coles and Woolworths. They said they are at the mercy of Coles and Woolworths as price takers and that it has created enormous difficulty for them. We recognise that we've heard too many of these troubling tales, even despite the fact it has been difficult for them to come forward, about suppliers to the major supermarkets not getting a fair crack. Those suppliers have been unwilling to make complaints because of fear of reprisals, fear that they simply won't get a contract the next time. However, under the former government, the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct was set up as a voluntary code, without the appropriate penalties to see appropriate powers given to producers inside that code. In effect, many producers were simply unwilling to use it. The leader of the National Party was harping on previously, saying, 'Oh, dear: why didn't the government move to make it mandatory?' Well, that's why we are doing that. We are doing what the last government failed to do in nine long years of government. They simply didn't do the work to support the primary producers they purport to stand up for. Not only did the coalition set it up as a voluntary code, but also they had held a review on it. And the former government decided after their review that it should be a voluntary code. So, when those opposite say, as Senator Davey did, that they support divestiture powers, I tend to think it's a fair bit of hot air on their part. If we really thought divestiture powers were the way to go on this front—and those opposite did think that—then there are a great many other things that need to come first as part of the suite of things we do to keep prices down. I don't think the work's been done on divestiture powers and whether they would indeed make a difference in our nation. But we have been getting on with the things we know will make a difference—that is, a mandatory Food and Grocery Code of Conduct. That follows extensive review by Craig Emerson. Dr Emerson held 65 bilateral meetings and four roundtables, looked at 68 submissions and ultimately made 11 recommendations, and the government accepts them all. The most important of those recommendations is that the Food and Grocery Code be made mandatory. But we are also looking at the scope of the code. Right now it covers: Woolworths, with an estimated revenue of $50 billion in 2024; Coles, with an estimated revenue of $38 billion; Aldi, $11 billion; and Metcash, $9 billion. Hopefully it will soon apply to Costco, with a revenue of $4.6 billion. Australians spend a great deal of money on their day-to-day necessities at these stores. That is why the review recommended that our code place a greater emphasis on addressing the fear of retribution by including protection against retribution in the purpose of the code and requiring that any incentive schemes and payments that apply to supermarkets' buying teams and category managers are consistent with the purpose of the code. It also sees that we have an anonymous complaints mechanism established to enable suppliers and any other market— Senator PRATT I0T Sorry, Deputy President: I seem to have a large amount of chatter going on to the left of me while speaking; it's a little bit distracting. Senator McKenzie 207825 It's the Greens. Senator PRATT I0T I meant to the right of me, sorry. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Can the chamber come to order. Senator PRATT I0T Thank you. I do love my comrades on the left, but not so much on the right this morning! What's important is that we have a complaints mechanism that will enable protection from retribution, requiring incentive schemes and payments that apply to a supermarket's buying streams and category managers. We need to make sure they are consistent with the purpose of the code. In the evidence to our inquiry on supermarket prices it was very clear that those practices were not consistent with the existing voluntary code of practice. It was almost as if the code did not exist. You could be told you were going to get one price for your products and you would nominate and commit to supplying a certain amount at a certain price, and then the day that you took those goods in to sell to Coles or Woolies for them to sell on their shop floor the contract would change. It's simply not sustainable for our Australian producers. It's very clear when you look at the record price differences between Coles and Woolworths and, below that, Aldi. So, where are the dollars of Australian families are going? We have a cost-of-living issue in Australia. We need to keep downward pressure on grocery prices. This is something the Labor Party and the Labor government take very seriously, which is why we have done the work. We don't have a pie in the sky announcement about divestiture, nor do we have a flimsy code of conduct that we refuse to fix in government. We are doing the work. We've been doing the work consistently and carefully in partnership with consumer organisations like CHOICE, the Food and Grocery Council and producer organisations. It's time that we got on with real reform, rather than these sidelines as proposed by Senator McKim. 09:20 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I support divestiture powers and I support the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Divestiture Powers) Bill 2024. I support this bill because it fixes a huge gap that exists in our competition laws—a gap which limits the competitive pressures that exist in our economy and which, ultimately, leads to poorer outcomes for all players in the supply chain, consumers of products of all different types and suppliers to those companies that have significant market power in our economy. I think it's very important to start by highlighting that Australia is an outlier in the developed world when it comes to the powers that exist in our competition laws to take action against companies that misuse their market power. We would never—and this bill does not—seek to impose penalties to split up companies in the absence of misuse of market power. This bill, and other laws around the world like it, don't apply to companies just because they're big; they apply if they are big and then cause harm to other parties in the marketplace. We have laws against big companies doing harmful things. Section 46 of our Competition and Consumer Act is the main provision. There are others, but I'll focus on section 46 because it's relevant to this bill. It's titled 'Misuse of market power', and it only applies to those companies which have a significant or dominant position in the market and which then do things that cause harm to other players in the market. There are of course, in our current laws, penalties that can apply to companies that contravene section 46. But, unlike other countries, we do not have this ultimate penalty that provides that, if this behaviour is particularly egregious and if this behaviour continues, then the company can be split up to create the long-term competitive pressures that have been allowed to thrive in other countries. I heard the Prime Minister, a few months ago, make the remarkable suggestion that Senator Nick McKim—my friend and colleague over there—is bringing forward a communist proposal. I think he mentioned it being a Marxist or communist proposal. Divestiture powers are apparently something that was brewed up in Marxist theory classes, which Senator McKim probably attended. At university, I sometimes engaged in those discussions. But it shows the complete lack of understanding by the Prime Minister of this very serious problem. Australians are suffering from a lack of competition in our supermarkets, banks and airlines. They're suffering poor outcomes in all of those industries. Our farmers are suffering from abusive conduct by our major supermarkets, which I might get to later, yet the Prime Minister has not even the most basic understanding of competition law, and the different types of competition laws around. You can mount a reasonable argument against divestiture powers. You could mount a serious and reasonable argument against them, but claiming they are somehow inspired by Bolshevik regimes is absolutely absurd. I say that because, back in the 1980s, the United States used their divestiture powers in their Sherman and Clayton acts that have been on their books for well over a hundred years now to break up a company called AT&T into what became known as the nine Baby Bells. The company was split up into regional telephone companies across the United States. This divestiture action was overseen by that noted communist President Ronald Reagan! It's the position of the Prime Minister that these divestiture powers are somehow communist inspired, yet President Ronald Reagan, perhaps the greatest known defender of free markets and capitalism in modern times, was happy to preside over such a divestiture. I don't know all the details of the AT&T case, but clearly the case was made in the courts that AT&T's conduct was abusive and was causing poor outcomes for telecommunications consumers in the US, and that company got split up. It's very rarely used. Another famous example in the US was Standard Oil. Standard Oil was split up much earlier, at the beginning of the 20th century. It was a huge company. The actions and conduct of the likes of John Rockefeller contributed to the Clayton and Sherman acts, which were eventually used to split up this very large conglomerate into a bunch of different companies that persist to this day with the likes of Chevron and ExxonMobil. They're all the sons and daughters of that particular split. It didn't hurt those companies; they're pretty successful companies. I think Chevron was, at different times last year, the biggest company in the world. So it hasn't hurt their shareholders and it's been good for competition. In both those cases—particularly the telecommunications case—we were told that somehow if we were to take this action, if we were to put in the ultimate sanction and split up a company, it would be terrible for the economy and cause investors to flee; it would hurt our productivity. There were different types of claims made about how terrible this would be. Yet, after the 1980s split up of AT&T, the greatest increase in telecommunication innovation and productivity that the world has ever seen was unleashed. I'm not necessarily claiming that the split up of AT&T was the cause of those developments, but they occurred subsequent to that split up and were, effectively, a precursor to the information age which we now know: the development of the internet, mobile phones, personal computers and graphical user interface operating systems. All of these things came after the split up of AT&T, which didn't hurt that industry or that economy. Clearly, investors didn't rush away. They rushed in, in a way, and there was competition—surprise, surprise! As I said, it was not necessarily the cause of it, but it probably helped to have that extra competition in telecommunication services and encouraged those countries that were hungry to go after new markets that were emerging in mobile phones and internet et cetera. Likewise with the oil industry—I won't go through all of that. The development of the oil industry didn't slow down in the early 20th century when Standard Oil was split up. Instead, the split up led to much better outcomes for consumers, much greater competition, and massive expansion of automobile transport in the US and around the world. It's not just in the United States. These laws exist in Europe, in Canada and in many other countries; they've had long experience with these laws. It's not something new or innovative. What is here before us today is something in the great tradition of English common law countries, which do seek to sometimes codify particular penalties like this in their laws and build on the experience of like-minded countries that have had success with such laws. Clearly these laws have been very successful in those other countries. They've persisted through multiple different political administrations. They have been used sparingly but used to great success, as I've outlined. They are being used again to look at the likes of Facebook and Google. While many of those actions haven't been successful through the courts, they clearly have had a role in reining in the likes of Facebook and Google, where we of course have issues. So this is very sensible, and I don't quite understand the controversy here in this country. Maybe it's because our large businesses have a very large influence over this place. We are often accused of being motivated by other means. There are a lot of good lobbyists from those companies, and they seem to be able to confuse us here—we who are a long way away from those other countries that have had great experience with these laws. I want to come to specific examples of misconduct, about why these laws are needed so much. As I said, these laws would build on the great tradition of English common law countries if they were adopted here, and no doubt they would be properly applied by our courts. In recent times there has been particularly egregious conduct by our major supermarkets, in particular. We've had banking royal commissions that have exposed similar conduct. People have been shocked by the actions of corporations who seemingly feel they are unrestrained by basic ethical conduct requirements. There was a case brought by the ACCC around 13 years ago, in 2011—well, the conduct was in 2011 but the case was brought many years later, so it's around 10 years old. Back then, the ACCC did some great work and was able to subpoena a bunch of documents from both Coles and Woolworths, but I'm going to concentrate on Coles in the limited I have. The ACCC uncovered that Coles had these events with their managers which they called 'profit days'. Apparently, after a few months or almost a year of looking at their clients, if they were making enough profit on a particular line item, they would have a day when all their managers would go out and try to get more money from their suppliers. It was no more complicated than that. I'll highlight one particular case where Coles managers decided they had a profit gap with a company called Oates. Many people would have bought bins or brooms with the Oates brand name on them. They reckoned they had a profit gap of $326,590 with Oates. To be clear, this was the gap between what Coles expected to make on Oates products and what they actually made. It was their mistake. They found that gap. They then wrote to Oates and asked them to pay $326,590. They were as bold as that, 'Just give us that money; we need that money.' Oates, as you would expect, inquired: 'Why are you asking us to pay that? What contractual term gives rise to this particular invoice you've levied for hundreds of thousands of dollars?' Coles gave no explanation under the contract about why they were demanding this money, apart from the fact that, on 24 June 2011, Coles managers wrote in an email to Oates that Coles, and I quote, 'Was not prepared to work collaboratively with Oates for the next year if Oates did not rectify the Oates purported profit gap.' This is blackmail. It's got to be called out for what it is. It is blackmail. It is the most unethical, egregious corporate conduct you could ever consider that a small company like Oates would be stood over by a large company and told: 'Hey, look, we think we need another $300,000 from you. You've got a nice business here. It would be a shame if something happened to it. Give us some money.' Eventually, Oates did cough up. A number of emails went back and forth and eventually they offered to make a payment of $224,000. I think they eventually negotiated to raise it to $246,400 to keep their business alive. That was found by the Federal Court to be unconscionable conduct. The problem was that Coles was fined a grand total of $10 million for that infraction. This company has a turnover of many billions of dollars and it was fined $10 million. Justice Gordon actually said, 'The current maximum penalties are arguably inadequate for a corporation the size of Coles'. That's somewhat of an understatement, but everyone would agree that it was a massively inadequate fine. We need a bigger stick here. We need something that responds to such egregious misconduct with at least the threat of something happening that is much more significant because clearly our corporations do not feel restrained right now by the current laws to stop them from engaging in that kind of conduct. I have highlighted one but this occurred to multiple companies. Woolworths engaged in very similar conduct as well. It only came to light because the ACCC went through a rigorous process of demanding these documents under the information powers we have given them. We can't have a system that relies on the ACCC going around to every business, trying to check every email or communication on a year-by-year basis. We have to have a better structure in place that incentivises good ethical conduct from our major businesses. That's why this is so important. Section 46 is not used very often. The idea that these laws would make huge changes to the Australian economy is just not held up by the fact that in the first 30 years of section 46, only 15 cases were brought to the Federal or High Courts. Over the last few years, the National Party made some changes with the effects test. That's been hugely successful. There have been six cases in the first four years of its operation. I don't have data post 2021. I haven't been able to find it. In the first four years of those changes, six were brought after 15 and 30 and five of those six were private actions and weren't brought by the ACCC. That's great. That's exactly what we wanted to encourage—private litigation—so that we can get better resolution for businesses. This is a very, very sensible change that I'm happy to support and get behind. It's long past time that we do this as a nation. We can see there's a bit of heat and light at the moment—a bit of pressure on Coles and Woolworths—and they're obviously trying to show that they're giving discounts to the Australian people. But do you know how they're giving a lot of those discounts? They're buying food from other countries. They're screwing over our farmers behind the scenes while people can't see. We know that's happening right now. Then they have the temerity to offer and take credit for the discounts, when the discounts you're getting are being paid for by our farmers. Let's back our farmers. Let's back our consumers. Let's join the rest of the world and have a decent competition act that has reasonable penalties for poor behaviour. 09:35 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales In relation to divestiture and the current supermarket sector in our country, there are a lot of competing issues here. The coalition senators' dissenting report of the Senate Select Committee on Supermarket Prices, of which I was a member, said: Australia's supermarket sector remains dominated by two large players for a variety of reasons ranging from competition policy, investment settings, planning laws, transport, energy and industrial relations costs, and economies of scale. It is important that those companies do not abuse that market position and that appropriate safeguards are put in place to ensure the disincentives are substantial should they treat their producers or consumers unfairly. It is important Australia's competition regulator be empowered to act where this occurs, and for producers to have access to reasonable, affordable, and fair dispute mechanisms without fear or the threat of reprisals. We heard some very broad evidence throughout that inquiry about a lot of the practical problems that we have in this sector. Some of the things that I want to talk about specifically relate to small business growers and farmers. The coalition first called for a statutory review of the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct to be brought forward in late 2022. The government didn't act until January 2024. The statutory review of the food and grocery code was scheduled to commence in October 2023, three years after the commencement of the previous reforms to the code, but it took the government almost a hundred days to appoint a reviewer, in January 2024. In November 2023, the coalition also called for the ACCC to undertake a price inquiry, armed with tough powers, into meat and fresh produce, to investigate the supermarkets and to deal with the spiralling cost-of-living crisis in this country. That crisis was being felt by Australians not just with their mortgage repayments and not just with their rent but also at the supermarket checkout. Under section 95 of the Competition and Consumer Act, the Treasurer has legislated power to direct the ACCC and give it strong powers to compel information. But it wasn't until 25 January 2024 that the government directed the ACCC to conduct an inquiry into Australia's supermarket sector, including the pricing practices of the supermarkets and the relationship between wholesale—including farmgate—and retail prices. Again the government was slow to act. What did the committee find out? The committee heard substantial evidence about the disparity of relationships between growers, suppliers and the supermarkets and its harmful impact particularly on the horticultural sector. We heard examples of Dutch auctions with no capacity to bargain on price, inconsistent and non-uniform product standards being used, risk and cost being passed down the supply chain, extended payment timeframes of up to 184 days, informal contracting arrangements that leave producers with excess product and give supermarkets an ability to set the price, and the lack of alternative markets particularly for fresh produce to sell surplus product to. But one thing that I was disappointed about was that we didn't get a proper opportunity to challenge the large multinationals and investigate what effects they have on supermarket prices. For some reason, they didn't have to come in front of the inquiry in the same way that Woolworths, Coles and Aldi did. I don't think that's particularly reasonable, given the scale of the cost-of-living issues that Australians are facing in this country. The question we need to ask ourselves is: does divestiture actually solve this problem, and how? On 6 February 2024, Professor Allan Fels AO released his final report of an inquiry into price gouging and unfair pricing practices. During the inquiry I asked him a number of questions, including about his views on divestiture. I want to share comments from his independent report. It says, 'If forced divestiture resulted in a supermarket selling some of its stores to another large incumbent supermarket chain, the result could easily be greater concentration.' That's not more players in the market; that's greater concentration. If large incumbent supermarket chains were prohibited from buying the divested stores, that would leave only smaller supermarket chains and foreign supermarkets as potential buyers. Further, if these smaller chains were not interested or were not in a position to buy, the stores would be forced to close. This would be at the cost of the jobs of the workers in those stores and of inconvenience to local shoppers, who would need to go somewhere else to buy their groceries. If any business is forced to divest or get rid of part of its business, it's quite likely that the parts they will get rid of are the bits that aren't profitable. It is likely that the stores that are less profitable for large supermarket chains are those where they have greater difficulty getting to and from the store and where they have fewer customers. Those stores would primarily be in our remote and regional communities. A potential unintended consequence could well be that forcing divestiture powers into this sector without proper consideration could end up harming the people that we are attempting to protect, particularly in remote and regional communities, where they already pay more for their groceries than their metropolitan counterparts. We could create an environment where groceries become even more expensive, so that's something we really need to have a think about. The government delivered an interim report of the Independent Review of the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct in the middle of the supermarkets inquiry. Despite it making clear recommendations, there was no indication from witnesses, including the ACCC, that there was an immediate urgency to act on this. The government needs to act faster to strengthen the food and grocery code and respond to the serious concerns of our horticultural sector, as delegated legislation to make the code mandatory does not require legislation to pass parliament but rather requires the political will of Treasury. To ensure complete supply chain protection, the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct must seamlessly intersect with the horticulture and dairy codes of conduct. This should occur by having the horticulture and dairy codes as schedules of the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct, and that was included in our recommendations. We also recommended that price transparency policy should be carefully designed to ensure maximum benefit to consumers, with a minimum compliance burden on companies, and delivered through the ACCC rather than through new bodies. We don't need additional layers of regulation when we already have the ACCC. We have to enable the ACCC to do their job. The government should create clearer pathways for small producers and growers to apply for ACCC exemptions to share information. That was another one of our recommendations in this report. The committee heard a lot of evidence about the need for more competition in this sector. What we didn't hear was a lot of evidence about the need for divestiture. Aldi was one of the witnesses, and, as a relatively new entrant into the supermarket sector, it didn't consider divestiture to be a part of a solution to the problems being faced. In the line of questioning with Aldi, when asked what their greatest barriers to entry were, it wasn't their competitors; it was land and planning and the ability to find suitable sites to open their supermarkets. Last week CHOICE released a survey result about the price of a basket of groceries, and it discovered that the basic bundle is about $18 cheaper at Aldi than it was at Coles and Woolworths. That tells us that Aldi, as a market entrant who now holds around 10 per cent of the market share of the supermarkets, is delivering the competition that the market needs. This is what we need; we need broader competition. Divestiture in itself doesn't guarantee greater competition; what divestiture does is provide a blunt tool in relation to misconduct. The challenge that we have is that it takes a very long time to enforce. And, in the current cost-of-living crisis in which Australians are suffering significantly with their mortgage repayments, rent and energy prices, and at the checkout, the solution is to ensure that competitive practices are in place that will give us more choice, as Aldi has provided literally and figuratively through the CHOICE survey—not by throwing in another layer of legal and procedural obligations. If a regulator found that a supermarket had, in fact, breached its obligations, there would be legal proceedings, there would be challenges to legal proceedings, there would be an enforcement order in relation to divestiture and there would be a period of time for that enforcement to take place. During evidence in the supermarket inquiry, Professor Fels made the comment that that would take years; we all know that that would take years. These aren't problems that are going to be simply solved. If you have a legal proceeding in the supermarket sector that takes years and years, there is a cost attached to that. Who will bear the cost? That cost will flow on to the consumer. That is the very thing that we are trying to avoid—what has been called price gouging: that is, prices that are too high and unfair practices. Putting in a layer that isn't properly formed of divestiture could make those prices even higher. In the same report, the recommendation that we made in relation to divestiture is that we didn't believe that the committee persuasively found that divestiture would work in this case, but we didn't say that they shouldn't be pursued at all. They should be targeted to sectors of concern with appropriate safeguards for regional jobs and services, and they must meet a clear public benefit test. That is the big problem. There needs to be clear guidance on how and when it can be applied, and it must have appropriate safeguards in place, which this bill doesn't have. That is our particular concern: it doesn't do what it should do in terms of meeting those concerns. Nobody wants to see Australians pay more at the supermarket than they need to pay. Nobody wants to see small growers and suppliers suffer because of power imbalances. Australians are already struggling enough in a cost-of-living crisis, but we cannot put mechanisms in place that don't solve the particular problem at hand, and unfortunately, this bill doesn't solve the problem. This bill doesn't create fair and reasonable protections. What it does do is use a blunt tool to address a broader problem. It is a crucial first step that the government's merger reforms create an adequate regime to counter the issue of creeping acquisitions and land banking. That was another part of our recommendations, and that is something that hasn't been addressed to date and that we need to look at. We need to understand that having new market entrants, more competition, is the most effective way to bring down prices. Recent new market entrants have helped support competition in the sector, and that is what is needed to lower grocery prices. New entrants have adopted different approaches for dealing with suppliers, leveraging opportunities and streamlining business models to deliver mutual benefits for both customers and suppliers. 09:50 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I move: That the question be now put. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the closure motion, as moved by Senator Cox, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [09:55]
(The President—Senator Lines)

34 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 24 NOES Antic, A. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Fawcett, D. J. Kovacic, M. (Teller) 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. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

10:00 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the bill be read a second time.

The Senate divided. [10:00]
(The President—Senator Lines)

15 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 33 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Liddle, K. J. McAllister, J. R. McGrath, J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill 2024 9

Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill 2024

First Reading 9 10:04 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Senator McALLISTER 121628 by leave—I move: That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the bill, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings. I table a statement of reasons justifying the need for this bill to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows— Purpose of the Bill This bill sets the salary for the incoming Governor-General. Reasons for Urgency The Prime Minister has announced that His Majesty The King approved the appointment of Ms Samantha Mostyn AC as Australia's next Governor-General and she will be sworn-in on 1 July 2024. The salary of the Governor-General is prescribed in the Governor-General Act 1974 and, by operation of section 3 of the Constitution, cannot be varied during the Governor-General's term in office. In line with convention, the Governor-General's salary has been calculated to moderately exceed the estimated average salary of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia over the notional term of the appointment. To enable the salary to be set in time, the Governor-General Amendment Bill must pass both Houses and receive Royal Assent before Ms Mostyn assumes office on 1 July 2024. Question agreed to. Second Reading 9 10:05 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— This bill will set the salary of the next Governor-General. It amends the Governor-General Act 1974. The Governor-General is appointed by His Majesty The King. This is on the advice and recommendation of the Prime Minister and under the provisions of the Letters Patent relating to the Office of the Governor-General. On 3 April 2024, the Prime Minister announced that The King had approved his recommendation to appoint Ms Samantha Mostyn AC as our next Governor-General. This follows the conclusion of the term of His Excellency General the Honourable David Hurley AC DSC (Retired) as Governor-General. Ms Mostyn will be sworn in as Governor-General on 1 July 2024. Section 3 of the Constitution prevents the Governor-General's salary from being altered during their term of office. As such, it is necessary to set the next Governor-General's salary at a level appropriate for the duration of this term. Although the Governor-General serves at The King's pleasure, it is usual to serve for approximately five years. Accordingly, it is necessary to set the next Governor-General's salary at a level appropriate for the duration of this term. In line with past practice, the proposed salary is calculated by reference to the estimated average salary of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia over the notional five-year term of the appointment of the Governor-General. Where, in the past, a Governor-General has been the recipient of other Commonwealth entitlements—such as a military pension—the annual salary has been adjusted accordingly. Ms Mostyn is not a recipient of any such entitlements. The Chief Justice's salary is determined annually by the Remuneration Tribunal, an independent statutory authority. The Parliament must pass this Bill before the commencement of Ms Mostyn's term. Section three of the Constitution provides: The salary of a Governor-General shall not be altered during the continuance in office. 10:05 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Earlier this year, the Prime Minister announced that Samantha Mostyn would take up the reins as Australia's 28th Governor-General from 1 July 2024, following on from the announced retirement of His Excellency General the Hon. David Hurley. Section 3 of chapter 1 of the Australian Constitution requires that: The salary of a Governor-General shall not be altered during his continuance in office. It is pertinent that the Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill 2024 was legislated prior to Ms Mostyn's swearing in as Australia's 28th Governor-General next Monday. It's a longstanding practice that the Governor-General's salary is set slightly above the expected average annual salary of the Chief Justice of the High Court over the notional five-year term. The coalition will provide passage for this bill to ensure that this practice can be met. 10:06 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise to speak on the Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill 2024. The Greens are opposed to the bill. No other worker is getting a 43 per cent pay rise in this cost-of-living crisis. In fact, wages are still flatlined and women are still underpaid. So, until all women are getting a 43 per cent pay rise or all low-paid workers are getting a 43 per cent pay rise, the incoming Governor-General should not either. This is no reflection on our support for the appointment of Sam Mostyn as Governor-General. Whilst the Greens strongly believe that we should cut ties with the British monarchy, establish truth-telling and treaties with First Nations people and make Australia a republic, if we must have a representative of the monarch then Sam Mostyn is an inspired choice. It's wonderful to have another woman in that role and particularly one so strong on gender equality and on financial security for women. Sam Mostyn's work with the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, WEET, was very impressive and it provided many excellent recommendations to the government to actually improve women's equality, particularly low-paid women. Unfortunately, many of those recommendations are still on the shelf gathering dust. In her previous role as chair of the WEET, Sam Mostyn championed paying women more and lifting the minimum wage. That taskforce had many final recommendations which bear being recorded in Hansard. Recommendation 2.3 was: Support applications in the Fair Work jurisdiction that seek to raise the wages and improve the job quality of early childhood educators. As a step to remedying historical undervaluation of educators' work, ensure that the outcomes of these cases are fully funded. So it was to pay early childhood educators more. Recommendation 2.5 was: Fully implement the National Care and Support Economy Strategy and develop policies that improve care workers' wages, security and safety of their work, and recognises their work as a critical part of our society. This includes ensuring fair remuneration, access to professional development opportunities and mechanisms for career progression. In short, it was to pay carers more. Recommendation 2.8 was: Elevate the status of care work and attract a diverse and skilled workforce by valuing and adequately compensating care workers, including by supporting relevant Fair Work Commission cases and committing to fund their outcomes. Again, it was to pay carers more and actually fund an increase in pay. Recommendation 3.5 was: Ensure that minimum and award wage setting processes take into account what would be considered an appropriate living wage for employees. In short, it was to lift the minimum wage. Recommendation 3.8 was: Ensure that government funding of sectors and services facilitates the availability of high-quality and secure work in these areas. This will mean that funding is adequate to support living wages, decent work and the capacity to progress and develop in careers, e.g., in the early-childhood education and care, aged care and disability support sectors. Those WEET recommendations strongly suggest that the government invest in a pay rise for feminised industries in recognition of the historical undervaluation of their work. That's the sort of pay rise we should be debating now. It was not a recommendation of the WEET that the salary of the Governor-General be increased. How could we support a $200,000 pay rise of the Governor-General, regardless who it is that will fill that role, when our lowest paid workers are still being drastically underpaid? The Governor-General's salary has always been obscenely large. The current salary of $495,000 is more than enough for any one person. This is not about the merit of the incoming Governor-General whatsoever. This is the principle that in a cost-of-living crisis an archaic institutional role should not be getting an unnecessary pay rise. The government and I believe also the opposition might say this is just about convention that previous Governors-General have had their salary discounted because of their receipt of government pensions, usually military pensions, and convention that the salary for the Governor-General aligns with that of the Chief Justice of the High Court. Well, to that I say, just because it's convention doesn't make it right. And in a cost-of-living crisis where ordinary workers haven't had a pay rise anywhere near what the government is now proposing to pay one person, it just shows that the government is badly out of touch with the community. This is an entirely unnecessary pay rise. Without this bill, the Governor-General will still be paid $495,000, the same as for the male incumbent and still more than for any preceding Governor-General. To be clear, I think it's wonderful that we have an incoming Governor-General who didn't have to have a military background in order to be appointed to that role, and I think Sam Mostyn's previous work has led the way in terms of equality for feminised industries. We are a big fan of Sam Mostyn. What we're not a big fan of is Australia not becoming a republic, and we're not a big fan of massive pay rises when ordinary workers are not getting the same treatment. In a cost-of-living crisis, it's hard to believe that I'm honestly having to stand here—and nobody else is going to agree with us—and this government thinks a $200,000 pay rise for the Governor-General is a great idea. This is not a reflection on Sam Mostyn, an outstanding feminist. But I'm sorry: no-one should be paid that much. Who else is getting a 43 per cent pay rise at the moment? It sure ain't women, and it sure ain't low-paid workers. Any government who thinks raising the salary of the Governor-General while people are one rent rise away from homelessness and are struggling to buy groceries is seriously out of touch with the people they are supposed to be representing. The Greens cannot support a 43 per cent increase to the Governor-General's salary any more than we can support the overpayment of any other CEO, executive or senior public servant, especially not during a cost-of-living crisis and especially not while the lowest paid women in our workforce continue to be underpaid and undervalued. This bill would simply align the Governor-General with other overpaid executives and bureaucrats on the taxpayer dime. The CEOs of corporatised government services like the NBN and Australia Post are paid over $2 million a year whilst they oversee cuts to services and bungled rollouts. Reserve Bank Governor Michele Bullock is on $1 million while she oversees interest rate rises that have caused so much pain to families around the country. The Greens oppose this bill, and we are moving a second reading amendment for wage increases to low-paid workers and also for Australia to cut ties with the British monarchy, to establish truth-telling and treaties with First Nations people and to make Australia a republic. I now move that amendment, which has been circulated in my name: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that: (a) until low paid workers receive a 43% pay rise, the Governor-General should not ; and (b) the Government should cut ties with the British monarchy, establish truth telling and treaties with First Nations people, and make Australia a republic". This government has its priorities all wrong. This legislation is being rushed through parliament. If only we had other legislation—maybe tackling the housing crisis, or dealing with grocery prices—being rushed through parliament; we just tried to do that, and the government voted against it. The Greens oppose this obscene increase in salary for the Governor-General, and we will continue to fight for real cost-of-living relief and for an increase to the minimum wage for low-paid workers. 10:14 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill 2024 is yet another display of poor judgement from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. To increase the salary of the Governor-General by 43 per cent in a cost-of-living crisis is an insult to everyday Australians who are struggling with the Albanese government's cost-of-living crisis. The salary of the Governor-General is fixed for the period of her term, so the rise by $214,000 dollars to a new salary of $709,000 is the only increase in the next five years. A 43 per cent pay rise suggests that the government knows inflation is going to get much worse. Not only will Ms Mostyn be earning $709,000 but the role also includes two homes: Government House in Yarralumla and Admiralty House in Kirribilli, right on Sydney Harbour. The role includes free travel, free food, servants and a pool. The Governor-General receives a pension which is legislated at 60 per cent of salary or $425,000 for life—not a bad pension. The appointment of Ms Mostyn is a controversial choice. The tradition for 124 years has been to select our Governor-General from the ranks of the judiciary, the military, state governors and senior politicians. This reflects the skill set a governor-general needs to lead the Australian people in a time of civil crisis or war. The Governor-General is, of course, commander of Australia's armed forces; the Prime Minister is not the commander of Australia's armed forces. Ms Mostyn comes to the role with a background in activism. It's an appointment which may serve to politicise the role of the Governor-General, and that's sad to see. The Commonwealth of Australia deserves more respect than the Prime Minister has shown with this appointment and with this obscene pay rise. One Nation opposes this bill. 10:17 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I want to make a couple of comments on the Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill 2024 because I think there has been a fundamental misrepresentation from the Greens and from One Nation about what is happening here. If you accept the Greens political party's point that this is a 43 per cent pay increase, and if the Senate agrees with that—which it won't today—that means that the incoming Governor-General should work for half of what the current Governor-General is working for. That is the position— Senator GALLAGHER ING Yes, it is, Senator Waters, so don't come in here and say that there's a 43 per cent pay increase happening when you know from the briefing that has been provided to you that the former Governor-General was in receipt of military pension in addition to his salary. He had his salary and a military pension, which equalled, on average, what is being reflected for the incoming Governor-General. So you are asking the incoming Governor-General, in that very important position, to work for half of what the former Governor-General is being paid. It has been the longstanding practice in this chamber, including being agreed to by the Greens political party, that the salary of the Governor-General is linked to the salary of the Chief Justice of the High Court. That salary is set by the independent Remuneration Tribunal on a yearly basis. Because the Constitution requires the salary of the Governor-General to be set by the parliament, we have used that position in order to reflect the appropriate salary for the incoming Governor-General at the level that has been set, reflecting past practice. So I find it absolutely incredible that the Greens political party, which is all about ensuring that people are paid properly for the work that they do, would then come in here and try to argue a populist point—which, I accept, will get a headline. Well done! Congratulations! But you are arguing, on principle, that the incoming Governor-General of Australia should get half, or 43 per cent less, than the current Governor-General, only because she is not in receipt of a military pension. That is what you are arguing for today. On the broader point about appropriate wages for low-paid workers in this country, I agree that more has to be done, but you will not have seen a government in this place that has done more in two years to lift the wages of low-paid workers and continue to advocate, in particular, for feminised industries. The Fair Work Commission now has forecast—because of the changes this place has made and the policies of this government to put in place, essentially, gender analysis of the minimum wage for those industries which are highly feminised. That work is underway. In the meantime, aged-care workers have had a pay rise. The budget makes a provision for early childhood education and care workers. We are focused on ensuring that women get a fair crack at not only employment opportunities but also appropriate wages. Again, you will not see a government that has done more in two years, and will continue to do more, than this government. To then conflate that with the traditional mechanism for setting the Governor-General's wages is a complete misrepresentation. Good luck with the headlines that you will get that you're advocating for this. But, at the same time you're advocating for it, explain why you think that the incoming Governor-General deserves 43 per cent less than the current Governor-General or 43 per cent less than the Chief Justice of the High Court. It is an outrageous position. I cannot believe it's being argued in this chamber, and it should not be supported. 10:21 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I rise to sum up the debate on the Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill 2024. This bill continues a longstanding convention under successive governments that has been applied to the appointment of successive Governors-General. The practice has been to set the salary of the Governor-General by reference to the average salary of the Chief Justice of the High Court over the next five years. It has also been the practice that the salary of the Governor-General is adjusted to take into account any government funded pension that they may receive. This bill faithfully applies these precedents. As my colleague the Minister for Women has noted, the Greens have circulated a second reading amendment. The government will be opposing this amendment. It contains a fundamental and consequential mistruth. The Governor-General is not receiving a 43 per cent pay increase. It is surprising that the Greens political party are suggesting that a female Governor-General should receive a lower salary than her male predecessor because she is not in receipt of a military pension. The argument made by the Greens is both disappointing and irresponsible. I make the more general point that this is a narrow bill that is drafted to achieve a narrow legislative outcome and there are other opportunities to debate the other issues raised by the Greens in their amendment. The Greens amendment will do nothing to advance the pay of working people, nothing to progress a republic and nothing to progress towards truth-telling and reconciliation but would prevent the government from undertaking a constitutional obligation. So we won't be supporting their amendment. More generally I commend bill to the Senate and thank the senators for their contributions. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Waters be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [10:27]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Allman-Payne)

10 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 29 NOES Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

10:30 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 The question is now that the bill be read a second time. The Senate divided. [10:31] (The Acting Deputy President—Senator Allman-Payne)

The Senate divided. [10:31]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Allman-Payne)

27 AYES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 12 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Babet, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

Third Reading 14 10:34 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 No amendments have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading. 10:34 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I move: That this bill be now read a third time. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 The question is that the bill be read a third time.

The Senate divided. [10:38]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Allman-Payne)

24 AYES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 11 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.

Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024 15

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

Second Reading 15 10:46 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Ruston on sheet 2662 be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [10:46]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Allman-Payne)

27 AYES Antic, A. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. 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. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Tyrrell, T. M. 32 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

10:49 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move the amendment that I foreshadowed in my second reading speech: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes that there is significant uncertainty in relation to power of teachers to confiscate and destroy vapes found in the possession of students on school grounds; and (b) calls on the Government to work with state and territory governments to establish a regime authorising teachers to confiscate and destroy vapes found in the possession of students on school grounds". Question negatived. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee 16 10:51 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I table a supplementary explanatory memorandum relating to the government amendments to be moved to this bill. I move: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 1, column 1), omit "1 to 3", substitute "1 to 4". (2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute: (3) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add: (4) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 12), at the end of the clause, add: Note 1: Subject to item 20 of Schedule 4, the provisions of the Therapeutic Goods (Medicines and OTG—Authorised Supply) Rules 2022 amended or inserted by this Act, and any other provisions of that instrument, may be amended or repealed by an instrument made under subsection 19(7A) of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (see subsection 13(5) of the Legislation Act 2003). Note 2: Subject to item 20 of Schedule 4, the provisions of the Therapeutic Goods (Poisons Standard—June 2024) Instrument 2024 amended or inserted by this Act, and any other provisions of that instrument, may be amended or repealed by an instrument made under subsection 52D(2) of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (see subsection 13(5) of the Legislation Act 2003). Note 3: Subject to item 20 of Schedule 4, the provisions of the Therapeutic Goods (Medical Devices) Regulations 2002 and the Therapeutic Goods Regulations 1990 amended or inserted by this Act, and any other provisions of those regulations, may be amended or repealed by regulations made under section 63 of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (see subsection 13(5) of the Legislation Act 2003). (5) Page 2 (after line 12), after clause 3, insert: 4 Review of operation of amendments (1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by Schedules 1, 3 and 4 to this Act and any regulations or other legislative instruments made for the purposes of those amendments. (2) The review must commence no later than 1 July 2027. (3) The persons who conduct the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 6 months after the commencement of the review. (4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister. (6) Schedule 1, item 11, page 7 (line 10), after "classes of vaping goods.", insert "In deciding whether to give a consent, the Secretary must comply with the decision-making principles (if any) determined by the Minister by legislative instrument.". (7) Schedule 1, item 11, page 18 (after line 14), after subsection 41QC(11), insert: Exception — possession for personal use (11A) Subsections (1) to (3) and (10) and (11) do not apply in relation to the possession of a quantity of a kind of vaping goods by the person if: (a) the vaping goods have been lawfully supplied to the person; and (b) the vaping goods are for use by the person personally; and (c) the quantity is less than 5 times the commercial quantity of that kind of vaping goods. Note: The person bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in subsection (11A): see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code and section 41QE of this Act. (8) Schedule 1, item 11, page 18 (line 15), at the end of the heading to subsection 41QC(12), add "—general". (9) Schedule 1, item 11, page 20 (line 2) to page 23 (line 3), omit section 41QD, substitute: 41QD Offences and civil penalty provision — possessing less than commercial quantity of vaping goods Offences (1) A person commits an offence if: (a) the person is a retailer in relation to retail premises in Australia; and (b) the person possesses a quantity of a kind of vaping goods at the retail premises; and (c) the quantity is less than the commercial quantity of that kind of vaping goods. Penalty: Imprisonment for 12 months or 500 penalty units, or both. Note: For the liability of an executive officer of a body corporate, see sections 54B and 54BA. (2) Absolute liability applies to paragraph (1)(b). (3) A person commits an offence of strict liability if: (a) the person is a retailer in relation to retail premises in Australia; and (b) the person possesses a quantity of a kind of vaping goods at the retail premises; and (c) the quantity is less than the commercial quantity of that kind of vaping goods. Penalty: 60 penalty units. Civil penalty provision (4) A person contravenes this subsection if: (a) the person is a retailer in relation to retail premises in Australia; and (b) the person possesses a quantity of a kind of vaping goods at the retail premises; and (c) the quantity is less than the commercial quantity of that kind of vaping goods. Maximum civil penalty: (a) for an individual—1,000 penalty units; and (b) for a body corporate—10,000 penalty units. (5) A person who contravenes subsection (4) in relation to a kind of vaping goods commits a separate contravention of that subsection in respect of each unit of the quantity of vaping goods of that kind possessed by the person at the retail premises in Australia. Note: For unit of vaping goods, see subsection 3(1). Exceptions — general (6) Subsections (1) to (5) do not apply if subsections (7) and (8) apply in relation to the possession of the vaping goods by the person. Note: The person bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in subsections (7) and (8): see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code and section 41QE of this Act. (7) This subsection applies in relation to the possession of the vaping goods by the person if: (a) the vaping goods are therapeutic goods that are entered on the Register; or (b) both of the following apply: (i) the vaping goods are therapeutic goods that are exempt goods under regulations made for the purposes of subsection 18(1) or an exempt device under regulations made for the purposes of subsection 41HA(1), and the sponsor has given the Secretary a notice in compliance with the exemption; (ii) the vaping goods are not the subject of a determination by the Secretary, published on the Department's website, that the supply of the goods be stopped or should cease because the Secretary is satisfied that the supply of the goods compromises public health and safety or the goods do not conform with a standard applicable to the goods; or (c) the vaping goods are covered by a determination made by the Minister under section 41R. (8) This subsection applies in relation to the possession of the vaping goods by the person if: (a) both of the following apply: (i) the person is a pharmacist, medical practitioner or nurse practitioner who is the holder of a licence, or is otherwise authorised, to supply one or more substances included in Schedule 4 to the current Poisons Standard under a law of the State or Territory in which the person possesses the goods; (ii) the possession of the goods is in accordance with the licence or authority; or (b) both of the following apply: (i) the Secretary has given the person a consent under subsection 41RC(1) to possess the vaping goods; (ii) the possession is in accordance with the consent; or (c) in the case of vaping goods that are covered by a determination made by the Minister under section 41R: (i) the person is specified in the determination, or is included in a class of persons that is specified in the determination, in relation to those goods; and (ii) the possession is in accordance with the determination. Exception — possession for personal use (9) Subsections (1) to (5) do not apply in relation to the possession of a quantity of a kind of vaping goods by the person if: (a) the vaping goods are for use by the person personally; and (b) the quantity is not more than the permitted quantity of that kind of vaping goods. Note: The person bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in subsection (9): see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code and section 41QE of this Act. Definitions (10) In this section: permitted quantity of a kind of vaping goods means the quantity of that kind of vaping goods prescribed by the regulations. retailer in relation to retail premises in Australia means any of the following: (a) an owner, lessee or occupier of retail premises in Australia; (b) a person conducting a business or undertaking at, or in connection or association with, retail premises in Australia; (c) a director, officer or agent of a person referred to in paragraph (a) or (b); (d) a person performing work in any capacity (including, but not limited to, an employee or a contractor) for, or on behalf of, a person referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) at, or in connection or association with, retail premises in Australia. retail premises means premises: (a) from which goods or services are available for supply, or are supplied, to a consumer; or (b) that are used in connection with the supply of goods or services to a consumer; (whether or not the premises are used wholly or predominantly for that purpose). Note: For premises, see subsection 3(1). (10) Schedule 1, item 11, page 25 (after line 13), after subsection 41RC(2), insert: (2A) In making a decision under subsection (1), the Secretary must comply with the decision-making principles (if any) determined under subsection (2B). (2B) The Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine principles (decision-making principles) that the Secretary must comply with in making a decision under subsection (1). (2C) Without limiting subsection (2B), the decision-making principles may set out any of the following: (a) circumstances in which a consent under subsection (1) must not be given; (b) matters that must be taken into account in making a decision under subsection (1); (c) matters that must not be taken into account in making a decision under subsection (1); (d) matters that may be taken into account in making a decision under subsection (1). (11) Schedule 1, item 27, page 29 (line 8) to page 30 (line 3), section 42DZ to be opposed. (12) Schedule 1, item 27, page 30 (lines 23 to 28), omit subsections 42DZC(1) and (2), substitute: Secretary may authorise advertising (1) The Secretary may, by legislative instrument, authorise the advertising, or a class of advertising, of specified vaping goods or a specified class of vaping goods. (13) Schedule 1, item 27, page 31 (lines 1 to 11), omit subsection 42DZC(3). (14) Schedule 1, item 27, page 31 (after line 14), insert: (5) Without limiting subsection (4), conditions in an authorisation of advertising may relate to any of the following: (a) the nature of the audience to which the advertising is targeted; (b) the form of the advertising; (c) the content of the advertising; (d) representations or information on: (i) the labels of specified vaping goods or a specified class of vaping goods; or (ii) the packages in which specified vaping goods or a specified class of vaping goods are contained; or (iii) any material included with the package in which specified vaping goods or a specified class of vaping goods are contained. (15) Schedule 1, item 27, page 31 (lines 15 to 20), omit subsections 42DZC(5) and (6). (16) Schedule 1, item 55, page 50 (lines 8 to 12), omit the item, substitute: 55 Application of amendment Part 6-2A of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989, as inserted by item 54 of this Schedule, applies in relation to the following: (a) a thing (including vaping goods) that is seized by an authorised person, under a warrant issued under section 50 of that Act, on or after the commencement of this item; (b) vaping goods that were seized by an authorised person, under a warrant issued under section 50 of that Act, before the commencement of this item, if the vaping goods are in the custody of the authorised person immediately before that commencement. (17) Schedule 1, Part 4, page 50 (after line 18), at the end of the Part, add: 57A Subsection 60(1) (at the end of the definition of initial decision ) Add: ; or (n) to give directions under subsection 42YT(2). 57B After subsection 60(2D) Insert: (2E) If the Secretary or a delegate of the Secretary makes a decision to give directions under subsection 42YT(2), a person is not entitled to request the Minister to reconsider the decision unless the person is the person to whom the directions were given. (18) Schedule 1, item 100, page 61 (line 13), after "approval", insert "or authority". (19) Schedule 1, page 61 (after line 24), after item 100, insert: 101A Subparagraph 22(7)(b)(ii) After "approval", insert "or authority". (20) Schedule 1, item 102, page 62 (line 7), after "approval", insert "or authority". (21) Schedule 1, item 106, page 62 (line 26), after "approval", insert "or authority". (22) Schedule 1, item 111, page 63 (lines 16 and 17), omit "exemptionor approval", substitute "exemption, approval or authority". (23) Schedule 1, item 111, page 63 (after line 25), after subparagraph 41MN(9)(b)(iii), insert: (iiia) a condition of an authority under section 41HC; or (24) Schedule 1, item 111, page 64 (after line 13), after subparagraph 41MN(9A)(b)(iii), insert: (iiia) a condition of an authority under section 41HC; or (25) Schedule 1, item 111, page 64 (after line 25), after subparagraph 41MN(9B)(b)(iii), insert: (iiia) a condition of an authority under section 41HC; or (26) Schedule 1, item 112, page 65 (after line 5), after subparagraph 41MNA(2A)(b)(iii), insert: (iiia) a condition of an authority under section 41HC; or (27) Page 69 (after line 15), at the end of the Bill, add: Schedule 4 — Supply of therapeutic vaping goods by pharmacists without prescription Part 1 — Amendments Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 1 Subparagraph 41QB(7)(d)(i) Omit "Schedule 4", substitute "Schedule 3". 2 Paragraphs 41QB(8)(b) and (10)(b) Omit "Schedule 4", substitute "Schedule 3". 3 Subparagraph 41QC(14)(d)(i) Omit "Schedule 4", substitute "Schedule 3". 4 Subparagraph 41QD(8)(a)(i) Omit "Schedule 4", substitute "Schedule 3". Therapeutic Goods (Medical Devices) Regulations 2002 5 Schedule 4 (table item 2.17, column headed "Conditions") Omit "Schedule 4 to the current Poisons Standard" (wherever occurring), substitute "Schedule 3 to the current Poisons Standard". Therapeutic Goods (Medicines and OTG — Authorised Supply) Rules 2022 6 Paragraph 5A(2)(c) After "medical practice", insert "or good nursing practice (as the case requires)". 7 Paragraphs 5A(2)(d) and (e) After "medical practitioner", insert "or nurse practitioner". 8 Subsection 5A(3) (heading) Repeal the heading, substitute: Supply by a pharmacist — with prescription 9 Subsection 5A(3) Omit "health practitioner", substitute "pharmacist". 10 Subsection 5A(4) Omit "health practitioner" (wherever occurring), substitute "pharmacist". 11 At the end of section 5A Add: Supply by a pharmacist — without prescription (5) A pharmacist is authorised to supply a therapeutic good to a patient where: (a) the therapeutic good is within the class of therapeutic goods specified in column 2 of an item in the table in Schedule 1A; and (b) the therapeutic good is in the dosage form specified in column 3 of that item; and (c) the therapeutic good is to be administered by the route specified in column 4 of that item; and (d) the supply is for the indication specified in column 5 of that item; and (e) the supply is to a patient who is 18 years of age or over; and (f) the pharmacist requests and sights evidence of the patient's identity and age; and (g) the quantity of the goods does not exceed the quantity that is reasonably required for a patient's therapeutic use for 1 month and that quantity is supplied to the patient only once in a month; and (h) the concentration of nicotine in the goods does not exceed 20 mg/mL; and (i) the conditions specified in subsections (6) and (7) are satisfied. (6) The pharmacist must: (a) inform the patient, or a parent or a guardian of the patient, that the therapeutic good is not a listed good or registered good; and (b) obtain informed consent from the patient, or a parent or a guardian of the patient, in relation to, and before, the supply of the therapeutic good; and (c) supply the therapeutic good in accordance with good pharmacy practice; and (d) provide professional advice to the patient on alternative cessation supports and therapies, appropriate dose and frequency depending on age, weight and severity of condition, length of treatment, suitable titration, and interactions with other medicines; and (e) provide contact details about smoking cessation support services to the patient; and (f) if the pharmacist becomes aware that the patient has suffered an adverse event in relation to the therapeutic good—notify the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the sponsor of the therapeutic good about the adverse event in accordance with the reporting guidelines set out in the SAS Guidance; and (g) if the pharmacist becomes aware of a defect in the therapeutic good—notify the Therapeutic Goods Administration and the sponsor of the therapeutic good in accordance with the reporting guidelines set out in the SAS Guidance. (7) The pharmacist must store the therapeutic good in a part of the pharmacy premises to which the public does not have access. Therapeutic Goods (Poisons Standard — June 2024) Instrument 2024 12 Subsection 49(1) (table item 27, column 1) Before "4", insert "3 or". 13 In the appropriate position in Schedule 3 Insert: NICOTINE in therapeutic vaping goods (within the meaning of the Therapeutic Goods Regulations 1990) in final dosage form for smoking cessation or the management of nicotine dependence when: (a) for supply to persons aged 18 years and over; and (b) the pharmacist requests and sights evidence of the patient's identity and age; and (c) the pharmacist provides professional advice to the patient on alternative cessation supports and therapies, appropriate dose and frequency depending on age, weight and severity of condition, length of treatment, suitable titration, and interactions with other medicines; and (d) the pharmacist provides contact details about smoking cessation support services to the patient; and (e) the quantity of the goods does not exceed the quantity that is reasonably required for a patient's therapeutic use for 1 month and that quantity is supplied to the patient only once in a month; and (f) the concentration of nicotine in the goods does not exceed 20 mg/mL; and except: (g) in preparations for oromucosal or transdermal administration for human therapeutic use when included in the Register as an aid in withdrawal either from tobacco smoking or nicotine vaping; or (h) in tobacco prepared and packed for smoking. 14 Schedule 4 (entry for "NICOTINE") Repeal the entry, substitute: # NICOTINE in preparations for human use except: (a) when included in Schedule 3; or (b) in preparations for oromucosal or transdermal administration for human therapeutic use when included in the Register as an aid in withdrawal either from tobacco smoking or nicotine vaping; or (c) in tobacco prepared and packed for smoking. 15 Schedule 7 (paragraph (a) of the entry for "NICOTINE") Before "4", insert "3 or". 16 Index (entry for "NICOTINE") After: Schedule 4 insert: Schedule 3 Therapeutic Goods Regulations 1990 17 Schedule 5A (table item 15, column 3) Omit "Schedule 4 to the current Poisons Standard" (wherever occurring), substitute "Schedule 3 to the current Poisons Standard". Part 2 — Application and other provisions 18 Application of amendments The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to the import, manufacture, possession or supply of therapeutic goods on or after the day this Schedule commences. 19 Amendments of current Poisons Standard Provisions of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989, or the Therapeutic Goods Regulations 1990, in relation to the requirements or procedure for amending the current Poisons Standard (within the meaning of that Act) do not apply to the amendments of the current Poisons Standard made by this Schedule. 20 Restrictions on amending instruments (1) A legislative instrument made under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (other than paragraph 52D(2)(b)) that: (a) is made on or after the commencement of this Schedule; and (b) amends or repeals the amendments made by this Schedule (other than the amendments of the current Poisons Standard); must not commence before the end of the period in which the instrument could be disallowed in either House of the Parliament. (2) Subitems (3) and (4) apply in relation to a legislative instrument made under paragraph 52D(2)(b) of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 that: (a) is made on or after the commencement of this Schedule; and (b) amends or repeals the amendments of the current Poisons Standard made by this Schedule. (3) Despite subsection 52D(4A) of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989, section 42 (disallowance) of the Legislation Act 2003 applies to the legislative instrument, to the extent that it amends or repeals the amendments of the current Poisons Standard made by this Schedule. (4) The legislative instrument must not commence before the end of the period in which it could be disallowed in either House of the Parliament. (5) A person must not make an application under subsection 52EAA(1) of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 for: (a) an amendment of the entry relating to nicotine inserted into Schedule 3 to the current Poisons Standard by this Schedule; or (b) an amendment of the entry relating to nicotine inserted into Schedule 4 to the current Poisons Standard by this Schedule; or (c) any amendment related to the entries relating to nicotine referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subitem. (6) This item is repealed at the end of the day the report of the review required by section 4 of this Act is tabled in both Houses of the Parliament. 10:52 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I'm keen to get a few answers in relation to the amendments that you've just moved. They relate to the change in position of the government from proposing an F4 prescription model for vaping products to an F3 pharmacy model, which is something that has happened in the later stages of this bill and subsequent to its passage in its previous form through the House of Representatives. Minister, I'm keen to understand: in the last sitting period, the House of Representatives put through a version of the bill, and you are now seeking to amend the bill quite substantially. Who did the government consult with before making the decision to move to the pharmacy F3 prescription model that is currently being proposed by these amendments? 10:53 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory These are government amendments that have come out of good faith consultations, Senator Ruston, with the crossbench. These amendments strengthen the laws and clarify the intent that has always been in the laws to return vaping to its original state of purpose of helping hardened smokers to quit by cracking down on the commercial sale and supply of recreational vapes while ensuring that those people who really need a therapeutic vape to help them quit can get one. We've also listened to feedback generally about how important it is for people to have quick access to a quit consultation with a healthcare professional when they seek it. We know that a pharmacy is often the most accessible place people turn to when they need health advice, especially in remote and rural areas. After a 10-month period of having those quick conversations with their GP, we will expand the range of healthcare professionals who can have those conversations and recommend whether a therapeutic vape is needed to include pharmacists. I am conscious of the media commentary around the changes, but we do have the support of thousands of pharmacies across the country in relation to this. This has been a long process, one that Minister Mark Butler has worked diligently on with the health sector, the AMA, GPs and pharmacies, so we are prepared to move these amendments. 10:55 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I note you made the comment in your contribution that thousands of pharmacies around Australia support your change from an S4 to an S3 model. How many pharmacists did the government consult with before changing its mind around this model and moving to an S3? 10:55 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I believe I've just answered that. 10:55 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Would it be possible for you to provide advice to this chamber as to who those thousands of pharmacists were? 10:55 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory It has been public consultation, very much been on the record. We've seen that through the Senate and the processes that have gone through the parliament. The consultations that have taken place across the country have been very clear through what I've said here and what the minister has said in media interviews. 10:56 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia When did the government advise the peak representative pharmaceutical bodies of its intention to change the model for access to vaping products? 10:56 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory There's no doubt, since this came in as a discussion at the end of last year and even as early as this year, that this was going to be a very difficult task but one that was necessary for our country in terms of ensuring the safety of children in particular. So the conversations, the inquiries and the meetings, as I outlined in my initial response to you, have been fully on the record. That's all I have to say on it. 10:57 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I'm keen to be really clear about what I'm asking you. When were the peak pharmacy bodies in Australia advised of the decision of the government—obviously in consultation with your agreement with the Greens—to change its policy position, which is reflected in the amendments to this bill? 10:57 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory We are in constant conversation with the pharmacy sector and with the medical fraternity more broadly across the country. There is a very complete understanding of the machinations of the parliament and the differences that different parties may hold on particular pieces of legislation. They trust that those conversations we have as political leaders with those political parties will still take on board the issues that those areas and those sectors have raised with us. This is not a surprise. This is something that has been clearly supported, and the minister is very confident in that support. 10:58 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Were the Pharmacy Guild or the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia advised of the decision by the government to move to an S3 model for the sale of vapes in Australia prior to the announcement on Monday by the Greens? 10:58 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Senator, I can say this. The Pharmacy Guild of Australia stood beside the minister for health only a month ago, and Trent Twomey said: … Australia's 6,000 community pharmacies stand ready, willing, and able to work with both the Commonwealth and State and Territory Governments to not only keep vapes out of the hands of our children … but also to increase the accessibility of smoking cessation alternatives. This is exactly what our laws here will achieve. 10:59 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Just to be very clear: are you telling this parliament, this chamber, that the Pharmacy Guild of Australia supports the decision of the government to move to an S3 model for the sale of vapes in Australia? That's what you appear to have just said, although I don't think you specifically and explicitly said that, but I would like you to advise this chamber: have you ever had receipt from the Pharmacy Guild to say that they support your decision to move to the S3 model? What you've just described was a commentary from Mr Twomey when an S4 model was before this chamber and was the government's policy. Have you any evidence whatsoever to substantiate your claim that the Pharmacy Guild support the decision of this government to change their position about the need for a GP prescription to access vapes in this country? 11:00 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Senator Ruston, your question was in relation to consultation with the pharmacy and Pharmacy Guild, which is what I responded to. In terms of your specific question about whether there is support now, I can certainly take that question on notice as to whether the minister has something in writing, and I'm more than happy to get back to you on that. 11:00 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Just for the sake of being absolutely clear about what I'm talking about here, I am talking about a decision that was communicated to the Australian public on Monday that a deal had been reached between the government and the Australian Greens to move the model by which Australians can access vapes from requiring a prescription from a GP or a nurse practitioner to no longer requiring that. The requirement now, according to the government's amendments to this legislation, is that pharmacies around Australia will be asked to supply vapes to Australians without a script, and they will also be required to be the disposal point for vapes once they've been used. Now, this is a significant change in what has been out as public consultation. The exposure draft of the bill for the entire time that it out in community consultation was predicated on a prescription model, and that prescription model is something that has been in place in Australia for a very long time. What we've seen is a significant change. I want to make it very clear, minister: you are conflating two issues that are not the same. I'm asking you about the change of position by the government that was announced to the Australian public on Monday. I'm not talking about consultation that happened prior to that. I'm not talking about what guild may have referred to or commented about, or about the previous position of the government. I am very keen to understand what has transpired prior to the decision of the government to agree with the Greens to change the model of prescription, dispensing and disposal of vapes in Australia that was announced on Monday. It's pretty clear, if you read the media over the last two days, that the Pharmacy Guild and the Pharmacy Society of Australia do not want to sell vapes. They do not want to be the disposal units for used vapes. They've made it very clear. While I understand that you're not the minister and you can only report what you have been advised from the senior minister in this place, I think it is very disingenuous for the government to suggest that the pharmacies across Australia are supportive of the decision by the government to do a deal with the Greens to change the way vapes are available in Australia. But what is worse than this is, despite your preparedness to admit to it, the Pharmacy Guild, the Pharmacy Society and the 6,000 businesses that make up our frontline community pharmacists around this country did not know anything about the deal that you had done with the Greens until they saw the release from the Greens on Monday afternoon. On Monday afternoon the Greens made a release to say that they had done a deal, and that was when Australia found out that you were going to change the mechanism through which vapes were going to be made available in Australia. Subsequent to that, pharmacies have come out and said they don't want to sell. They say it's completely unworkable, and there are a whole heap of concerns that are now coming out, because there has been no consultation with the pharmacy sector. Once again, we have got a government making a policy change that affects 6,000 small businesses around the country, and they haven't even bothered to speak to them. They have not bothered to speak to them, they have not bothered to hear their concerns, they have not even bothered to think through the logistical implications of doing this. Minister, what is the maximum quantity of a vaping product that a pharmacist can supply to a patient in a single transaction? 11:04 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I think the only ones who are being disingenuous here, Senator, are the Liberals. Where have you been in the last six months in any of these consultations? We are so close to getting this piece of legislation across. You know, and every single senator on that side who is going to oppose this knows, how important this is to our country, especially the health of our children. You also know, from the answers that I provided here, that we have had continuous discussions with the Pharmacy Guild, with pharmacies, with GPs and with the medical fraternity. We know that, across every state and territory jurisdiction, there is support behind this, from every chief health officer and every public health group including the AMA, the Royal Australian College of GPs, the Cancer Council and many others. So please let's have a really good look at who's being disingenuous here. 11:05 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Does the Pharmacy Guild support this amendment? 11:05 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Please repeat the question, Senator. 11:05 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Are you refusing to answer my question? The TEMPORARY CHAIR e68 Order! The minister is not refusing. She politely asked you to repeat the question, because I saw in the corner of my eye the minister was seeking— Senator RUSTON 243273 My sincere apologies. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you. Back to square one. We'll play fair. Senator RUSTON 243273 I'm happy to play fair. You know that, Temporary Chair Sterle. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Yes. That's why I was shocked. Senator RUSTON 243273 I'm for fair play, just like you. I said: does the Pharmacy Guild support your amendment that you've just moved? 11:06 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I am certainly advised that thousands of pharmacies support our amendment. 11:06 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Could I perhaps ask again: does the Pharmacy Guild support the government's amendment? 11:06 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory As I responded earlier, in terms of any written documentation that has been provided to the minister—if there has been any—I am more than happy to take that on notice and table that if appropriate. 11:06 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Does the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia support your amendment? 11:06 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory We are certainly working very closely with them. That is my advice. 11:06 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Could I just get it clear: you're working closely with them on something that you're going to ask this chamber to vote on by midday today, so you're going to guillotine this but you're working closely on it? It doesn't seem like there's much working closely when the decision's going to be made by 12 o'clock because you've chosen to guillotine this particular bill. Before we were talking about that, I asked you: what is the maximum quantity of a vaping product that a pharmacist can supply to a patient in a single transaction? 11:07 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory One month if not prescribed, and, if prescribed, the prescribed amount. 11:07 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Given the range of products, nicotine strengths and consumer usage patterns, how is a pharmacist supposed to objectively determine what constitutes a month's supply? 11:08 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Well, you know, I think what we're asking here is: how well trained are pharmacists? I think that's almost an insult to the intelligence of pharmacists across the country. They fill prescriptions for lots of medications—hundreds and hundreds of medications—across the country for different treatments, and I'm sure they're more than capable of understanding how much a month of supply is. 11:08 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Under most prescribing arrangements, the pharmacist would be given information on the quantity of that prescription. For instance, pseudoephedrine has a requirement of the quantity that can be supplied in that period. So I'm just interested to understand what training is going to be in place for pharmacists, particularly when the pharmacy sector have already been very clear that they don't want to do this anyway because they don't believe that it fits in with the role that they play in the community. So, whilst I do absolutely respect the extraordinary professionalism and health knowledge of our pharmacists, we're talking about a completely different thing here. So, once again, I would like to understand: if somebody walks into a pharmacy and they are allowed one month's prescription, what does that entail? How are the pharmacists supposed to be able to meet the legal obligations of supplying a month? 11:09 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I'll just reflect back on my response about the Pharmaceutical Society. My response was that we are working closely. One of those areas where we are working closely obviously is this particular point about the guidance that's required for pharmacies to be able to know what to do in terms of the month prescription. 11:10 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Minister, I would suggest this is actually the law; it's not professional guidance that we're putting through here. More specifically, is the minister aware of concerns regarding pharmacies' liability or professional indemnity if they supply unregistered products without a prescription? 11:10 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Senator, I think you would know that they would all have indemnity insurance and would be aware, whether it's around vaping or any of the other products that they provide to customers. I'm just trying to work out where you're trying to go with this line of questioning when we know that it is a general practice of pharmacists to be across all of these concerns. 11:11 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia My specific question was: were you aware of the concerns? So is the government aware of these concerns? 11:11 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I'm advised that there are always issues raised, and this is one that's not new to the government. 11:12 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia (): What I need to understand is whether the government has itself sought to understand whether existing indemnity and liability insurance is sufficient to cover the requirement of pharmacies to provide and supply these particular products. Has the government been through the process of understanding whether there is any liability that's attached to an insufficiency of professional indemnity insurance to cover the supply of vape products, given the nature of vape products? Has the government sought to satisfy itself that there is no problem? 11:12 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Thank you, Senator. I am certainly advised, and I know that, from your previous role as a minister, you know that when pieces of legislation go through all of these processes are checked through, including indemnity and looking at liability. They are part and parcel of what we try to do in the scrutiny of any piece of legislation that comes before the Senate. 11:13 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Could the minister point me to the part of the legislation that refers to professional indemnity? 11:13 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory It certainly isn't in this piece of legislation. I'm talking about the processes that we go through. You asked: has the government looked into it? My response was in relation to our processes in putting forward a piece of legislation. 11:13 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia If there is any possibility you might take it on notice to provide me with further advice about what processes you went through in order to satisfy yourself that you weren't requiring a pharmacy to do something that their indemnity didn't cover, I look forward to that. What point-of-sale requirements will pharmacies be required to adhere to in order to legally supply e-cigarette products under state and territory law? While you're at it, could you let us know who, if there are additional compliance costs, will be paying them? 11:14 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Well, if a customer comes in, they go to the counter, Senator—schedule 3, via the counter. I'm just trying to understand what your questioning is, when we're talking about pharmacies having the ability to do this. I'm not sure if I've misunderstood your question; please correct me if I have. 11:14 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I'm keen to understand what the physical requirements of the pharmacy are in terms of point of sale. For instance, if e-cigarettes can't be stored where they're visible to the public—often they need to be stored in lockable cupboards or whatever—are there any point-of-sale requirements that are specific to the sale of vapes? 11:15 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Thank you, Senator, for clarifying. It would be behind the counter. It's not something that a customer would walk in and be able to pull off the shelves. 11:15 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia So there would be nothing to stop a pharmacist from having a pile of vapes right next to the baby Panadol behind the counter, for instance, which also requires over-the-counter access? 11:15 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Senator, at some point we need to be able to trust the pharmacies to use their discretion, I would imagine. 11:16 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I'm not sure the pharmacies want to use their discretion, which, I think, is the point I'm trying to make. Under which states is it a mandatory requirement for pharmacists to record a schedule 3 pharmacist medicine, which includes personal details of the person purchasing it? 11:16 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Thank you for the question. I will take that on notice. I am advised that, with the discrepancy between the states and territories, it will be different, so I'm happy to take that question on notice. 11:16 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia You may not be able to answer this because it actually came from the press release of the Greens. It was really clear in the Greens' press release that the agreement reached between the Greens and the government was that, when somebody purchased vaping products through a pharmacy under this particular mechanism, their details, including their name, would not be recorded. I accept that you've taken my question on notice. Right now, under Queensland law, as an example, a pharmacist must attach a label to a schedule 3 medication—a label that includes the details of the person that is purchasing it—and the pharmacist is required to keep that information for two years. I'm interested to understand the inconsistency between the announcement that personal details would not need to be recorded and the fact that, under Queensland law, they are required to be recorded. 11:17 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Thank you, Senator. I can certainly take that question on notice. 11:17 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Is the minister aware that several of the big-banner pharmacies, with hundreds and hundreds of pharmacies under those banners, have indicated they will not stock vaping products in their pharmacies? 11:18 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory We are aware that there are pharmacies that already have chosen not to do that. We've already seen that there are thousands across the country who do adhere to this, so we are conscious of the fact that there will be some that won't stock vaping products. 11:18 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia In the use of the word 'some', one would presume you're not thinking it's going to be terribly many. Do you have any indication at all of how many pharmacies are likely to not stock these products? Has any work been done to understand that? 11:18 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I'm advised that we are leaving it entirely up to the pharmacy sector. 11:19 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Are there any other examples that the minister might be able to point to where unregistered products can be supplied without a prescription? 11:19 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I'm advised the answer is no, there are not. 11:19 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Just to be clear: are you advising me that there are no other examples of unregistered products that can be supplied without a prescription or are you advising me that you're not aware of any? 11:20 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory That has slightly changed again, so I will take that question on notice, Senator. I was referring to your initial question. 11:20 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Just to be clear, I'll read the previous question that I asked: can the minister provide other examples where an unregistered product can be supplied without a prescription? That was my first question, and you said no to that. Basically you're saying that you can't provide other examples; you're not suggesting that there aren't other examples. You just don't have any? 11:20 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory That's correct. 11:20 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia To that end, would it be possible to provide on notice to this chamber any other examples that do exist? I quite understand that you probably don't have them in your back pocket, but could you seek that from the department and, in the shortest possible time, provide us with a list of unregistered products that can be supplied without a prescription? The Pharmaceutical Society of Australia President Fei Sim has said publicly that these amendments undermine the role of pharmacists as healthcare professionals. Minister, have you heard that? 11:21 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory No, I haven't heard that. 11:21 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Do you agree with that? 11:21 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory As I've said here this morning, we are leaving it to pharmacies to use their discretion as to whether they wish to go down this path in adhering to the laws that we'd like to pass here for the general safety and wellbeing of our children across Australia. Clearly there will always be different points of view, but I would encourage pharmacists who are listening across the country, to please get on board and assist our government to go ahead with this world-leading piece of legislation that will make a difference to the lives of families across our country. 11:22 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Minister, if this legislation is world leading, as you've just said, why is the government waiting three years for it to be reviewed? Will the government support the opposition in having a review in one year to see how amazingly world leading it really is? 11:22 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Senator, I love your support for what we're trying to; it's clearly on show for all of us to see. What we will need to do over the next couple of years is, obviously, get data. Then we will be able to understand the usage—what's happening with the pharmacies, our schools and our children in relation to the sales of vapes—and understand what kind of data we will need to then be able to have a very thorough review. 11:23 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I think there is one thing on which everybody in this chamber, in this parliament and across the whole of Australia agrees, and that is that we don't want people, particularly children, to get access to vapes. Most particularly, we do not want a thriving black market to continue, which is what we know that we have under the current arrangements. To this end, Minister, could you advise where the Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner is and when they are due to commence their role? That was a previous commitment of your government about six months ago under previous legislation. 11:24 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Thank you, Senator, for your interest. I am advised that the commissioner will be announced shortly. 11:24 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I look forward to that. If pharmacists refuse to stock these vapes, has the government assessed what impact that is likely to have in terms of pushing Australians towards an illicit black market? 11:24 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Well, as I've said, clearly pharmacies will have the discretion as to whether they support this—and I certainly hope they do—and how they will go about it. We are very aware of the concerns around the black market. To deal with that issue and the possibilities that it could impact we've provided funding, resourcing, of an additional $25 million to the Australian Border Force and $56.9 million to the TGA over two years. We don't go into this thinking there will be no black market. We recognise that we have to deal with the realities here. So, that's our way of ensuring the enforcement around that, and we sincerely hope we can see the details through this over the next couple of years. 11:25 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Is it the government's view that vapes are medicine? 11:25 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory This is one of your 'gotcha' moments, isn't it, Senator? I mean, they were initially sold as therapeutic goods, and we know that, and there's still evidence emerging as to what's going on in the longer term. So, that's my response to that. 11:26 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Okay. I'm just interested that you would be asking a pharmacist not to sell a medicine. Senator McCarthy 122087 Not to sell it? Senator RUSTON 243273 To sell something that isn't a medicine. That's why I asked whether you believe vapes are medicinal. I want to circle back in relation to— 11:27 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Sorry, Senator: I missed that last question. I was just getting some advice. Obviously under the framework that you had previously set up, is my understanding—around the therapeutic goods side of vaping. But we do know that evidence is still emerging into the long term with it. And you asked another question just now? 11:27 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia No, I stopped halfway through it. But circling back, I'm really interested to understand how much thought has been put into the logistics of applying this policy in practical terms in a pharmacy. It's my understanding that e-cigarette products must not be visible to the public from anywhere inside or outside a retail shop. You can temporarily open a storage unit if a customer asks for a specified e-cigarette. What are the provisions, the discussions with pharmacy, around making sure they have these particular storage units? I understand we're going to stay with the prescription-only model until October. But, as of October, who will be required to pay for these? And what consideration or consultation has been undertaken with pharmacies as to how they are physically supposed to be locating these? Also, could I seek some confirmation—previously you said it would be up to the discretion of the pharmacist as to how they stocked and displayed vapes in their store, yet it seems quite clear from this that pharmacies, or anyone, have a requirement for them to not be visible to the public. 11:28 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I just want to be clear, though, about when I talked about the discretion of the pharmacist. You gave an example of vapes being next to the baby Panadol. So, I was using the word 'discretion' in terms of examples like that, where I think a pharmacist would know where they should put the vapes—maybe not next to the baby Panadol. So I want to be clear on that point, if I can, given the example you provided in the question. The pharmacist will have access to clinical guidance and resources which offer alternative smoking cessation methods to patients. The goods will only be available behind the pharmacy counter, and individuals will be required to provide ID to the pharmacist. Limitations will be placed on the concentration of nicotine available, and the model will not be available to under-18s, who can only access these goods with a prescription from a doctor. I think they're really quite straightforward guidelines, but, as I said in one of my earlier answers, we are continuing to work closely with the Pharmaceutical Society in terms of the rolling out of all this. I'd bring you back to that, Senator. 11:30 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I'm interested in why the government would be working with the Pharmaceutical Society around the legal requirements of a pharmacy. The Pharmacy Guild is the representative body of the people who own pharmacies. The people who own pharmacies are the ones who are going to have to put these provisions in in terms of point of sale. So I'm interested to know why the government would be consulting the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia on something which is clearly the jurisdiction of the Pharmacy Guild. 11:30 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Please don't misinterpret the fact that I've said we're working closely with the Pharmaceutical Society to mean that we're not working closely with anyone else. I said at the outset that we've engaged in conversations right from the get-go in terms of wanting to see this legislation come to fruition. That means working with the Pharmacy Guild. It means working with the pharmacies across Australia, the pharmacy sector, the AMA and the medical sector. These are ongoing conversations. For the clarity of the Senate, I want to make it very clear that the minister continues to work with all of those areas in the medical fraternity. 11:31 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I want to circle back to the legal requirements. We've got an example from Queensland about having to record names and stick people's names on products for schedule 3 medicines. The Victorian government, as I've just pointed out, requires e-cigarettes to not be visible and to be stored in lockable containers. There's almost a juxtaposition. You're saying, 'We respect the discretion of the pharmacies and their professional health authorities,' and I absolutely think our pharmacists are fabulous, but they have legal requirements. They are the laws of the states and territories of Australia. They have a legal requirement to comply with the laws of those states. Yet you are not giving me any response. So we have to have non-visible, lockable containers in which vapes must be stored and the only time they can be opened is to actually get the vape out and sell it to the customer. Who is going to be the one responsible for these particular storage units? Who is going to pay for them? What discussions have been had with the pharmacy owners—not pharmacists but the pharmacy owners—about actually doing something? It's but one of the practical implications that exist around dropping a policy like this on the sector at the very last minute. I would reiterate that we're talking about 6,000 largely small businesses around Australia who are the front line of primary care in this country. You and I both come from rural, regional and remote Australia, and we both know they're often the only health professional in town. Who's been working with these people to understand what the consequences of this are, and who is going to pay? 11:33 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory There's quite a lot in your statement there. First I would like to remind the Senate that this is a collaborative arrangement. I said earlier that every chief health officer across the country has supported this. We are supported by each jurisdiction, and it will be up to each jurisdiction to work with the pharmacies in those areas. Clearly the 6,000 pharmacies that we know are across the country will need the support and assistance of the departments of health right across each and every state and territory jurisdiction. So there is a body of work that has to go through in terms of that coordination. Coming to your last bit in terms of direct contact with each of the pharmacies: of course I'm acutely aware of our regional pharmacies. I've had to work very closely with the ones in the Northern Territory with many of the pieces of legislation and different policies that we've taken through, which thankfully have been very embraced in terms of many of the things that we're doing in the pharmaceutical sector. I would remind the Senate that this is not something that has just happened overnight; it's not something that just happen in the last month. Our government has said, from the moment that we came into office, that tackling vaping in this country was going to be critical, and we continue to work with the states and territories and the pharmacies across the country to ensure that this legislation does work and is effective. 11:35 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia What is the measure of that success? 11:35 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Well, I guess I'd certainly like to see that our young people are no longer vaping. I think that's probably the most obvious response to that—if families can feel that their kids are no longer addicted, that they're no longer vaping in places they shouldn't be and they're no longer using it. Okay, that's a very anecdotal and personal response, but I think it's still a very relevant one. This impacts families across the country, and it impacts teachers trying to work with their students. The legislation commits us to undertaking an independent review of the bill and associated instruments within three years. That's how we will measure. In addition, the government is using a range of resources and data to monitor the impacts of the vaping reforms over the short and longer term. It's important to note these reforms include a series of different regulatory activities, many of which are yet to be implemented, and these reforms are part of a broader suite of regulatory and non-regulatory measures being implemented by all Australian governments to reduce rates of vaping and smoking. We have commenced work with states and territories and other key partners to develop an evaluation program, including outcome indicators to monitor progress—and the work of the states and territories is absolutely critical to the success of these reforms—and the development of nationally agreed monitoring and evaluation activities, including agreed measures of success. 11:37 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I look forward to seeing the metrics of success. In your previous contribution you said, 'This hasn't just happened overnight.' What has happened overnight is the change in position in relation to the mechanism for supplying vapes in Australia. That has happened in the last few days. Up until Monday Australians were unaware that vapes will be available in pharmacies, without a prescription, if the legislation gets through this place, so I would say that this has happened overnight. It has happened overnight because, for some reason, the government decided that they wanted to do a deal with the Greens. I don't know why the government decided that they needed to change their position. I have to say: the government has been absolutely rock-solid in its obsession with sticking with the prescription-only model, up until a few days ago. The coalition has always taken the view that restricting and prohibiting children's access to vapes is the No. 1 priority that should be delivered through legislation in this parliament, and we do not shy away from that. We merely differ in our belief about how that is best achieved. At the end of the day, the coalition believes in being honest with the Australian public, and the mechanism through which vapes are currently available is plainly not working. It is not stopping children from getting access to vapes. I don't think there is anybody in this place that doesn't believe that if they walked out of here, no matter how old they were, they could walk into a store somewhere in Canberra and buy a vape. That has been no different over recent times, and following this legislation it will still be no different. What we question is the need for you to have gone and done a deal with the Greens under the cloak of darkness, without any consultation with he very people it's going to impact—the very people you expect to implement this change of policy: Australia's 6,000 small-business pharmacies around the nation. I think it is not correct to put on the record that this hasn't happened overnight. The change has happened overnight. I will absolutely concede that the government has been pursuing a prescription-only model since it came into government. It had not been pursuing a pharmacy dispensed model until Monday. Or they may have been pursuing that, but the public was unaware of it and the very people who have to put it in place were unaware of it until Monday. I would say that what we have before us here is one of the most confusing deals I have ever seen, the need for which I have yet to see. We have a completely unworkable solution now being put on the table. We have a whole heap of our frontline health professionals, our primary healthcare workers, our pharmacists, not wanting to have anything to do with this particular change in plan, and yet the government sit here and somehow pretend that they have been consulting with Australia's pharmacists about this particular change. It is very disappointing that we are sitting here today. We are going to see a messed up change. It is just creating great confusion across the country. There is no consistency in what's gone on here, and yet the government seems to think that it's okay to do some deal with the Greens at the last minute and confuse all of Australia. It's very disappointing, Minister, that in all of the conversations that we've had this morning we don't seem to have got any understanding about the practical implications of a last-minute policy change for one of the most important parts of our health system and a part of our health system that is under immense pressure. We all know that primary care is under immense pressure at the moment. Now we've just turned around and blindsided pharmacies once again. This is a track record of this government. They did it last year when they decided without any consultation that they were going to bring in double dispensing. We've seen the result of that particular action. It has hardly delivered any real benefits in terms of the cost of medicines to Australians. Here we are, once again, having a debate about something that has been a knee-jerk policy decision of the government under the cloak of darkness without any consultation with the sector that is now required to implement it and no consideration of the costs. We have heard nothing in response to any of our questions about what the government's intentions are in terms of the additional cost burden on our pharmacies of implementing this policy. So it is very, very disappointing to be standing here. We will certainly not be supporting the amendment that they have put forward. 11:42 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia There's a question that I have to put to the minister. Before I do, I just want to clear up a couple of things at least from the Greens perspective and as a member of the committee which conducted the inquiry into the bill. The Greens were very supportive of the bill going to inquiry so that the committee had the opportunity to give feedback on the bill. One of the processes that we as a committee go through is identifying the witnesses that we believe need to be called to give evidence before the inquiry to enable the various ramifications of the legislation to be fully understood. When we sent out our list of invites for witnesses to give evidence to the committee, the Pharmacy Guild of Australia was on that list. They as an organisation then formally declined to give evidence to the committee. Their declining to give evidence came back to us as committee members and I prioritised a further request to the guild that they give evidence to the committee precisely because I wanted to ensure that the views of the guild in relation to the bill or any proposed changes to the bill were clearly understood and that they had the opportunity to give their views on this legislation. They did not take that opportunity. So, in my role as health spokesperson for the Greens, I took a meeting with the guild as to their view on the legislation. In that meeting, they articulated that their preferred approach to this area of policy was not to have vaping products listed under schedule 3, which is a perfectly legitimate position for them to put to us in their capacity as a peak body. What I cannot cop and what I must use this opportunity to call out is the argument that the opposition of the guild to schedule 3 is based around a concern that the substances may not be appropriate for use under schedule 3 because they, in the view of the guild, are not safe. Let me say very clearly: the view the guild put to me and my team in our meeting was that they would support schedule 4 of these substances or they would support schedule 2 of these substances. They did not support schedule 3. So to come into this debate and propose that they oppose this scheduling because they are concerned about the safety of the substance is very disingenuous, given that schedule 2 would have made it easier for young people and adults to access vaping products. It would have made them an 'in front of the counter' substance without the requirement to engage in a therapeutic conversation with the pharmacist or to demonstrate proof of age. There's a lot that I will cop in this debate, but I will not cop that perspective from the guild, and I think they need to be more transparent with the Australian public in relation to this debate. I also want to put on the record that we sit here today about to pass one of the most significant public policy reforms of this parliament. It is historic, what we are about to do. We are about to establish a world-leading scheme to tackle a serious area of public health concern, and I pay tribute to my incredible team, who through the course of this legislative debate, through the course of our consideration of the government's proposal, have demonstrated the most incredible capacity to engage with a complex policy area, to negotiate among many varied perspectives, to bring the community into the conversation and to ensure that the legislation's details were fully understood and known. I thank them for their incredible dedication and work in this area. I specifically acknowledge that this has taken a lot of time—as it should, commensurate with its importance—but I think it is really vital, as we get to this moment today, to acknowledge that, while the people officially on the other side of the golden bar, you would hope, played a role in getting the legislation to where it is, there are whole teams of people who have also given up their weekends, their evenings and their days off to get this to where it is today. We as MPs have a responsibility to ensure that the public has a clear view that what we contribute to these spaces is the product of the team's collective work. Now I shall get to my question for the minister. Minister, under this legislation, what does the government expect will be the threshold of reasonable suspicion a police officer will have to meet to conduct a search of a person? 11:48 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Thank you, Senator, for your question. Search-and-seizure powers are not given under the TGA act, and this is a matter for the states and territories. Our amendments strengthen the bill and ensure individuals will not be criminalised. The government has been clear since we began undertaking our vaping reforms that we are not setting out to punish or criminalise individuals who use vapes. We have, rightly, always treated vaping as a public health issue first, and the bill and its explanatory memorandum make this clear, indicating that offence provisions are not intended to be used against individuals but rather against commercial actors. The government's amendments to the offence provisions—which we have developed with your party, Senator Steele-John—after the application of the offence set out under proposed section 41QD of the bill. This offence will now apply to retailers in a retail setting who possess less than a commercial quantity of vaping goods, ensuring that the offence specifically targets commercial actors. Similarly, the offence set out under proposed section 41QC—possession of greater than a commercial quantity of vaping goods—now includes an exemption for individuals who hold up to five times a commercial quantity of vaping goods, provided they are for their personal use and were legally supplied. The government has also been working closely over the past year with state and territory governments, their health departments and their police forces to carefully design an enforcement framework, which again makes clear that individuals are not to be targeted in the application of these laws. I thank you, Senator, for raising this very important question. It goes to the core of the intention of these reforms, and I'm pleased we have been able to work together to ensure that the bill more closely reflects our intentions in this regard. 11:50 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Minister, I have a couple of questions on how this policy will be evaluated, but, firstly, I would like to say—Senator Ruston was making this point—that this bill has changed substantially over the last week. We're essentially considering a vastly different bill to the one that was on the table last week, and it's disappointing that stakeholders weren't given more time to consider these changes. Since the details of the bill were released earlier this week, the overwhelming message I've received directly from medical professionals and public health experts is that this is not ideal. As was mentioned, the Pharmacy Guild don't appear to support these changes, despite being the ones who will be the most impacted through this new model. I wonder if, at any time, the Greens asked the pharmacy profession, the medical profession or the public health community how they felt about what was being proposed and what emerged earlier this week on the new model that's on the table. I don't disagree with many of the changes that have been made, but I know that legislation is strongest when there is rigorous debate, scrutiny and buy-in from those who need to implement it. Clearly, leaving the current policy settings in place isn't an option. The current system, which was put in place by the former government, has undermined our public health. It's been a public health disaster. It's led to an explosion of underage vape use and illegal sales and has created a new generation of nicotine addicts in Australia. The alternatives we are offered today are to do nothing and continue with the current model, which is not working, or to wait for the coalition to develop a policy on retail sale. Let's be clear: a retail model will develop a new generation of full-time vapers, leading to full-time smokers. I think it's an appalling way forward. We know that tobacco use causes lung cancer, which is still the leading cause of cancer death in this country, despite all the work that has gone into reducing smoking. At the same time, tobacco increases the risk of stomach cancer, throat cancer, liver cancer, pancreatic cancer, cervical cancer, colon cancer and bladder cancer. It also causes heart disease, stroke, cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. It suppresses your immune system. It can contribute to hearing loss. There's excellent research showing that vape use puts young people on a path to tobacco use; you can't separate the two. I don't think any parent wants vaping or tobacco for their child. It took the world a long time to grapple with tobacco—it took decades—and we saw lots of delaying tactics. Many lives were lost. Most of us will know someone who smoked and ultimately faced the health consequences of that. While vaping leads to tobacco use, we also don't know the long-term impact of vaping. We know only that the chemicals within vapes are harmful. With this in mind and with the options on the table, I will be supporting the amendment and the bill. It is critical that we do not create a new generation of nicotine addicts. If we can stop it before it starts, we will be saving lives. I would love to see us as a parliament taking this longer-term view on legislation—actually looking up to the young people who are coming through this building and getting a view on democracy that is meant to represent them. But so often we're so focused on the next election that we're not willing to do the hard things to protect them. When it comes to things like climate change and having a duty of care to young people, as well as housing and actually addressing some of the root causes of the housing crisis, we've got to be looking longer term. Minister—going back to my initial point—I would like to know how the government will be evaluating the success of this model. What is laid out and what are the timeframes for review? 11:55 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Can I take this opportunity to thank you and Senator Jacqui Lambie for your collaboration on this bill. I know that tremendous effort has gone into getting the legislation to where it is and I certainly hear your thoughts there in your statement. There's been lots of data collected and reported already, by AIHW and ABS, as you would know, and what I've said previously in committee is that the legislation commits us to undertake an independent review of the bill and associated instruments within three years. The reason for that is that we need to be able to collate data over that period of time. You're right, election cycles have a habit of interfering with all sorts of things. That's just me throwing that in, but I am conscious that that timeframe is important. I also want to reassure the Senate and the parliament that that independent review will take place as part of this piece of legislation. The government is using a range of resources and data to monitor the impacts of the vaping reforms over the short and longer term. It's important to note that these reforms include a series of different regulatory activities, many of which are yet to be implemented, and that these reforms are part of a broader suite of regulatory and non-regulatory measures that are being implemented by all Australian governments to reduce rates of vaping and smoking. Clearly, the support of our state and territory counterparts is absolutely essential to ensure that this legislation is successful right across the country. We can't do this on our own, and that requirement of the states and territories is going to be critical, especially in the coming months as the minister meets with the respective health ministers of each state and territory jurisdiction. We've certainly commenced work with the states and territories and other key partners to develop an evaluation program that includes outcome indicators to monitor progress. The work, as I said, of the states and territories is absolutely critical. We want to work to end recreational vaping. We need to ensure that those hardened smokers who really need a therapeutic vape to help them quit can get one. Most smokers quit without any nicotine replacement tools, but if a hardened smoker finds the resolve to walk into their local pharmacy and say, 'I want to quit,' then we want that pharmacist to have a conversation with them, then and there, and be able to offer the gum, patches or therapeutic vape that might help that smoker give up for good without having to refer them to a GP appointment that might be several days or weeks later, when their resolve might have waned. Pharmacies will only stock therapeutic vapes without the candy flavours, brightly coloured packaging or sky-high nicotine concentrations. We think that 1 October is an appropriate date for this improved access to take effect. It will allow time for the rigorous systems, protections and oversights to be established, while also ensuring that access is improved before March next year, when the price of tobacco products will rise and a whole range of new smoking protections will see new graphic warnings and changes to the look of cigarettes, tobacco products and packs to make them more dissuasive and less appealing. Additionally, we think this measure will have a particularly positive impact for consumers in rural and remote areas, who find accessing a general practice a barrier to seeking clinical care. I say to all Australians and those involved in this piece of legislation: thank you for the work that you've done to enable us to put this before the House and before the Senate. It is, as many senators have said, world-leading legislation. I thank all senators for their involvement. The CHAIR 287062 The time for consideration of the bill has expired. After I have put the question before the chair, I will then put the questions on the remaining stages of the bill. The question before the chair is that the opposition amendment on sheet 2681 to government amendment (5) be agreed to.

The committee divided. [12:05]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

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

Question negatived.

12:07 The CHAIR 287062 The next questions relate to the amendments moved by Senator McCarthy on sheet ZC286. So, the first question is that amendments (1) to (10) and (12) to (27) on sheet ZC286, moved by Senator McCarthy, be agreed to.

The committee divided. [12:09]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

33 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. 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. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 26 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Colbeck, R. M. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

12:11 The CHAIR 287062 We now come to amendment 11. The question now is that section 42DZ in item 27 of schedule 1 standard as printed. Government opposed section 42DZ in item 27 of schedule 1 in the following terms — (11) Schedule 1, item 27, page 29 (line 8) to page 30 (line 3), section 42DZ to be opposed. Question negatived. The CHAIR 287062 The question now is that the opposition amendments on sheets 2586 and 2587 be agreed to. Opposition amendments— SHEET 2586 (1) Schedule 1, item 11, page 21 (line 13), omit "or subsection (9)". (2) Schedule 1, item 11, page 21 (after line 14), after subsection 41QD(6), insert: Evidential burden of proof (6A) Despite subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code and section 41QE of this Act a person does not bear an evidential burden in relation to the matters in subsection (9). _____ SHEET 2587 (1) Schedule 1, item 11, page 26 (after line 17), insert: Division 3 — Periodic reporting by Minister 41RE Periodic report on smoking and vaping rates (1) As soon as practicable after the end of each reporting period, the Minister must cause a report to be prepared on smoking and vaping rates in Australia. (2) As soon as practicable after the completion of a report, the persons who prepared the report must give the report to the Minister. (3) The Minister must cause each 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. (4) The Minister must be satisfied that each report was prepared in collaboration with such Commonwealth, State and Territory agencies as the Minister considers appropriate. (5) In this section: reporting period means: (a) the period of 6 months beginning on the day this section commences; or (b) each subsequent 6-month period. Note: The Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner must prepare reports on enforcement statistics, and analysis of those statistics, relating to the illicit tobacco and e-cigarette trade in Australia, including detections and seizures of illicit tobacco and e-cigarette products, and associated arrests. Reports must be prepared every 12 months and tabled in both Houses of the Parliament. See Chapter 6A of the Public Health (Tobacco and Other Products) Act 2023.

The committee divided. [12:13]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

26 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Colbeck, R. M. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) 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. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. 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) Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

12:15 The CHAIR 287062 I will now deal with the amendments circulated by Pauline Hanson's One Nation on sheet 2668. The first question is that certain components of the bill stand as printed. The components to stand as printed are: in item 11 of schedule 1, subsections 41Q(2), 41QA(2), 41QB(2), 41QC(3), 41QC(6), 41QC(9), 41QD(3) and 41RD(3) and division 2 of part 4A-2; in item 27 of schedule 1, subsections 42DZD(2), 42DZG(2), 42DZG(4) and 42DZL(3); and, in item 111 of schedule 1, subsection 41MN(9B). Pauline Hanson's One Nation opposed schedule 1 in the following terms— (1) Schedule 1, item 11, page 9 (lines 23 to 25), subsection 41Q(2) to be opposed. (4) Schedule 1, item 11, page 10 (lines 22 to 25), subsection 41QA(2) to be opposed. (7) Schedule 1, item 11, page 12 (lines 1 to 3), subsection 41QB(2) to be opposed. (10) Schedule 1, item 11, page 16 (lines 20 to 26), subsection 41QC(3) to be opposed. (11) Schedule 1, item 11, page 17 (lines 8 to 14), subsection 41QC(6) to be opposed. (12) Schedule 1, item 11, page 17 (lines 25 to 30), subsection 41QC(9) to be opposed. (15) Schedule 1, item 11, page 20 (lines 15 to 20), subsection 41QD(3) to be opposed. (18) Schedule 1, item 11, page 23 (line 4 to 11), Division 2 to be opposed. (19) Schedule 1, item 11, page 26 (lines 5 to 9), subsection 41RD(3) to be opposed. (21) Schedule 1, item 27, page 32 (lines 13 to 28), subsection 42DZD(2) to be opposed. (24) Schedule 1, item 27, page 35 (lines 9 to 13), subsection 42DZG(2) to be opposed. (25) Schedule 1, item 27, page 35 (lines 23 to 30), subsection 42DZG(4) to be opposed. (27) Schedule 1, item 27, page 39 (lines 21 to 27), subsection 42DZL(3) to be opposed. (33) Schedule 1, item 111, page 64 (lines 18 to 28), subsection 41MN(9B) to be opposed. Question agreed to. The CHAIR 287062 We now come to the remaining question, and that is that the remaining amendments on sheet 2668 be agreed to. Pauline Hanson's One Nation's ci rculated amendments— (2) Schedule 1, item 11, page 10 (lines 11 to 13), omit the note. (3) Schedule 1, item 11, page 10 (after line 13), at the end of section 41Q, add: Evidential burden of proof (6) Despite subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code, a defendant does not bear an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (5). (5) Schedule 1, item 11, page 11 (lines 23 to 25), omit the note. (6) Schedule 1, item 11, page 11 (after line 25), at the end of section 41QA, add: Evidential burden of proof (6) Despite subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code, a defendant does not bear an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (5). (8) Schedule 1, item 11, page 12 (lines 20 to 22), omit the note. (9) Schedule 1, item 11, page 12 (after line 22), after subsection 41QB(5), insert: Evidential burden of proof (5A) Despite subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code, a defendant does not bear an evidential burden in relation to the matters in subsections (6), (7) and (8) or subsections (9), (10) and (11). (13) Schedule 1, item 11, page 18 (lines 19 to 21), omit the note. (14) Schedule 1, item 11, page 18 (after line 21), after subsection 41QC(12), insert: Evidential burden of proof (12A) Despite subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code, a defendant does not bear an evidential burden in relation to the matters in subsections (13) and (14). (16) Schedule 1, item 11, page 21 (lines 12 to 14), omit the note. (17) Schedule 1, item 11, page 21 (after line 14), after subsection 41QD(6), insert: Evidential burden of proof (6A) Despite subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code, a defendant does not bear an evidential burden in relation to the matters in subsections (7) and (8) or subsection (9). (20) Schedule 1, item 11, page 26 (line 21), omit "or (2)". (22) Schedule 1, item 27, page 32 (line 30), omit "or (2)". (23) Schedule 1, item 27, page 33 (line 2), omit "or (2)". (26) Schedule 1, item 27, page 36 (line 26), omit "or (4)". (28) Schedule 1, item 102, page 61 (line 29) to page 62 (line 11), omit the item, substitute: 102 Subsection 22(7AA) Repeal the subsection. (29) Schedule 1, item 107, page 63 (lines 3 and 4), omit ", (9A) and (9B)", substitute "and (9A)". (30) Schedule 1, item 108, page 63 (lines 6 and 7), omit ", (9A) and (9B)", substitute "and (9A)". (31) Schedule 1, item 109, page 63 (lines 9 and 10), omit ", (9A) and (9B)", substitute "and (9A)". (32) Schedule 1, item 110, page 63 (lines 12 and 13), omit ", (9A) and (9B)", substitute "and (9A)". Question negatived. The CHAIR 287062 Pursuant to order, I shall report the bill. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Third Reading 37 12:18 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 37 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Wages 37 12:19 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Thank you, Deputy President, and a mighty job you've done today. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Thank you. Senator SHELDON 168275 Earlier this month, the Australian Council of Trade Unions Congress endorsed a campaign to scrap junior wages. Junior rates apply in 55 awards and also apply to certain apprentices. For example, under the Road Transport and Distribution Award, an 18-year-old worker is entitled to 70 per cent of the adult rate; under the airline operations award, a 16-year-old worker is entitled to 50 per cent of the adult rate; and, under the Fast Food Industry Award, a 15-year-old worker is entitled to just 40 per cent of the adult rate. That increases by 10 per cent every year until an employee turns 21. The ACTU Secretary, Sally McManus, has backed the move, saying: Cost of living is hard for everyone, but especially hard for young people, and the new generational inequality that exists and [junior wages] is just reinforcing it. An article in the ABC spoke about a 21-year-old, Josie, who has worked in hospitality since she was 15, and by the time she was 18 was promoted to supervisor. She said: There definitely were a few employees who were over 21 who were getting paid more than me, even though I was supervising them. Now, that's a perverse disincentive for young people to take on more responsibility in their workplace. James Lea from the Young Workers Centre, a community and legal aid service in Victoria, said: Junior wages are just another form of legalised discrimination against young people. Gerard Dwyer, the national secretary of the retail union, also said: In the eyes of the law, 18, 19 and 20 year olds are adults. They can vote, drink alcohol and join the army—why are they paid as juniors? I agree, and there is a chorus of protests from the business community in response to that view. The Australian Retail Association said: Without these rates, these young people may otherwise struggle to compete against older, more experienced applicants. The Business Council of Australia said that 'now is not the time to add more hurdles for businesses with new costs added to their operations'. But we know that for big business it's never a good time to pay workers what they are worth. When I worked for the trucking and distribution industry, companies never used junior rates. They were in the award, but they didn't used them, because they had the view—as the workforce did—that, regardless of how old you were, you were paid according to your ability. And when you're doing an adult's work, you get paid as an adult. Comparable countries, like New Zealand, Canada and South Korea, have already abolished or limited the use of junior wages. If they can do it then so can we. I support that application from the shop assistants union to the Fair Work Commission to ensure workers 18 and over are paid the full adult rate. Going to a broader question, last week Senator McKenzie made it clear that the Liberals and Nationals are committed to their crusade against workers in the transport sector, yet again. The Transport Workers Union have raised an alarm about reports that a former Qantas operating officer is being shortlisted for the role of CEO at Virgin. Paul Jones was the architect of the illegal outsourcing of 1,700 ground handlers at Qantas. He stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Alan Joyce in masterminding the largest illegal sacking in Australia's history. Then he outsourced their jobs to the lowest bidder. He should not be put up for a promotion; he should be put up for charges. But Senator McKenzie has accused TWU of mission creep and of going beyond its remit by 'seeking the influence the investment decisions of businesses trying to run profitable, sustainable and safe airlines'. Senator McKenzie has forgotten: it's the workers that make these companies profitable, sustainable and safe—and good management. Those opposite wouldn't bail out Virgin—they left them to the wolves, and it was saved only by the TWU, Deloitte and good managers. Then they pumped $2 billion into Qantas, and now, at the first opportunity, Senator McKenzie wants to stand with one of Alan Joyce's proteges. During the Qantas High Court case, Justice Lee found that Paul Jones was, and I quote, 'feigning a lack of recollection' and was 'willing to fashion his evidence to suit what he perceived to be the forensic advantage of his erstwhile employer'. This is the candidate for CEO that Senator McKenzie has put her bet on. But I wouldn't expect anything less. At the hearing on the 'closing the loopholes' bill last year, Senator McKenzie said this: I am not on a unity ticket with Qantas and Alan Joyce when it comes to ripping off Qantas workers through labour hire. If that were true then Senator McKenzie would have voted for our legislation to close that loophole, but she didn't. She voted against it, and now we see she is attacking workers' representatives who are sticking up for good and secure jobs and good management being put in place at an important carrier in the transport industry. The TWU national secretary, Michael Kaine, said that Virgin was now at a crossroads and could either take the high road or risk decimating its workforce. Virgin should find a CEO without a track record of illegal activity and lying in court. Those opposite should stick to talking about issues where they have an ounce of credibility, but they won't because they want people to work longer for less. Their comments and their voting record speak for themselves. I'll turn to matters regarding BHP. In September last year the opposition leader, Mr Dutton, said that our bill to close the labour hire loophole would 'deny employers the choice to use labour hire workers'. Like all of the other claims from the Chicken Little fearmongering that we saw during the IR debate, that just hasn't happened. What has happened is the Mining and Energy Union has lodged a test case in the Fair Work Commission regarding same job, same pay laws. BHP subsidiaries across three mines in Central Queensland stand to gain between $10,000 and $40,000 a year. That is the difference between labour hire and BHP's direct employees. The barrister for BHP said that the miner would likely argue that the performance of the work is and continues to be for provisions of service as distinct from supply. That doesn't surprise me because during the closing loopholes inquiry BHP, Qantas and other bad-faith users of labour hire tried their very best to wiggle out of the scope of the laws. The MEU Queensland district president, Mitch Hughes, said, 'We expect BHP to throw everything at trying to avoid their same job, same pay obligations for workers.' He said further that BHP would 'rather spend money on lawyers than fair wages'. But not all employers are hesitant to pay their workers what they're worth. In response to separate applications from the MEU, the mine operator Thiess decided to directly employ all their labour hire workers, including trainees. The MEU general secretary, Grahame Kelly, said that this would see more than 50 workers get a pay rise of $25,000 plus in the first year, and, when the agreement kicks in, they'll get $40,000 a year more than they used to. Another example was when, in 2023, Whitehaven bought two coalmines in Central Queensland. Because they knew the same job, same pay laws were on the way, they committed to transitioning 400 BHP operational services workers from labour hire to permanent jobs. These wage increases are a practical cost-of-living measure, and they will be life changing for workers who have been waiting a long, long time for these laws. One Nation, the Liberals and the Nationals voted against the same job, same pay legislation, and they should be upfront about the fact that they desire to take tens of thousands of dollars out of regional communities. Australians are earning more because we've changed workplace laws to get wages moving again, and we've seen regional workers receive wage justice. What we're challenged with is the opposition's intent to repeal laws that have given regional workers up to $44,000 extra a year, where companies have paid those increases of their own volition, and then going and backing in the dodgy end of town—the BHPs or managers like the ex-Qantas buccaneer that's now applied for the job to run Virgin. Australians are earning because we changed workplace laws to get wages moving again, as I've said. The government wants Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn. Cancer 39 12:29 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania I rise today, on Rare Cancers Awareness Day, to speak to the Community Affairs References Committee report which was presented on Friday 17 May. The inquiry examined the equitable access to diagnosis and treatment for individuals with rare and less common cancers, including neuroendocrine cancer. As a Tasmanian, I have long known that people who receive a rare-cancer diagnosis will most likely have to leave our island for treatment or at least some part of that treatment. This is especially true for children, as any childhood cancer is deemed rare. Being faced with a cancer diagnosis is hard enough, but being faced with a rare-cancer diagnosis and the knowledge you will need to travel to another state for treatment, and may even need to relocate while that treatment continues, is heart wrenching. Of the rare-cancer patients who can be treated in Tasmania, many will still need to travel, unless they live in Hobart. A large part of Australia's population is spread out, not concentrated in capital cities, making it likely rare-cancer patients nationally will also have to travel hours from home for diagnostic scans or life-saving treatment. The knowledge that this is what Tasmanian cancer patients face has concerned me for some years. Not long after I entered the Senate, Rob Hammond, from Tasmania's north-east, came to see me about the lack of treatment and support options available to him, as someone living with neuroendocrine tumours, or NETS. He watched as his sister died from NETS at 70 and his brother at 68, and, sadly, Rob's older brother also has NETS. Rob is doing all he can to stay well, build awareness of NETS and advocate for his family and the 500 Tasmanian NETS patients, but whenever Rob needs specialist treatment he has to travel for more than two hours to Hobart, with the additional hardship of being away from his support network while he receives that treatment. When he sees a local healthcare provider, he often has to explain what NETS is and what is needed. While NETS is one of the more frequently seen rare cancers, there is still a lack of knowledge about it. It pains me to say that Rob is not alone in this exhausting cycle of treatment, advocacy and rest. After speaking with Rob, and being aware of others with similar experiences, I knew this was a topic that needed further investigation through the Senate committee process, and I was pleased that the Community Affairs References Committee instigated this inquiry in June last year. The committee received nearly 150 submissions and heard from around 70 witnesses at five public hearings, to ensure we had a thorough understanding of the inequities facing rare-cancer patients. I want to express my thanks to each and every one of those who made a submission to the inquiry, especially those who appeared as witnesses during our hearings and shared their personal stories. I am pleased to advise the Senate that the committee took a unified approach in the preparation of our report. Members worked hard to canvass wide-ranging sources to increase our understanding so we could ensure the recommendations presented were both constructive and meaningful. I want to acknowledge the committee's previous chair, former senator Janet Rice, for her work during a large part of this inquiry, and I'm grateful for the support offered by the incoming chair, Senator Allman-Payne, in continuing her predecessor's work. My gratitude also goes to all committee members for their cooperative and positive approach and to the community affairs secretariat, an exceptional team that worked tirelessly on this inquiry and ensured its smooth transition from inception through to delivery. We want people who are diagnosed with and receiving treatment for rare and less-common cancers to feel supported—medically, psychologically, emotionally and financially—so they can put their health first. Worrying about whether they can afford the scan their doctors say they need, how far they need to travel to receive treatment or whether they can afford to take time off work to look after their sick child while they undergo cancer treatment will hinder, not help, their prognosis. Nobody should feel they have the wrong kind of cancer, as so many witnesses told committee members. The ability to access life-saving diagnostic tests and treatments should not be a postcode lottery. Australia has some of the best cancer outcomes in the world, yet it is clear from the evidence heard throughout the inquiry that this is not the case for all patients. Each year, approximately 52,000 people are diagnosed with a rare or less common cancer. This equates to three in 10 cancer diagnoses annually; however, these cancers account for 42 per cent of all Australian deaths from cancer. There are many reasons for these disproportionate statistics, but the major factor is that rare-cancer patients don't have the same level of access to diagnostic tools and treatments as those with more common cancers. A patient diagnosed with gallbladder cancer doesn't have access to the same level of support as, say, those diagnosed with breast or prostate cancer, who receive support from trained breast or prostate cancer specialist nurses. Rare cancers affect six or less people per 100,000 each year, while less common cancers have an incidence rate of 12 or less per 100,000. GPs are generally the first stop for a person experiencing symptoms that might result in a cancer diagnosis; however, the rarity of these types of cancer makes it harder for a GP to know exactly what they are looking at. They may not have seen this collection of symptoms before or the symptoms may be ambiguous and could have a number of explanations. If they are the only GP in a rural practice, or one of just a few, it makes it harder to talk things through with colleagues to get advice on which test to order to help with potential diagnosis. We must back medical professionals to better support these patients, so the committee has recommended development of specific clinical guidelines for GPs for rare and less common cancers. Even if a GP has an inkling they know what is causing these symptoms, they are more likely to investigate the cause of the symptoms first and refer to one specialist, when multiple specialists could be needed for a correct diagnosis. Indeed, Meredith Cummins from NeuroEndocrine Cancer Australia said that NETs symptoms were so vague that they could be anything. This ambiguity means diagnosis can be delayed for up to seven years, by which time 60 per cent of NETs patients have progressed to stage 4 disease. Experience tells us that early diagnosis and cancer screening programs have a direct impact on cancer survival statistics, but the lack of understanding of rare cancers means late diagnosis and lack of screening is more the norm. However, we heard evidence that could turn the status quo for rare cancers around. The committee recommended such patients should receive prompt, appropriate and affordable diagnostic testing. This includes equitable patient assisted travel schemes across all states and territories, better access to MRI, PET and CT scans, increased access to genomic testing and a complete ban on genetic discrimination in life insurance so more people are better informed about their health outcomes. Together, these initiatives allow better access to precision medicine, and that means patients would have a treatment plan developed specifically for their individual cancer. We already know how effective precision medicine can be in treating rare cancers, through the highly successful ZERO Childhood Cancer program. I'm pleased the government also sees value in these important diagnostic schemes and announced in the recent budget a new MBS item for PET and CT imaging for rare and less common cancer patients. Australia's reputation as a leader in producing high-quality data in clinical trials is hampered by our location and smaller population. Lower incidence of rare cancers means smaller numbers of trial participants, making Australia a less attractive option for pharmaceutical companies or organisations sponsoring the trials. We must elevate Australia's standing in this space because clinical trials are the best way to gather the evidence needed to make those breakthroughs we all want in cancer research. The committee has made a number of recommendations to improve equitable access to clinical trials. These include promoting better access to novel medicine, both within clinical trials and developed as a result of trial activity; making it easier for rare cancer patients to access clinical trials both here and overseas; and extending funding for the ZERO Childhood Cancer program beyond next year. I welcome the government's investment in last month's budget in the National One Stop Shop to manage clinical trials and human research, and hope this is the start of Australia making significant inroads in the research space. We heard frequently about the incredible rare cancer researchers we have in Australia but also the need to boost their research capacity. The committee acknowledged the additional funding outlined in the recent announcement in the budget of the 10-year Low Survival Cancers Mission, along with additional funding through the Medical Research Future Fund, including funding specifically for research into treatments for DIPG and other childhood cancers. However, there are still significant gaps in Australian research into rare and less common cancers. This research needs to be a priority, if we are to address inequities faced by people diagnosed with rare and less common cancers. Similarly, providing early access to drugs such as DFMO, approved for the treatment of high-risk neuroblastoma in the US, but still months—if not years—away here, must be considered to save the lives of our rare cancer patients, and, in this case, often our youngest Australians. We must close the survival gap for rare cancer patients. This report plots a clear pathway to achieve this aim, and I commend the report to the Senate. Cost of Living 41 12:38 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Each week, my office hears from members of the community who are experiencing deep hardship and frustration in many parts of Western Australia. In every part of our state, people are struggling with the cost of living. At a time when the majority of Australians are burdened by the cost of everyday living expenses in a way not seen in a generation, we are subjected to report after report of big businesses price gouging, corporations recording multibillion-dollar profits and other short-term, bandaid solutions put forward by the government. The reality is this: successive governments in our country have created an Australia so often defined by a sinister hierarchy of wealth and exploitation. We have, in this country, systems that rely on the private sector to provide essential services—services that should be free and accessible as a human right. When the government allows underregulated corporations to take advantage of consumers to jack up prices and prioritise profiteering above all else, how can it be a surprise that there is an increase in inflation and cost of living? When the energy and mining moguls that own politicians outright, from both sides and from both political parties, are able to wield their will so easily in chambers like this, it should not be a shock to a minister or to any other commentator that we see soaring prices of petrol and electricity. When we have a situation where corporations are allowed legally to ruthlessly price gouge and rake in billions of dollars in profit, how can anyone in his place be surprised by the consequences we see? We see extreme wealth inequality in this country. And for those who are increasing their wealth on the backs of community members, there is another perk which then deepens the extreme wealth disparity. That is the reality that billionaires and corporations in Australia often pay little or no tax. The current wealth of Australia's billionaire class is $503 billion, over half a trillion dollars. During the pandemic, Australia's wealthiest people made $64.8 billion, while 2.7 million Australians lost their jobs or work hours. One in three wealthy corporations do not even pay tax, and the Australian government continues to hand out billions in public subsidies to fossil fuel corporations. I cannot stress enough that, while our community is struggling to pay for medical care, for education, for a home, for food, for water, tax cuts continue to flow and subsidies are given to the wealthiest portion of the population and the most profitable corporations. And this has an incredibly negative impact. What we see from the government in response to this is a so-called vision outlined in their May budget—and they went out of their way to frame it as a cost-of-living budget. But if you look at the responses within that budget, you see short-term policy measures that fail to address the foundational systemic issues that underpin our current economic and social system and the deep unfairness within those systems. The WA government, for instance, feels it deserves a pat on the back for distributing a couple of hundred dollars to those who pay electricity bills in our state when the reality is that that does very little for those on the brink of losing their home, those unsure as to where the money will come from to pay the gas bill, to pay the insurance bill, to be able to actually move out of the place they've just been evicted from because their landlord is able to do that because we're one of the only states that has no-fault evictions. We see from this government, still, a lack of concrete consideration or action on the issues that Australians are voicing their concerns about, the actual changes that we need on the essentials: healthcare, financial sustainability and housing. The situation that we have right now is one that is grinding people into the ground. Eighty-five per cent of Western Australian tenants are in extreme rental stress. In places like Mandurah, renters are spending 46 per cent of their income on rent. In Perth, for instance—the capital city of Western Australia—the rental vacancy rate is 0.4 per cent. People are literally lining up—hundreds of them—trying to find a roof over their head, trying to find a rental and being forced to bid against each other behind closed doors to get somewhere to live, even though that is not a legally approved process. Yet they are still unable to find a roof over their head. We have 380,000 people in WA who have gone hungry over the course of this year. Half of them were in employed households, yet they went hungry. A single parent in an average household only has $1.40 left over after meeting a week's basic living expenses. How is anybody meant to get ahead, let alone feel secure, under that kind of financial pressure? The result of this continual stress and fear is that we see so many in our community struggling with health conditions, including mental health conditions, that are brought on by living in a state of perpetual stress. Last year, Australians worked 86 million additional hours. Yet we have, in WA, 380,000 people who went hungry last year. That is not okay. Those are the warning signs of a deeply broken system. Without proper rental protections, for instance, people in places like WA's Pilbara region—where we have seen landlords asking $1,850 a week for a basic rental— are being priced out of their community. We have community members across our state who are struggling to get access to the basics of a GP, because the bulk-billing rate in somewhere like Perth, for instance, is just slightly over 10 per cent. This isn't exclusive to WA. In Hobart, the bulk-billing rate is 0.8 per cent. Our system is struggling and straining just as profoundly as the people of this nation, and it is the political decisions made in this parliament that maintain a cycle which keeps people in poverty and which denies them access to a healthcare system that is currently unable to handle the status quo when combined with the chronically low rates of support system payments like the disability support pension, carers payments and jobseeker. Not only do we have systems that trap people in poverty; we also have systems that this place that we occupy could fix with the stroke of a pen. Yet so often the debate in this place is dominated by the needs of those that already have far too much and already wield far too much political influence in this space. We need, in this chamber, to begin advocating for the actual actions the community needs us to take: to stop this government spending billions of dollars on nuclear submarines and fossil fuel corporation subsidies and actually invest in the NDIS, in health care and in affordable housing for all. Workplace Relations: Wilmar Sugar 42 12:48 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I'm very pleased today to rise in the Senate to talk about hardworking Queenslanders and their efforts to get increased pay rises in North Queensland—not just for themselves but to benefit our regional communities. Of course, working hard to get wages moving and putting more money into the pockets of Australians is a key priority for our government. That's why you've seen key legislation around making sure that, if you work the same job, you get the same pay and that workers have the opportunity to bargain fairly. We have got wages moving, and we're very pleased about that. But I want to bring to the attention of the Senate today an issue that is unfolding at the Wilmar Sugar mills in regional Queensland. Last week I met with representatives of those workers from Wilmar Sugar, and today I met with a representative from Wilmar Sugar itself. During our meeting, I emphasised that Wilmar Sugar needs to come to the bargaining table in good faith and find a resolution that will work for workers and the community. However, if my meeting today was in any way a reflection of what has been happening around the bargaining tables in North Queensland since March 2023, I can understand why an agreement has yet to be reached. It is extraordinary that you would come into the office of a senator, speak over them, refuse to talk to them and put to that senator, who is simply seeking to understand the plight of workers in the community, that this is just part of a robust debate. It's not a robust debate to speak over someone when they're trying to talk to you about the workers that they represent, and it really did make me think how disrespectful this bargaining process must be to workers who are sitting on the other end of the table who are not senators in this parliament and who are not MPs or local members, but who are simply trying to advocate for a pay rise. Since March 2023, the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, the Electrical Trades Union and the Australian Workers Union have been engaged in protracted negotiations with Wilmar Sugar. After 15 months of negotiations and two failed enterprise bargaining agreements, where more than 80 per cent of the workforce have voted against the offer that has been put by the company, it's clear that Wilmar needs to do more to do the right thing by workers, by the community and by growers, and that's exactly what I'm calling for them to do today. When workers ask for a wage increase that keeps up with the cost of living, they are doing that to put food on the table. And they are doing that, in this case, by asking for a pay increase from a company that has had record profits. I know how this works. I know that corporate giants like Wilmar Sugar will come into the bargaining room and say that they simply couldn't afford a pay rise and that it is not feasible to give workers any increase in what they are offering. But, for those of you who are not familiar with Wilmar Sugar, I want to let you know this: this is a big company and, yes, it's supporting lots of jobs in regional Queensland, but it's also supported by an international company. Wilmar Sugar is owned by Wilmar International, a company based overseas, and I thought I had better check these claims that Wilmar Sugar simply can't afford to increase workers' wages during a cost-of-living crisis. I thought I'd better check these claims about record profits because it's important to know your facts. A simple check established quite clearly that Wilmar International, a multinational company which owns Wilmar Sugar and which is based in Singapore, made $1.5 billion of net profit last year. This is the company that is telling workers they can't afford a pay rise. After months of bargaining, this isn't going anywhere and, after years without a pay rise, it's well within these workers' rights to take protected industrial action. 'Protected' means that they've gone through the right processes; they're not simply walking off the job. They've applied for protected industrial action, they've voted on that action and they're keen to take it. But, when workers did that a few weeks ago, Wilmar said that they would lock them out of their workplaces and stop them from taking that protected industrial action. That didn't happen, thankfully, and it didn't happen because the community called for Wilmar to stop and to not go ahead with locking out these workers. And, when I say 'the community', I really want to be clear about this: yes, this is something that I'm advocating for and, yes, I support the workers, but I have seen support calls from other members from other parties. The local MP Dale Last has called for the bullying tactics to stop. Members of the Katter party in North Queensland have also called for Wilmar to get on with it and get back to crushing cane. This is not one of those industrial disputes where it's a red-team/blue-team situation. People in North Queensland know that these workers work hard, that sugarcane crushing and the sugar industry is so important for our community, and that these workers are the same community members who put their kids on the football team, who spend money in the local shops, who keep our community going. That is why we've seen such a resounding response from the community and will continue to see a resounding response from the community. It is absolutely unacceptable that this bargaining process continues without a decent offer being made to workers at Wilmar. I want to see a resolution. I want to be clear: I don't want to see workers having to take protected industrial action. I don't want to see this go further, into September. I want to see this dealt with now. That is what I am calling for from Wilmar Sugar today—not to come down to Canberra and come into the offices of senators and MPs and plead their case. These are not the tables you need to be at. You need to be at the bargaining table with your workers, and you need to put an offer on the table that acknowledges that there have been cost-of-living increases, that there hasn't been a pay rise, that you're not offering backpay and that the workers who work at your mills keep the company going. Without them, there is no sugar industry in North Queensland. It is very clear to me that there needs to be some action and some movement from this company. I know workers have applied to take further protected industrial action next week, and I know the company has applied to stop that protected industrial action. Well, I think cooler heads should prevail. If workers have been forced to go to protected industrial action, they should be allowed to take that action. But the best way to stop that from happening is not running to the Fair Work Commission, not pleading your case to the Fair Work Commission but putting a decent offer on the table for these workers. The community in North Queensland deserves this. This isn't just about one set of workers fighting for better wages; this is about workers being dismissed for years and years under the former Liberal-National government. After this fruitless bargaining and years without a pay rise, these workers absolutely deserve more. The community deserves more. One of these workers, an electrician, said to me that they are choosing between paying weekly bills and paying for health insurance. Another worker is deciding whether they can put fuel in the car next week. They deserve so much better. Job insecurity and being underpaid hurts workers and by extension hurts our communities. The wages earned by workers in regional Queensland are not just numbers on a pay cheque; they represent money that goes back into our local economy. Enough is enough. If you want to come to Canberra and come into the office of a senator from Queensland and stand over her and bully her and speak over her, then I can't even imagine how you are treating workers. Well, I can tell you, we've got solidarity with those workers. Those workers are standing in solidarity with me today, and the community is standing in solidarity with those workers, and we will not be bullied and we will not be pushed around. Workers deserve to stand up, to be proud of the fight they've fought and to keep fighting that fight until it is won. They should do that proudly, and they should do it together, united. That is what they have been doing. I stand with those workers in regional Queensland. I stand with the Wilmar Sugar workers and their representatives and I say to them, stand up for this fight. Energy 43 12:59 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia Just like all mothers, I want to know I'm doing the best I can to secure the best possible future for my children, my grandchildren and their children. I want to know that their energy source is affordable, secure and reliable, and I want mine to be so, too: When we flick the light switch on, we get light. When we want a cold drink, it is cold. When we want heating, we are warm. We know that future energy demand will require more, not less. As a developed nation, Australia should have the energy mix it needs. What Australians know, though, is that our power bills have increased by more than $1,000 as a result of this Albanese government, despite that promise we remember of cutting our power bills by $275. No-one has seen the $275. No-one has heard the Prime Minister say 275 since then. And that rebate? Well, that's not a reduction. The national energy demand dashboard available to all Australians shows that South Australia's fuel mix comprises 59 per cent wind, 25 per cent solar, 15 per cent gas and three per cent battery. Yet South Australia's electricity prices are some of the highest in the nation. Just go and check it out for yourself. It's a fact. I see my bill rising regularly, constantly and more so under this government. In the current cost-of-living crisis we need affordable, reliable, secure power. In South Australia we once saw the lights go off. Every single outlet that was powered by electricity switched off. Just imagine that happening in Sydney, Melbourne, Perth or anywhere else. Australians are doing what they can to survive this cost-of-living crisis, and people truly are on the brink. On the news this morning were reports of a Perth couple who had been hospitalised for suspected carbon monoxide poisoning after using a charcoal burner in their bedroom. Please don't do that. It's dangerous and it's deadly. What you need to do is to change the government and replace it with a coalition that has always been focused on Australian families and the cost of living, not on a voice to parliament or the CFMEU, which has been given a green light until now. Labor isn't really doing anything to help you with your electricity bills. What we need is a focus on getting power prices down, and we need to also look at the future. We need to adopt nuclear energy, just like 30 other countries in the world have done, many of which you've likely visited if you have been lucky enough to travel abroad. Nuclear is a path forward to support a net zero emissions energy mix. What this means is that our energy mix today of renewables plus gas plus coal will shift to a future energy mix of renewables plus gas plus nuclear. It simply makes sense. To support nuclear is not to be anti renewables. Most Australian coal-fired power plants will be out of the system by 2038. It's not that far away. We're already halfway through this year. Out of the world's 20 largest economies, Australia is the only one not using nuclear energy. Australians returning home from fabulous holiday destinations such as France, Japan, Belgium and the UK ate out, strolled the streets and took in the sights thanks to nuclear in the energy mix. They all returned safe. Nuclear energy provides about 10 per cent of the world's power, safely providing zero emission electricity to billions of people in more than 30 countries. The source is uranium, much of it ours. South Australia is unrivalled in the world when it comes to its natural resource deposits of uranium. In fact our state boasts almost one-third of the world's known deposits. South Australia's two fully operational uranium mines at Olympic Dam and Beverley-Four Mile lead the nation, producing and exporting some 97,000 tonnes of uranium oxide worth almost $7 billion in the past two decades. Uranium has been part of South Australia's mining mix for decades. Mining royalty revenue assists our state. More than 1,500 people work in the uranium industry. Uranium pays their wages. High-grade uranium is an essential ingredient for nuclear technology and to produce medicines for life-saving diagnosis and treatment every day in Australia. Every single year 560,000 nuclear medicine procedures occur across Australia, with 470,000 using nuclear isotopes generated from uranium. One in two Australians benefits from nuclear medicine during their life. That can be by X-rays and CT scans or in diagnosing heart, thyroid, lung and kidney conditions, as well as in diagnosing infections, tumours, fractures and sports injuries. It is used to treat hyperthyroidism; breast, prostate, and lung cancers; lymphomas; and associated bone pain. Even your pets benefit. Yes, cats can have CAT scans, or CT scans, too. Pet animals and agricultural stock owned by Australians also benefit from nuclear medicine used in veterinary applications, supporting animal welfare with life-saving treatment. ANSTO's OPAL reactor at Lucas Heights is the centrepiece of Australia's nuclear medicine and research program, and that's in the southern suburbs of Sydney. Most Australians are unaware that radioactive waste is managed at around 100 locations around Australia, including hospitals, industrial sites, mines and, of course, at ANSTO. We must, however, identify a permanent, long-term solution. The nuclear powered submarines that form part of the AUKUS defence pathway are an exciting project for South Australia, with the submarines being built at Osborne. This will employ some 4,000 workers in construction and there will be up to 5,500 direct jobs building the nuclear submarines. Australia must manage all radioactive waste generated by these submarines, and manage it safely, informed by leading best practice, meeting Australia's international and domestic legal obligations and commitments. Australia has a 70-year unblemished track record of operating nuclear facilities and conducting nuclear science activities. It is ridiculous and juvenile to see the three-eyed caricatures and cartoonlike images promoted by some Labor MPs and others in recent times. Nuclear energy provides Australia's only credible path to achieving net zero by 2050. Labor's 82 per cent renewables target by 2030 is way behind schedule, and its climate target of 43 per cent emissions reduction by 2030 has become unachievable. The coalition is providing an innovative, safe path forward. The rest of the world is way ahead of us. With zero emissions nuclear energy as part of a balanced energy mix, to talk nuclear is not to be anti renewables. With a balanced energy mix, we can reach net zero by 2050 while getting the prices down and keeping the lights, and people can have choice as to whether they turn on the lights, they turn on the heater, they leave the fridge on and they turn the lights on for safety, and they can actually pay the energy bill when they do that. Getting power prices down is the news every Australian family wants to hear, and they want to know there's a plan for it—a plan that's proven, a plan that's workable, a plan that's achievable. Nuclear is not a strange, new phenomenon—absolutely not. Australian Defence Force 44 13:08 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Some commentators question whether we should have warriors in the Australian Defence Force. My answer to that question is emphatic: yes, we should. Australians ask the government to protect them from foreign enemies. There's a line on a map; it's called our national border. Inside that line is the country of Australia and its people, and our resources, our families, our property and our way of life. Outside our borders there are some foreign countries who wish to bend Australia to their will. It's only a matter of time before someone else in the world with a big enough military believes they can change what happens inside our borders. History shows that. As the people of Australia, we ask our Defence Force to ensure no enemy that wishes to do us harm may cross our border. We take some of the fittest, smartest and most motivated young Australians and ask them to put their lives on the line, for that line, to protect what's inside it. We ask that our defence members be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. It's a debt we can never truly repay. I've had the privilege of listening to many soldiers, sailors and pilots. In almost all of those conversations one word comes up. That word is 'service'. These Australians answered the call to serve our country and to serve our Australian flag. Defence personnel ask for something simple in return. They ask for something that I agree they deserve. They ask for a purpose to their service. They ask for a clear mission. Above all, they ask for accountable leaders. The Defence Force has been in a drought of accountable leadership at the very top. Politicians have always invoked the Anzac spirit in big speeches. But it's not enough to stand up on Anzac Day and claim to back the troops. We must deliver the things they deserve every day: a clear purpose, a clear mission and accountability for our leaders. Successive politicians, ministers and especially generals have failed to deliver this for our defence personnel. Australia had forces deployed to Afghanistan for 20 years. Australia's uniform military was pitted against the Taliban, an insurgent guerrilla organisation. With superior technology, tactics, resources, training and troops, Western forces famously won nearly every tactical engagement. The Taliban reportedly had a saying: 'You have the watches'—referring to the Western technology—'but we have the time.' As some commentators quipped, we spent 20 years and billions of dollars and sacrificed Australian lives to replace the Taliban with the Taliban. The tens of thousands of ADF personnel who were deployed to the Middle East deserve our praise. They accepted the call and committed their lives to it. It's the leaders, the politicians and the generals that must be held accountable for the decision to send our best to faraway lands. On his last day in parliament, on The7.30 Report former foreign minister Alexander Downer said that John Howard walked into cabinet when he came back from 9/11 in the US and simply declared, 'We are off to Iraq.' There was no discussion with the public and not even a word of debate in parliament, just the lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was an illegal war based on a lie. There were no weapons of mass destruction, as our political leaders claimed. Yet not one politician or general has been jailed for throwing our best into it. Not one was even called out or even held accountable. Our enlisted and junior officers did everything they could to serve us while deployed to the wider Middle East. Scores paid the ultimate sacrifice. What about the politicians and senior generals who failed and hamstrung our soldiers? Those apparent leaders never delivered a coherent reason or an end state for what we were trying to achieve. Without a compelling reason for why our soldiers were deployed to the Middle East, many of our veterans and serving members were left disillusioned. Make no mistake: there were no angels in the Taliban ranks. Those insurgents were some of the worst of the worst. Despite this, our warriors rightly asked why. Why were we in desert country spilling Australian blood only for the Taliban to retake those bases from the Afghan army, as many on the ground warned they would? The answer is that the leaders failed to ever give our soldiers, aviators and sailors the purpose they deserve. Our lesson must be to never repeat these mistakes. The mission of our defence forces should be clear. If you sign up for the armed forces, your job will be to protect the sovereignty of Australia from anyone who wishes to do us harm. It will not be to fight forever wars in faraway lands having been sent there based on lies. As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I know that our warriors in the military deserve a place in our hearts, and our service men and women deserve a damn good reason to be there and they deserve and need strong leadership. (Time expired) Royal Australian Air Force: Bomber Command 45 13:13 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I welcome the recent announcement of the major new exhibition being planned for the Australian War Memorial which pays tribute to the unheralded role of the 10,000 Australian airmen who flew with Bomber Command during the Second World War. Bomber Command played a pivotal role in the overall Allied war effort. It conducted hazardous operations behind hostile enemy lines that formed part of the strategic bombing offensive to disrupt Nazi Germany's industrial capacity while undercutting civilian morale. For much of the war, Bomber Command was the only direct way of taking the fight to the enemy. The risks involved for Allied airmen were supreme. The air war over Nazi controlled Europe was one of the most uncertain and dangerous theatres of the Second World War. On every mission, each airman faced almost certain death, with the night sky and anti-aircraft fire as their constant companions. Flights would last hours, and crews endured cold, unpressurised and noisy aircraft. During World War II, over one in three RAAF members serving in Bomber Command lost their lives, accounting for 20 per cent of all Australian combat deaths. This amounted to 4,100 Australians killed in action, with many of them having no known grave or final resting place in a foreign field. Yet, despite these dangers, thousands stepped forward with extraordinary courage when they heard their call to action. One of these was Flying Officer Arthur 'Ron' Sullivan. He was one of the 10,000 Australian aviators who served with Bomber Command, piloting Vickers Wellington twin-engine medium bombers with No. 460 Squadron. He survived the war, accumulating over 670 flying hours. Sullivan was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for acts of gallantry and devotion to duty while participating in bombing operations against the enemy during a mission over Germany in the war's closing stages. The citation for Sullivan's DFC said: In March 1945, he was detailed for an attack against a benzole plant at Erin. While over the target area, his aircraft was hit by anti-aircraft fire and severely damaged, the elevator controls being severed. With fine airmanship, this officer regained control and flew back to base, where he made a masterly landing. He is an excellent Captain of aircraft who has consistently displayed skill, courage and determination of a high degree. Like that of other pilots of Bomber Command, Sullivan's courage exemplified the virtues and spirit of that great generation. The chosen few, despite facing great adversity and with the odds of survival weighted heavily against them, fearlessly volunteered for the greater good. It moved Sir Arthur 'Bomber' Harris, the commander-in-chief of Bomber Command, to later remark of the men he had once led: There is no parallel in warfare to such courage and determination in the face of danger over so prolonged a period … It was, moreover, a clear and highly conscious courage, by which the risk was taken with calm forethought … The contribution of Australians in Bomber Command was significant and was as important and effective as those made in other theatres of war, including the Pacific. The service of these Australians should not be overlooked or forgotten. Ostracising their crucial role in the war or airbrushing their legacy will cause history to avert her eyes from us as heirs to that great generation of Australians. The exhibition is scheduled to open in 2025. I look forward to visiting it, and I will encourage others to do so as well. I commend the Australian War Memorial for its commitment to recognising the valour of these 10,000 brave Australians during the 20th century's darkest hour. Lest we forget. Northern Territory: Malandarri Festival 46 13:18 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I'd like to share with the Senate a few events that have taken place in the Northern Territory over the few weeks since we last sat. One of the places that I'd like to speak about is my home community of Borroloola, where we have the Malandarri Festival, a very special festival. In fact, it's a festival that was in its 10th year, so it was a special anniversary, the 10th-anniversary celebration. We were able to see that the four language groups—the Yanyuwa, Marra, Gudanji and Garrwa peoples—came together to be able to dance and pass on the songs and ceremonies in an entertainment kind of way—one where a lot of people can have a lot of laughs and join in as well, because there are so many significant moments in the dances of the four language groups. It is a weekend of much pride. And I want to mention my sister, Marlene Timothy, who, for 10 years, has worked very, very strongly to ensure that the festival continued and saw that each year there would be the bands. This year we saw, for the first time, the Malandarri band. For the Senate to understand, the Malandarri band was the first ever band of the Yanyuwa, Garrwa, Mara and Gurandji peoples. They were formed in the late seventies, early eighties, and they travelled down to South Australia to what was then known as CASM, the Centre for Aboriginal Studies in Music, to which many of our community members would go. The Malandarri band members, who are well into their 50s and some in their 60s, got up to perform at the festival. It was a pretty special occasion to see some of them get up and perform. They also had younger performers come on as well, because, sadly, we have lost a few band members over the years to early deaths. I would also like to mention Dr Shellie Morris. Shellie Morris has done an outstanding job as a singer, performer and artist working with communities across the Northern Territory. She has also come back to Yanyuwa country because that is her grandmother's country, and her grandmother was part of the stolen generations. Shellie has worked diligently with the Borroloola Songwomen, and the Borroloola Songwomen were able to perform on the Saturday night of the festival. In doing so, they lifted the sky and the stars even higher with their singing. The Borroloola Songwomen don't want to be called a choir because they're not a choir. They have a very special kind of singing that makes everybody get up and dance. They're in great demand. They've been travelling to Victoria. They've also travelled to Queensland to sing. And I understand that even requests from overseas have come in, from Ireland and a few other places. I definitely know that Ireland was on the list, and Shellie Morris will certainly let me know of some of the other countries. I think it's wonderful that here we have a place, 1,000 kilometres south-east of Darwin, a place that is very close to my heart, one where this festival brings everyone together for a lot of joy. There hasn't been a lot of joy and happiness with recent deaths, but the coming together since the referendum in October was important. It was important that people celebrate and come together, reinvigorate, reset, and know they are strong, resilient people with plans for the future and hopes for their young ones. It was good to see the young people get up and dance. We see too many issues with our youth, so this weekend made everyone leave that festival ground feeling strong, feeling good, feeling positive and, most of all, feeling loved—that they are part of a community that cares. I congratulate NT Outback and all its members who work so closely with the Borroloola people, and I commend everyone for the work that you've done at the Malandarri Festival. Racism 47 13:23 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia Thank you, Acting Deputy President O'Sullivan. I don't know about you, but I am sick of being told Australia is a racist country. Let me tell you, when it comes to the subject of racism in this country, you're being gaslit—gaslit by the government, gaslit by the Public Service and gaslit by the corporate sector. These days it's impossible to get through 24 hours without being bombarded by claims of systemic racism, the dangers of colonialism or the media reporting on oppression. Yet, when I walk out on the street, all I see is a good society, a harmonious society, a country where people get along, perhaps better than any other place in the world. In truth, Australia is recognised as one of the most tolerant nations on the planet. In fact, according to the website World Population Review, Australia is the 12th highest-ranked country in the world for racial harmony. Translated, that means Australia is demonstrably welcoming of people of different races. And if you compare and contrast that with countries like India, where the caste system bricks in hierarchies of power that set the presumed supremacy of one group of people against the supposed inferiority of another, you start to get the picture. Or compare it with China, which actively discriminates and incarcerates the Uyghur people. Yet here in Australia, a place where there is no such calamity, all we hear about from our cultural elites is how we should feel ashamed of our culture and how we should erase our history. Why? It's all about division, of course. Divided, we're weak and susceptible to the cultural left. Remember the Voice to Parliament? They're egging this narrative on and causing us to fight among ourselves, because the cultural left are dedicated to overthrowing the status quo. Generations of students have now left school convinced about the impending destruction caused by so-called 'man-made global boiling' and that gender is a social construct or that Western civilisation is rife with sexism, racism and xenophobia. In short, Marx has been dead for well over a century, but his poisoned ideology lives on. Drill into any leftist movement, be it rampant environmentalism, critical race theory, the expansion of the welfare state or D&I offices in every major corporation, and you'll find Marxism at its core. These movements are all about using a guilt trip as a way of convincing us to hurt ourselves. The myth of rampant Aussie racism is just that—it's a myth. It's nothing more than a political sleight of hand, designed to do what this ideology does—divide us up into the role of oppressor and oppressed. That's why, every single day, Australians who have nothing to do with the wrongdoings of the past are made to feel guilty and ashamed. These arbiters of good behaviour aren't brave. They're not kind. They're some of the worst people in the country—maybe the world. They've never actually helped anyone. They're the people in our society who preach tolerance but yell at those with whom they disagree. They're those of the hyphenated-name brigade who claim to speak for the worker yet yell at supermarket cashiers when they don't scan their vegan sausages carefully enough. They're the ones who talk about world peace, only to happily enter into mortal combat with a neighbour if they leave their sprinkler on for ten minutes. These people will try and tell us things which are demonstrably not true. Why? Because it serves their purpose. Politics in this country has got to drown out this noisy minority. It's got to stop being spooked by the perception of a narrative which barely exists. Racism isn't on the rise in this country, but socialism certainly is. My message to the media, the bureaucrats and the government is to stop lying and start telling the truth. Nuclear Energy 47 13:27 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia We have recently seen the opposition's announcement of their unicorn plan to establish nuclear reactors in communities right around Australia. They've always had this on their agenda, but they have always been devoid of any real work and planning when it comes to our energy systems and networks. In particular, when it comes to nuclear, there's been no community engagement. It's just a big time-wasting distraction from the real work that's already being done on energy transformations in communities right around the country. Take, for example, the community of Collie, in my home state of WA, which is one of the proposed sites for a so-called small modular reactor. A nuclear power plant is proposed for the Muja Power Station site. Mr Dutton is subjecting Collie to this risky and expensive fantasy. The coalition knows that more than two-thirds of the coal generators in our country will retire in the next decade due to age. These retirements were announced on their watch while they were in government, and yet we saw no sign of any real plan, even for nuclear, in their time in government. Their current plan will cost far more than renewable energy—renewable energy that can and must be built from today and is already being built. The Muja Power Station is set to close by October 2029, and yet the earliest reactors to be built under the most ambitious construction timeline—these unimaginably expensive replacement nuclear reactors—would not be up and running until the early 2040s. Common sense would tell you that the state of Western Australia, including Collie, needs replacement power transformation now, not when it will be far too late. The 2023-24 GenCost report released in May confirmed what we already know, which is that renewable energy is the cheapest form of energy available. It's plentiful in WA, and we must keep implementing it now. Senator O'Sullivan 283585 We will now move to two-minute statements. Cairns: Water 48 13:30 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland What would you call a broken promise? Maybe you seek to deceive, to delude, to falsify, to mislead or to con? In April 2022 then Labor opposition leader Anthony Albanese visited Cairns during the election campaign to promise $107.5 million for the Cairns Water Security Stage 1 project. Eight months later, in November 2022, when Labor was comfortably in government, the minister for water reaffirmed this promise. She said: I am proud to be delivering on this critical election commitment to secure drinking water supply for Cairns. Senator Nita Green, who is based in Cairns, also said in November 2022: Cairns needs water security and an Albanese Labor Government will deliver it. Fast-forward to the Albanese Labor government's first budget in 2022: zero dollars for Cairns water—a broken promise. Fast-forward to their second budget in 2023: zero dollars for Cairns water—another broken promise. Fast-forward to their third budget in 2024: zero dollars for Cairns water. Forecasts indicate that by 2026—just 18 months away—Cairns will be at risk of drinking water shortfall. Last December, when Cairns was devastated by flooding following Cyclone Jasper, the city came within two hours of running out of water. Is this not a clear sign of the urgency of this project? Cairns needs this broken promise to be made good. It is home to 160,000 people. It is the gateway to the reef, with 2.4 million visitors each year. It supports defence, agriculture, aviation, health, education and energy projects. Cairns needs water and it needs this Labor government to make good its broken promise. Budget 48 13:32 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria The first of July is an important day. From next week, people in my home state of Victoria will receive a raft of cost-of-living assistance implemented by the Albanese Labor government, starting with a tax cut for every single Australian taxpayer. Workers on a median taxable income of $68,000 will receive a tax cut of $1,379, and 86 per cent of Victorian taxpayers will receive a larger tax cut under Labor. This means Victorian workers will keep more of what they earn. In addition, the Albanese government will provide a $300 energy rebate to every single household to help make power bills more affordable, while one million small businesses will receive $325. This will make a real difference to people and businesses, helping them with the cost-of-living measures under federal Labor's plan to look after every single Australian. Across Australia, 2.6 million workers will also receive a pay rise—their third consecutive pay rise that has been backed by this government from day one—and that will also start on 1 July. Victorians will continue having access to cheaper medicines, with no-one paying more than $31.60, thanks to a freeze on the maximum cost of PBS medicines for the next 12 months. Pensioners and concession card holders won't pay more than $7 70 for their PBS medications for the next five years. Federal Labor's plans also include our Paid Parental Leave scheme reforms, increasing from 1 July paid parental leave from 20 to 22 weeks, and all the way to 26 weeks by 2026. This is, obviously, going to help advance women's economic participation and their security in the workplace. As we reach the midway point of 2024, the Albanese government's No. 1 priority continues to be the cost-of-living measures that we are trying to look after Australians with right now. Digital ID Bill 2024 48

Digital ID Bill 2024

13:34 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia Earlier this year, Labor rushed their Digital ID legislation through parliament without allowing for a proper, informed debate. In light of this manoeuvre, I am today introducing a bill to repeal these digital ID laws. There are many ways this system could be abused, and there are not enough protections to ensure that it doesn't become mandatory. Furthermore, the protections which do exist are not robust and leave the door open for activities such as online banking to become highly inconvenient without a digital ID. At least, the system should be voluntary for users who would like the convenience of having their data stored in one digital location, and no more. If people don't want it, they shouldn't have to use it. Mark my words: it won't be long before digital ID will become a condition of employment in this country. As sure as night follows day, the corporate sector will adopt the system on behalf of the government. These laws must be repealed urgently, and I thank Senator Hanson, Senator Roberts, Senator Babet, Senator Canavan and Senator Rennick for co-sponsoring this bill. First Nations Australians 49 13:35 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia A treaty is a binding formal agreement, a contract or other written instrument that establishes obligations between two or more sovereign entities. A treaty can allow parties to come together and to negotiate a way of working together to set a foundation for a positive coexistence. A treaty or treaties with First Nations people will set the foundation for a shared future between Australia's First Peoples and the various Australian governments: federal, state and local. The path to the kind of treaty that will benefit everyone will involve building a shared understanding of the past so that we can build a strong and equal future that is based on respect, healing and justice. I am a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, and we are engaged already in the negotiations and ratification of many treaties with other countries for a wide range of purposes. Some states and territories are already making headway on this issue—the proud state of Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, the Northern Territory and Tasmania—and I hope to see more states added to that list very soon. All kinds of scare tactics and lies are being deployed to stop Australians truly understanding that this work is important to progressing this nation. I've been talking to many people across the nation about work that's being undertaken at the state and territory level as we lay the path for a national treaty. I look forward to reaching across the aisle in this place and working together with those who want to listen to First Nations voices and to use this opportunity to bring this nation together. Women's Economic Security 49 13:37 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria It's almost 1 July, which means real cost-of-living relief for all Australians, especially Australian women. Our government is putting women at the centre of our economic plan—women like Lauren and her team at Neerim Health in Gippsland, who are part of the highly feminised nursing workforce who do an amazing job in Gippsland caring for their community. Our government is supporting women across all industries with cost-of-living relief starting on 1 July—relief that delivers a bigger tax cut to 90 per cent of Victorian women. There's relief for the 96 per cent of nurses who are getting a bigger tax cut under our government. A nurse earning $80,000 a year will receive a tax cut of $1,600 a year because we want women like Lauren and her team to earn more and keep more of what they earn. That's why we're expanding paid parental leave too. From 1 July, new mums will get an additional two weeks of paid parental leave, on the way to 26 weeks in 2026, so women can have more time with their new children and stay connected to their work—work that pays more under our government, with three boosts to award wages on our watch, resulting in the smallest gender pay gap on record. We want to create a better future for all Australians, and that means securing a better economic future for Australian women—with bigger tax cuts, more parental leave and higher wages—because we want Australians, including Australian women, to earn more and keep more of what they earn. Economy 49 13:38 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The Reserve Bank has just announced the inflation rate for May as four per cent, which is above the expected rate of 3.8 per cent. What's even worse is that the underlying inflation rate, which had been trending downward, has now increased to 4.4 per cent. Inflation is surging, and it's entirely the fault of the Albanese Labor government. Today we heard Finance Minister Gallagher again bragging about this government's track record on protecting wages. The data does not support that statement. According to the Australia Institute, real wages of everyday Australians have fallen from $52,900 to $52,080 since this government came to power. That figure has been calculated to March this year, so it doesn't take into account what is now rising inflation. If everyday Australians feel like they're working harder and going backwards, it's because you are. The inflation spike was entirely predictable. Net zero measures continue to force up electricity prices, which cascade throughout our entire economy. Every business, from farming to manufacturing to retailing, uses power. Any increase in power has to be passed on, and this is what we're now seeing. One Nation calls on the government to abandon the insane net zero transition before the economy falls apart entirely, catastrophically. In the March quarter, business bankruptcies were at record levels. Bankruptcies in the building sector were especially high. Housing construction is not rising; it's falling. Yet this government continues to bring in more new-arrival immigrants, which is inherently inflationary. The economy as a whole is just barely staying out of recession, with GDP growth at 0.2 per cent, a figure that shows the destruction that net zero is causing to our entire economy. I hope the Reserve Bank holds its nerve and doesn't raise interest rates. If it raises rates, everyday Australians will be doing it even tougher. What a mess. This government is not fit to govern—no trust. Economy 50 13:41 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales The monthly inflation figures are out for the month of May, and it is not good news for households or Australians. Inflation is running at an annualised rate of four per cent, and it is actually accelerating. It was 3.4 per cent in February, 3.5 per cent in March, 3.6 per cent in April and now four per cent. Inflation is not under control; it's getting worse. Is it any wonder? From the Labor government, in their last budget, we saw a 4½ per cent increase in real growth in spending and an additional stimulus put into the economy of $44 billion, or two per cent of GDP, in a single year. Of a windfall of revenue—due to high commodity prices and bracket creep—of some $365 billion since this government came to office, over $300 billion has been spent. This led organisations such as the Australian Financial Review to describe the last budget as the most irresponsible budget in recent memory. At the RBA meeting last week, the cash rate was kept on hold at 4.35 per cent, with the RBA saying that demand was too strong and that recent budget outcomes, including state Labor and federal budgets, are having an impact on demand and slowing their pathway back. Inflation is now getting further away from the RBA's two to three per cent target. This is an Australian phenomenon. In the US, inflation is running at 3.3 per cent. In the eurozone area, it's 2.4 per cent. In the UK, it's two per cent. In Canada, it's 2.9 per cent. But, in Australia, our figure has a 4 in front of it. Let's break down what this means. It means things are costing more for households. It means that interest rates are going to stay higher for longer, meaning you're paying more on your mortgage. And we're seeing Australians paying more tax. All up, this government's fiscal and budget strategy is a complete failure. Women 50 13:43 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria The Albanese Labor government is putting women and gender equality at the heart of Australia's economic plan. We are committed to making women's lives safer and to getting a fairer economic deal for women. With my colleague Minister Gallagher leading the charge, as the Minister for Women and the Minister for Finance, we are making key investments in women's safety, women's economic security and women's health. We are doing this at a time when women need it most. We know that, when an economy works for women, it works for all Australians. Women in this country deserve to feel safe. Violence against women is a national crisis. This is why we've invested over $3.4 billion to support women's safety since we were elected. We're also investing $1.1 billion over four years to pay superannuation on government funded paid parental leave for parents, helping to close a super gap and empowering women to make decisions about balancing care and work. We also know our cost-of-living tax cuts will particularly help women. Women are disproportionately represented among low- and middle-income taxpayers, and our tax cuts will help women keep more of their hard-earned money. Each of the 6.5 million women who pay tax in this country will receive a tax cut from 1 July, with an average benefit of around $1,650. We also know that 51 per cent of recipients of Commonwealth rent assistance are single-woman households. We are investing $1.9 billion to increase all Commonwealth rent assistance by an additional 10 per cent. That is on top of the 15 per cent increase in last year's budget. If you ever needed proof of why we need Labor governments, this budget is it. I'm proud to be a part of a government that is serious about improving women's lives and achieving gender equality in Australia. Housing 50 13:45 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland Every politician in this building, me included, is about to pocket another pay rise. This is being piled on top of already beyond-generous pay, and it's hard to stomach a pay increase when so many people in this community are struggling desperately. How can the Labor government stand by while more and more people across the country are forced into homelessness? My office in Gladstone helps people all day who are on the verge of or already experiencing homelessness—people sleeping in their cars, people couch-surfing with their kids. They are just trying to survive. Everyone is being hit hard, including older people. The number of older people renting has increased by 73 per cent. This means that folks are being forced out into an unregulated private market where poorly maintained, unsafe and inaccessible rental properties are rife. This means they are also subject to the whims of an uncapped rental market where property developers and landlords call the shots, increasing their profits whenever they choose. We also have an age pension that barely covers the basics, with the cost of housing cutting into that more and more, and this crisis is only going to get worse. If Labor were serious about tackling the housing crisis, it would phase out the massive tax handouts for property investors that are denying millions of renters the chance to buy a home, and it would invest the savings in a mass build of public housing and coordinate a rent freeze and a cap on rent increases. Coalmining Industry 51 13:47 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland Last week, I drove out from Rockhampton to Emerald to attend the AG-Grow farm field days—wonderful days, wonderful events—out there. There's a lot of positivity around the farming sector. It's had good rains. It's raining again, I think, in Central Queensland today. One thing that struck me along the journey was that trainload after trainload full of coal was passing me. It's always inspiring to see the fruits of the hard work of the men and women in our coalmining industry and how much it provides for our country, but it does get one thinking: how come we're digging up all of this coal, chucking it on a train, taking it to a port, putting it on a boat and sending it all the way, usually—almost always—to the northern hemisphere of the world, across the equator to Japan, Korea, China, India and the like, where they are using that resource to deliver cheap power for themselves, build a manufacturing sector and build an industrial economy, while we, instead, are going to shut down all our coal-fired power stations? All of those in Central Queensland are slated to go. What's going to happen then? Are we still going to export the coal to them? For the environment, it doesn't matter where it's burned. But, for our jobs and for our wealth, it does matter where it's burned. In the week when we're talking about nuclear energy and other forms of energy, news broke that India is set to register the biggest jump in coal-fired power in a decade. They're set to increase their coal-fired power in one year by 15 gigawatts. We have only about 20 gigawatts of coal in this country. They're going to install three-quarters of our capacity in just one year. We are fools. We're being taken for mugs. The biggest reaction I got out there at AG-Grow about nuclear and renewables was: 'Why don't we just use our coal? It's right here.' It's right there. Other countries are using it. Let's use it too to bring down power prices and make sure we at least keep the manufacturing sector we have left in this country. We've lost so much. But maybe we can even consider growing it again one day in the future. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 I will just let everyone know that Senators Bragg and Cadell have swapped positions. So, to you, Senator Bragg. Racism 51 13:49 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales Australia is a great country, but I fear that we are degrading our standards very heavily. In the past few weeks, I've been very concerned about the dropping of our standards and the dropping of our public debate on what we are expected to accept as Australians. In relation to antisemitism, this has been one of the great scourges of history, but it has reared its ugly head in a most disgusting way since 7 October. The attempted mainstreaming of the saying 'from the river to the sea' is deeply antisemitic, and that is designed to erase Israel from the map. We hear a lot about this from the crossbench, and I've been disgusted with some of the things that I've heard in the past few months. I believe that Israel is held to a different standard. You hear a lot about Israel but not a lot about Ukraine, and I wonder why that is. The attempted mainstreaming of this extreme ideology is very dangerous for a nation like Australia. The defacing of Josh Burns's electorate office in Melbourne and the drawing of red horns on his head are deeply antisemitic and outrageous; it is an outrageous drop in our standards. I was disappointed to read the statement from the Leader of the Greens, Mr Bandt, where he called out this poor behaviour but couldn't bring himself to mention the word 'antisemitism'—and that's what it was. We have to be upfront, with plain speaking, and call out the degradation of Australian standards. Our children expect us to hand over a high-quality country to them, not a country which is going to be subject to extreme ideology in the mainstream. That is dangerous for all of us, not just Jewish Australians. Cost of Living 51 13:51 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia I want to inform the Senate of five things the Albanese Labor government will be doing in five days time to support Australians with the cost of living. On 1 July we're delivering more relief in a way that is fiscally responsible while helping to put further downward pressure on inflation. From 1 July we will see tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer, not just some; we will see $300 energy rebates to every Australian household to provide necessary relief with the cost of living; and we're freezing the price of common medicines so that for the next two years the cost of all PBS medicines will remain below $31.60, which is $12.50 less than when Labor was elected. In five days time there'll be two more weeks paid parental leave in addition to the paid parental leave that Australian families are already entitled to, and we are taking action to ensure that leave can be better shared among families and therefore more valuable for the needs of modern Australian families. And, of course, we've backed in a third consecutive wage rise for Australia's lowest-paid workers, some 2.6 million Australians. Those are five things in five days that'll make a meaningful difference to the cost of living, because we know Australians are struggling—we know South Australians are struggling. Let's not forget that we're also taking action to crack down on the big supermarkets to give families and farmers a fair go and better prices at the checkout. We're wiping $3 billion in student debt and making indexation fairer, delivering cheaper child care, strengthening Medicare, seeing more homes built more quickly in every part of the country and planning a future made here in Australia. We know times are tough. These measures won't solve everything, but they will make a meaningful difference, and we'll keep working every day to deliver for Australians. James Boag Brewery 52 13:53 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania The invisible line marked by James Boag Brewery and Cascade Brewery has divided the north and south of Tasmania for well over 150 years, but I can assure you it is fading. It's fading because Boag's brewery is making a choice between having jobs in Tasmania and taking its production elsewhere. Tasmanians love their Boag's, and I expect Boag's loves Tasmania. Last year, the Tasmanian government—in good faith, mind you—gave Boag's $1 million to continue its tour operations. The bailout meant that tours of the brewery have continued and that jobs were saved, but now we're being told that as many as 15 jobs at Boag's will be lost as they move some beer production onto the mainland. They say it was difficult decision, and I say that's rubbish. They say they couldn't avoid it, and I say that's rubbish, because most of the beer produced is sent back to the mainland. I'm not doubting that most beer is sent back the mainland. Of course they want our beer; it's Tasmanian—it's the best. Lion, the owner of Boag's, got almost $2.7 million from the freight equalisation scheme, from 2018 to 2019, and has continued to reap its benefits. This scheme is designed to level the playing field for manufacturing in Tasmania, and I have been its biggest supporter since it started. We need to back our Australian industry and restore the industrial manufacturing advantage Australia once had. I get it: we live in a world where everything is more expensive, including electricity and wages, and, at the same time, people are choosing to drink less beer. But a cycle of putting out your hand and saying, 'Please, sir, may I have some more?' and hanging job losses over the heads of workers and Tasmanians is not fair. The millions of taxpayer dollars given to Boag's over the years has not been free money; it has been an investment in the future of Tasmania. So while Lion as a global company will happily take taxpayers' coin, they are proving that they don't give a damn about sticking around to support Tasmanians. Fraser, Mr Andrew Raymond Gordon, Cameron, Mr John, AM 52 13:55 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales There are many big issues here today. On a bit of indulgence, I want to do some thanking. The New South Wales Nationals held their party conference in Wagga Wagga just last weekend, in the lead-up to it. We saw the end of a five-year career for our president and a slightly longer one for our treasurer. Our chairman, Andrew Fraser, is limited to a five-year term, and he stepped out to make way for the new chair, Rick Colless. But I would like to thank Andrew for all the work he has done. Everyone in this chamber relies on a party network. There are paid employees and secretariats in head offices, but there are volunteers that do this for nothing—that give their time and give their service in the interest of their country for very little. Andrew is a person of service—he has always been that. He was Deputy Leader of the New South Wales Nationals in 2007. He's in groups such as the freemasons, working hard in there, and has done quite well. He's somewhat famous for his actions in the New South Wales parliament—we won't touch on that too much. He has three loves in his life—that is, Kerrie, his wife, the National Party and Bonville golf course. He was spending less time on one and more time on the other—be careful what you say there! I'd like to thank Andrew for everything he has done. I wouldn't be here without him. So many Nationals wouldn't be here without him. So many senators wouldn't be here without that volunteer service of their party officials. The other person is John Cameron, our treasurer. John has been there for a long time. I enjoyed John's time immensely when I was the state director of the party. I enjoyed sipping a red and waiting for an auction to come on so that the Nationals could get back a bit of property ownership as an investment tool. As the auction went on for longer and the wine bottle got replaced, we maybe bid a bit too much on that, John. It was a good night with Bede Burke and I. But the Nationals are back in property ownership, returning money for our members. You have always been there. You have kept the party on a steady path of fiscal responsibility so we are always well placed for elections and always well placed to look after our members. I thank you both. I thank you for what you have done for me, I thank you for what you have done for the party and I thank you for what you have done for your communities. Energy 53 13:57 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia While the coalition has been chasing its nuclear unicorn, Australian Manufacturing Workers Union members working at Muja Power Station have been fighting for a just transition for nearly a decade. They have been working hard for it. They have a closure timeline, onsite just-transition arrangements and new green manufacturing jobs in the pipeline. Their just transition is a nation-leading program. It's a plan put together by a quadripartite Collie just-transition working group. It's got representatives from the state and Commonwealth governments, the Collie community, relevant unions and affected industry, putting us on a path to a green manufacturing future in our south-west—a future that will bring with it tens of thousands of secure, high-paid manufacturing jobs. But the Collie community hasn't been asked if they want to chuck their transition in the bin and instead have a nuclear reactor in their backyard. The opposition has slapped the community of Collie in the face. Rather than saying, 'Where should we invest money according to your local community plans?' they have billions of dollars that they want to put on the table in government to invest in their nuclear unicorn. Rather than asking the community of Collie about how they want to plan their future, instead they've slapped them in the face by saying they will not even negotiate about where future nuclear reactors would be located if they were elected. We need real solutions for the just transition, and only Labor governments in our nation are prepared to do that. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Pratt. The time for—I believe Senator McGrath beat you, Senator Watt. Nuclear Energy 53 13:59 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I did. It's good to beat Senator Watt—and we're going to beat him at the next election. The Labor Party have got one thing for the next election, and that is the great old scare campaign. They've opened the draw and they've pulled out the scare campaign because they're not going to run on their track record of the last two years, because that is atrocious. It is the scare campaign, and guess what that's going to be about: nuclear energy. We want cheaper energy for Australians, we want reliable energy for Australians and we want Australians to be able to put on their air conditioning and watch the TV. The mob over there want us to sit in a dark room somewhere, looking at the paint dry. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator McGrath. Order! Let's hope, with all that unruliness, all the shouting's done and we'll have a quiet question time. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 53 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 53 14:00 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Today's monthly inflation figures confirm what Australians have been feeling: after three Labor budgets, trimmed mean inflation has jumped to 4.4 per cent, with fuel up 9.3 per cent, electricity prices up 6.5 per cent and housing costs up 5.2 per cent. Only a month ago, Minister, you stated that this government's budget is 'an inflation-fighting budget'. The targeted cost-of-living measures announced in the budget are 'expected to reduce inflation'. You went on to say, 'Inflation now has a 3 in front of it.' The forecast of Treasury has us reaching an inflation rate with 'a 2 in front of it' through this year. You also stated: We stand by the inflation forecasts that are outlined in our budget. … … … So all this rubbish that they go over about how we are exacerbating inflation—we have halved it! Minister, doesn't today's inflation data demonstrate that the Reserve Bank's assessments are more credible than yours? (Time expired) 14:01 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory As Senator Hume would know, the RBA forecasts and the Treasury forecasts are very similar. I'll leave the bank to explain their forecast, but we certainly support the Treasury forecast. Senator Hume was quoting me in comments about our budget, and those comments that I made are accurate—that is, the budget we handed down will take pressure off inflation. That has been supported by analysis. Indeed, in the release today by the ABS, electricity prices did rise 6½ per cent, but, without the energy bill relief, the ABS points out that they would have increased 14½ per cent. And rents, if I use that example, have increased slower because of our investments in Commonwealth rent assistance—again, measures which those opposite didn't support when we brought them in. We are putting more work into rent and more effort into energy bill relief. It will reduce inflation and it will support households. We are doing all of this because we need to keep downward pressure on inflation, but we also need to support households at the same time. They are the responsible, measured decisions that we took in our budget. They will put downward pressure on inflation. Inflation remains higher than we would like, and that is why our measures in the budget are targeted at putting downward pressure on inflation but supporting households with the main issue that they're facing at the moment, which is addressing cost-of-living pressures. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, a first supplementary? 14:03 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Minister, your latest budget was widely criticised by respected economists for its inflationary spending, with Chris Richardson saying at the time: 'My big ask of the budget was that it didn't poke the inflationary bear. I don't think it passed that test.' Will you finally now admit that, after three budgets, your government has failed the inflationary test and made life harder for Australians by keeping rates higher for longer? 14:03 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory No, I don't support the proposition being put by Senator Hume. Our budget is a measured, responsible budget making appropriate investments. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, the challenge for those opposite is to outline the areas they do not support. They come in here and criticise the budget but don't for a moment outline the areas they would cut. You wouldn't give energy bill rebates? You wouldn't do extra investments in keeping medicines lower, or the tax cuts, perhaps—all of those issues: are they not supported? You don't support those any longer? What a surprise. This budget was specifically targeted at not only dealing with the inflation challenge in the economy but also providing cost-of-living relief, because that is what all of our constituents are telling us is their No. 1 issue. They didn't want the slash and burn. We all remember the 2013 budget. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, a second supplementary? 14:05 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria At the start of 2023 the Senate Cost of Living Committee was told by a local food charity operator that the No. 1 thing the government could do to get the cost of living under control would be to get interest rates down. Since then, rates have increased four times because the government has failed to get its spending under control. Minister, why is it that you only have spin and political tricks, when Australians really need a credible path to getting inflation under control? 14:05 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory There was a lot of rubbish in that question, but on the question of food banks and emergency relief— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, I've called the chamber to order, and that includes you. Minister Gallagher. Senator GALLAGHER ING On the issue of food banks and emergency relief—and I note Senator Hume outlined in her question the important work that they do—this government has invested more into that sector to deal with the pressure— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash! Senator GALLAGHER ING because they were—surprise, surprise—underfunded by those opposite— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash! Senator GALLAGHER ING as was the entire non-government sector. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Cash, I called you twice and you continued to be disrespectful. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING The entire non-government sector was underfunded when we came to government. We found services had not been properly indexed, not properly supported, and we have had to fix that up as well. I imagine that's an area that you would like to cut and slash as you did when you were last in government. This budget is responsible—it's tackling inflation and, most importantly, it's providing much-needed relief to households that are under pressure—and we will continue to focus on our plan. Taxation 55 14:06 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Minister Wong. Can the minister please tell the Senate how Labor's tax cuts will assist all taxpayers, not just some, as was the coalition's intended outcome? In particular, can the minister explain the impact on low- and middle-income earners and the broader range of industries that will benefit. Can you outline for us why the Albanese Labor government's No. 1 priority is providing cost-of-living support while putting downward pressure on inflation? 14:07 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank Senator Grogan, my fellow South Australian senator, for that question. What I would say to her is this: in just five days time, all Australian taxpayers will get a tax cut. All Australian taxpayers will get a tax cut in just five days time—not just some Australian taxpayers, as those opposite had intended—because those of us on this side want Australians to earn more and to keep more of what they earn. From Monday, every teacher will pay less tax. Every nurse, farmer, dentist, chef, bus driver and accountant—they will all pay less tax. That's 13.6 million Australians, and, better yet, 11.5 million will get a bigger tax cut, compared with what those opposite proposed. Our teachers, who we are so reliant on, educating the next generation: 98 per cent of primary school teachers and 97 per cent of secondary school teachers across Australia will be better off under our package. Our hospitality workers: 97 per cent of the chefs working across Australia will get a bigger tax cut. Ninety-five per cent of sales assistants will get a bigger tax cut. Receptionists: 96 per cent of them will get a bigger tax cut. Senator Sterle, 97 per cent of truck drivers will be better off. Senator Sheldon, 91 per cent of electricians will be better off. Cleaners—for the UWU members: 96 per cent of cleaners will be better off under our tax cuts. Those opposite don't understand the importance of providing cost-of-living relief to Australians who are doing it tough. That's what this government is doing. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Grogan, first supplementary? 14:09 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Five days—that's great news. I can't wait! Can the minister please detail how, from 1 July, Labor's tax cuts will start to help women, particularly those in low-paid, female-dominated industries such as aged care and child care, and also how the Albanese Labor government is helping people in these industries by backing wage rises? 14:09 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Grogan. I know that questions about workers in the aged-care and early childhood sector are very dear to your heart, as a former USU official, as is the case for many of the senators on our side. I'm pleased that, from next Monday, nine out of 10 women will get a bigger tax cut than they would have had under those opposite. As I said yesterday, we know that aspiration doesn't begin in the top tax bracket. We also understand that women dominate low-paid hardworking industries; 96 per cent of early childhood educators are women, 81 per cent of age and disability carers are women, and 88 per cent of registered nurses are women. With Labor's tax cuts, almost all those workers will get a bigger tax cut. But of course, as Senator Grogan said, that isn't where it ends. Unlike those opposite, we support better wages for Australians. Under us, average wage growth is almost double what it was under the former government. As I said, we want Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn, and we mean it. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Grogan, second supplementary? 14:11 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Thank you, Minister. The minister mentioned that the vast majority of workers would be better off under Labor's tax policy, which of course is great news—and only five days to go. Can the minister please provide further details on how this benefits Australian households? 14:11 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia From 1 July, Labor's tax cuts will see families with children pocket an average of more than $3,000 next financial year—an extra $60 a week in their pockets—to help with the cost of living. Across all households, the average tax cuts will be more than $2,000 under Labor's plan. That's more than $40 a week. And of course next Monday the Albanese Labor government is taking $300 off people's power bills. What have we got from those opposite? We have Mr Dutton's announcement—it's not a plan; it's an announcement—which is serving up the most expensive form of energy there is and asking Australians to pay for it. Senator Ruston 243273 Just because you say it doesn't make it so. Senator WONG 00AOU Well, I'll take that interjection from Senator Ruston. She said, 'Just because you say it doesn't make it so.' The problem with you on climate change and energy is that the facts have never graced your door. That's the problem. You just say, 'Oh, those facts are not convenient, so we're going to pretend they're not there.' (Time expired) Budget 56 14:12 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Minister, last month you stated that the targeted cost-of-living measures announced in the budget are expected to reduce inflation, with energy bill relief expected to directly reduce inflation by half a percentage point in 2024. However, today's monthly inflation figures reveal that electricity prices rose by 6.5 per cent in the 12 months to May and that now, after two years of Labor, Australians are paying 21.1 per cent more for their energy bills. Will you now admit you were wrong? 14:13 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank the senator for the question, and no, I was not wrong in those comments; they are outlined in the budget. I would just say that we are talking about the budget that kicks in on 1 July 2024. The measures I was speaking about relate to that period, and the budget papers are very clear about the forecasts or the estimates that Treasury have attached to those measures that put downward pressure on inflation. They are the energy bill relief, which will kick in from 1 July, and the Commonwealth rent assistance, an additional payment in the 2024-25 financial year. But it's very clear, even from the data today—the monthly data, which moves around a bit—that the measures we have already put in place, the energy bill relief and the work that we did on Commonwealth rent assistance last year, have reduced the increases that people would have otherwise experienced. Those opposite voted against them and they criticised them, and in a continued attack on the budget they say it was unnecessary spending. We don't agree with that. We think those measures were targeted and appropriate, and that's why we're building on them in the next budget. They will come into effect on 1 July, in conjunction with the tax cuts that we have reshaped so that they better meet the needs right across the income brackets and, indeed, in particular cohorts like low-paid workers and women, who will get those tax cuts from 1 July. I completely stand by the budget that the Treasurer delivered and the forecast, which is outlined in the budget papers, that those measures will reduce the impact on inflation. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Reynolds, first supplementary? 14:15 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia The economist Warren Hogan said today: 'No-one wants to hear it or believe it, but it looks like underlying inflation is picking up in Australia in 2024. The 4.35 per cent cash rate won't get the job done on inflation, and there's a $40-plus billion fiscal bomb about to hit in a few days time.' So, Minister, how can you possibly claim, as you just have, that your budget puts downward pressure on inflation when Australians are now facing the prospect of another interest rate hike? (Time expired) 14:15 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Well, the bank will make decisions about the setting of the cash rate, and I don't comment on that. In relation to the figure that you've just used for the impact on 1 July, am I to believe now that the opposition does not support the tax cuts? I think the figure was being used as though, if tax cuts come in on 1 July, what you were arguing was that then interest rates will go up because of the tax cuts, and that led me to believe that you now don't support the tax cuts. Is that right? You can't criticise it and still support it—or you don't support it now? Well, I think people will be very interested in that. The measures that we are putting in place that come into effect on 1 July, including the energy bill rebates, will come in over the 12 months of the financial year. They are going to be delivered in a way that makes sure that people are getting that relief, but it's not coming in one hit at one time. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Reynolds, second supplementary? 14:16 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Minister, I am very glad you mentioned energy prices, because I want to ask you: with electricity up 21.1 per cent and gas up 22.2 per cent under Labor, when can Australians expect to see their energy bills drop permanently by the $275 a year you promised 97 times ahead of the last election and just referenced again now? 14:17 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Reynolds for the question. They will see the results of this government's measured, responsible plan of rolling out renewables over the long term ease their energy bills, and we know that because renewables, firmed up with storage and gas, are the cheapest form of energy transition, unlike the risky plan that's been outlined by Peter Dutton, Mr Dutton—it seems by mistake in an interview, where he walked away from the 2030 targets when he meant to walk away from the 2050 target—to adopt the most expensive form of energy generation in a way that nobody can describe. None of you can describe it here, including the cost—not only what it'll cost to build or how much it'll contribute to the energy grid but also what it means for energy bills, what households will pay for Mr Dutton's risky plan. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 57 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Simms, Hon. Robert Andrew 57 14:18 The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson-Young, before I call you, I will acknowledge the presence in the chamber of former Greens party senator Robert Simms. Welcome. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 57 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Environment 57 14:18 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Wong. The environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, has just approved Gina Rinehart's Queensland coal seam gas mine out to 2080, putting hundreds of hectares of koala habitat and billions of litres of water at risk. What does the minister care more about: letting Gina Rinehart profit from another climate-wrecking coal seam gas mine, or protecting our endangered koalas? 14:19 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator. I also welcome Mr Simms back to the Senate. I can indicate that the Albanese government and Minister Plibersek make decisions in accordance with the facts and national environmental law, and that is what happened in this case and in every case. We will continue to consider each project on a case-by-case basis under the law. The project will primarily contribute domestic gas supply for households and Australian manufacturing, including for glass, bricks, cement and food packaging. I understand the approval comes with conditions to protect nature, including strict limits on habitat loss. Senator Hanson-Young I0U But not this time. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Hanson-Young, you've asked your question. Senator WONG 00AOU You can have a discussion with Senator Faruqi about koala habitat. We are ticking off renewable energy projects at record rates. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order on my left! Senator McKim. Senator McKim JKM On a point of order: Senator Wong has made a personal reflection on Senator Faruqi, and I ask her to withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKim, there was no personal reflection. Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU I'm always happy to withdraw. I withdraw. I look forward to similar standards of courtesy from Senator Faruqi when she speaks about me personally, as I'm sure she will show in the future. Senator, what I would say to you—and I can list the range of renewable energy projects that we have also approved at this point—is that Minister Plibersek makes decisions in accordance with the law and the facts of the case. That is what occurred on this occasion. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson-Young, a first supplementary? 14:21 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Habitat destruction from land clearing and the climate crisis are the biggest threats to already endangered koalas, with their numbers— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson-Young, please resume your seat. Order on my left! Seriously! Order! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, how does me calling for order not apply to you? Senator Hanson-Young, would you begin your question again, please, because I was not able to hear a single word of it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, I have called you a number of times today; I have lost count. I want to hear Senator Hanson-Young's question. She is entitled to ask it in silence, and Minister Wong is entitled to give her response in silence. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U Thank you, President. I would ask that the clock be reset. The PRESIDENT 112096 Yes, of course. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U Thank you. Habitat destruction from land clearing and the climate crisis are the biggest threats to already endangered koalas, with their numbers declining by 50 per cent in Queensland since 2001. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, seriously! How many times have I had to call you to order? Senator Hanson-Young, please continue. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U Koala numbers have declined by 50 per cent in Queensland since 2001. When will the Labor government stop approving the destruction of koala habitat and start protecting them from extinction? How many more photo-ops will the minister have before she does something? 14:23 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I will try to respond to the question and not the personal suggestions about Ms Plibersek. Senator Hanson-Young is right: habitat is one of the key risks facing koalas, and that is why the minister has taken action in relation to safeguarding koalas and koala habitat. I think the advice I have in my brief is different to what you said in your primary. I'm advised that the approval includes strict conditions. No koala breeding or foraging habitat can be cleared. That is the advice that I have. I obviously don't agree with the attack on the minister, but on many of the propositions about the risk racing koalas, you are correct. The advice I have in this brief is as I've outlined. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson-Young, a second supplementary question? 14:24 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia We have an environment minister who continues to approve new coal and gas mines, polluting the environment, and the destruction of habitat and native forest logging. When will we have an environment minister who actually protects the environment? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong, I did call you. 14:25 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia My apologies. I didn't hear you call me, nor did, I think, the person setting the clock—it's on zero. I don't want unlimited time, but I think zero time's probably a bit unreasonable! Senator Hanson-Young I0U Do I need to ask the question again? Senator WONG 00AOU No, Senator Hanson-Young, you don't. I heard the range of political assertions in the question; I don't think they need repeating. You can give a speech after question time if you want to do it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson-Young, you've asked your question. Senator WONG 00AOU The minister applies the law that this parliament has passed—that's the first point. Secondly, the minister has been ticking off renewable energy projects at record rates and is stripping coal and gas projects to which the senator refers by around seven-to-one, and record numbers of renewable energy projects are in the approval pipeline. We have greenlit 54 renewable projects in just over two years—enough to power more than three million Australian homes. The minister is doing an outstanding job, and I appreciate that you have to make political statements, but the fact simply does apply. Budget 58 14:26 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. It's clear that helping Australians with the cost of living is the government's No. 1 priority, and I was pleased to see last month's budget included a comprehensive cost-of-living plan that provided responsible relief in a way that eases pressure on Australian and helps Australians keep more of what they earn. Can the minister provide further detail on this plan to the Senate and how it relieves cost-of-living pressures for every Australian? 14:27 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I think Senator Bilyk for her question and for her hard work that she does in the beautiful state of Tasmania, representing all the people of Tasmania. Today, we can assure Australians that, with only five days to go, this government is totally focused on making sure that we are addressing cost-of-living pressures where we can while easing and putting downward pressure on inflation. In addition to the tax cuts, the budget delivered a further $7.8 billion in cost-of-living relief. We have the tax cuts from 1 July—five days to go—for 13.6 million Australians; not just some taxpayers but all taxpayers. Eighty-four per cent of taxpayers will be better off under our tax plan. We have the $300 in energy bill relief for every household in Australia and $325 for one million small businesses. We have a freeze on PBS medicines. We know that medicines can really hit the hip pocket, particularly for those that are on long-term medications and have to go and get those scripts filled every couple of months or every month, depending on the medication, so we're putting more pressure on making sure that medicines stay affordable. We're increasing rent assistance by a further 10 per cent, building on the 15 per cent that we did in our last budget. We also have debt relief coming in for students to deal with the indexation arrangements of the HELP and HECS debt. We've got paid super on government paid parental leave. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING The bill will be coming, and it will take pressure off debt. It will provide debt relief for students and it is, as Senator Henderson knows, retrospective, building more homes for Australians and making the food and grocery code mandatory. All of these measures together are focused on easing cost-of-living pressures. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bilyk, a first supplementary question? 14:29 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania Thanks for that comprehensive answer. The job of fighting inflation challenges is not over. It is good to hear about the government's efforts to drive down inflation and take the pressure of household budgets. Can the minister update the Senate on how last month's budget will help address inflation? 14:29 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Senator Bilyk. Inflation is still too high, and we understand that people are still under the pump and feeling the impacts of those price pressures, but we are making progress. Our policies in the budget will take three-quarters of a percentage point off inflation this year and half a percentage point next year. Treasury are forecasting that we could get back to the inflation target sooner than we had expected, but we understand that people are under pressure, which is why—again, it was confirmed by the ABS data released today that some of these inflation and price pressures would be even higher had we not taken the action we took in the last budget. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, if you don't believe that, you don't believe the ABS data. We're delivering more rent assistance and new energy bill relief to every household and one million small businesses in the budget. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, I'm going to ask you to withdraw. Senator Ruston 243273 I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. Minister Gallagher, it's not appropriate— The PRESIDENT 112096 It has always been my practice, when I request senators to withdraw, to not then make further political points by repeating offences, and that cuts both ways. Did you wish to continue? Otherwise, Senator Bilyk, second supplementary? 14:31 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania Can the minister please outline the pressure Australians would be under without the government's investments in responsible cost-of-living relief? How does this government's responsible approach contrast with Peter Dutton's risky plans, and how would they impact the economy? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bilyk, I do remind you to refer to members in the other place by their correct titles. 14:31 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Bilyk for the question. We are seeing inflation moderate and, in the monthly data, we do see some movement around, but we are seeing in the quarterly data and certainly from its peak in the December data at 8.4 per cent good progress on inflation moderation. But we want to see more, and that's why we have been focused on making sure that we've got that cost-of-living relief, that we are seeing job creation even in these difficult times, that we've got wage increases happening and that we're putting downward pressure on inflation by delivering two budget surpluses. That hasn't been done for a while, has it? And I note has been welcome. This stands in contrast of the risky offering of those opposite, which is to tear up all the work that we've been doing and put in place a risky, uncosted plan that's going to drive up energy costs across the country. (Time expired) Governor-General 59 14:32 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Minister, if a salary rises from $495,000 to $719,000, what percentage increase is that? 14:33 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I'm not sure under which part of the portfolio this comes, but I think it relates to the Governor-General's salary and the bill that this Senate passed this morning. The point I was making there was that it is misleading to suggest that a salary is increasing from the figure that you have used, Senator Roberts, to that high figure, because what it does not take into account is the other income streams that were available to former Governors-General. So this is an adjustment, yes, but it's an adjustment being made because the incoming Governor-General does not have a military pension that will supplement the income stream and because the Governor-General's salary has been traditionally linked to the salary of the Chief Justice of the High Court. That salary is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. I think the point you were making this morning in debate and the point that Senator Waters, surprisingly, was making in debate was this was some significant pay increase in the order of 43 per cent, when that is not correct. Former Governors-Generals have had two income streams, particularly if they've been in receipt of a pension. This legislation we passed today was to ensure that a commensurate salary be provided for an incoming Governor-General who only has one income stream. So it is not accurate to say that a position has had an increase of that order. It is simply not correct. It is misleading, it is disingenuous and it's seeking a popular headline, which I agree is easy to get if people don't understand the detail that underpins that decision. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 14:34 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The answer is 43.2 per cent. Governor-General Jeffery's salary was $365,000. Quentin Bryce, Labor's last appointment, was paid $394,000, $20,000 less than the then salary of the High Court Chief Justice. General Cosgrove was paid $425,000, and then General Hurley was paid $495,000. Minister, how much was outgoing Governor-General Hurley's salary reduced for his military pension? 14:35 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I don't have those figures at hand, but I do understand that the salary that has been agreed to and passed by this chamber this morning and by the House earlier in the week is in line with the salary that the current Governor-General has been earning with the income streams available to him. It might be slightly adjusted for the fact that it lasts over five years, because, once the Governor-General commences in the role, no further adjustments can be made to salary. But it is in line with what His Excellency Governor-General Hurley is earning at this point in time. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 14:36 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The incoming Governor-General's salary is now $70,000 above the High Court Chief Justice's salary. The Chief Justice gets, as you said, periodic increases to adjust for inflation. The Governor-General does not. Noting that today's inflation announcement shows inflation increasing again, this huge pay rise seems designed to compensate Sam Mostyn for inflation and has nothing to do with military pensions. Minister, earlier today, did you mislead the Senate to cover up the real reason for this huge pay increase, surging inflation? 14:36 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I can assure Senator Roberts that, no, I did not mislead the parliament and I have been clear—indeed, I was clear in the last answer that I gave—that there is some adjustment for future increases based on the fact that the Chief Justice has a salary determined annually by the Remuneration Tribunal. The Governor-General's salary cannot be increased by that, so there is work done, based on some analysis about what that should appropriately be. But, no, it's not based on today's inflation forecast, and it's incorrect to continue to say that it has nothing to do with the fact that His Excellency currently is in receipt of a military pension in addition to the salary that he draws as Governor-General. The simple reality is that the legislation that passed this chamber addresses the fact that there is one income stream, and this allows them to be paid in accordance with what's currently being paid. Housing 60 14:37 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Many Australians are looking to purchase first homes, and they are losing out under this government, with today's inflation figures showing that housing is up 5.2 per cent in the 12 months to May and that rents are up 7.4 per cent for the year as well. According to the ABS, a total of 172,000 new dwellings were constructed in 2023. That compares to 220,000 under the coalition in 2018. Minister, why is Australia going backwards on housing construction and approvals under Labor? 14:38 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Firstly, I don't accept that the former government did enough on housing, as implied by Senator Bragg's question there. I don't think you did enough on new housing. I don't think you did enough on working with states and territories. I don't think you did enough with social housing, with affordable housing or with making sure that the homelessness agreement was funded or indexed properly. You didn't do any of those things. Under the leadership of Minister Collins, we have been addressing those things one by one. She's been doing an incredible job. We agree that we need to build more houses. We do. We had this long exchange in estimates, which I enjoyed immensely, around housing. We were clear. We want to see more dwellings built. We want to remove some of the barriers that are preventing housing construction in this country. In particular, we are working with states, territories and councils about some of the planning barriers that exist that are not allowing housing to be built as quickly as we would like. We could go through all of the investments that we have made in other areas of housing. It's not just new housing to allow for first-home ownership but it's also what we do at the social and affordable end. It's the Social Housing Accelerator. It's the Housing Australia Future Fund, which will get programs out as soon as it's worked through them, but there is more to be done. We're not pretending that there isn't. There is enormous pressure in the housing market. We want to make sure that we are building more. We've got our target that will kick in on 1 July, and we will work with states and territories to meet that target and make sure that the Commonwealth is doing everything it can to increase the supply of housing in this country. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bragg, first supplementary? 14:40 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales The National Housing Supply and Affordability Council has said in its recent report that we will see just 900,000 new houses built by 2029. That is 300,000 short of the target of 1.2 million set by your government. How can the government continue to claim that it will meet these targets if we're going backwards on construction and your own advisory council says it won't be achieved? 14:41 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I would start my answer with the fact that the chair of the supply council has also said that the 1.2 million homes target is suitably ambitious and clearly focuses attention on improving supply. That is also advice. The fact that we have a council and the fact that we have a report looking at housing supply across the country demonstrate this government's determination to increase the supply of housing. This is the work that wasn't done under the former government, and to pretend that the housing pressures arose overnight, in the last year or in the last two years is simply incorrect. It's not true. It is as a result—and you have to take some responsibility; maybe not you, Senator Bragg, because you weren't in the executive—of the lack of attention that was placed on housing by the former government. You didn't even have a minister for housing. There was no minister in the ministry until right towards the end when you realised that you'd stuffed it up. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bragg, second supplementary? Honourable senators interjecting— 14:42 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales No, I think we're all happy with that. The New South Wales Premier, Chris Minns, has said that New South Wales, which is the largest state in the Commonwealth, will not meet its target. When will the government be honest about its claim on housing supply, given the biggest state in the Commonwealth has said that its portion of the target will never be met? 14:42 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Our target under Homes for Australia, the 1.2 million home target, comes in on 1 July. It seems that the most pressing issue for the opposition is whether or not we're going to meet a target that hasn't even started yet. It comes in on 1 July. We've done the lead-in work. We're working with the states and territories. I note, in the New South Wales budget last week, the historic investment in housing that underpinned that budget. Essentially, the centrepiece of the New South Wales government budget was its focus on housing—it's very welcome. We would like to see more of that where it's possible. We don't tell the states how to allocate their budgets, but we certainly welcome that investment. We will work with the New South Wales government, as we will work with every government. We don't have a plan to override them and take over their energy systems like someone else does. We will work with them in cooperation to deliver the housing that this country needs. Defence Facilities: Chemical Contamination 61 14:43 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Minister Gallagher. Due to the military base in Jervis Bay and the extensive firefighting training using dangerous, human made, forever chemicals known as PFAS, the neighbouring Aboriginal community of Wreck Bay has had to deal with extensive water and soil contamination, resulting in a massive cancer cluster in a small community. How often is the PFAS content in the local Mary Creek being assessed, and how is the community being informed of the level of toxicity? 14:44 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Thorpe for the question. I will have to come back to you with an answer on that. I am aware of the research that's been done around the harmful effects of PFAS, both the occupational impact of PFAS and some of the health impacts consequentially of living close to contaminated sites. I think we are learning more and more about PFAS as more research is done into it. So I am aware of that and some of the concerns particularly around cancer clusters relating to PFAS. In relation to Wreck Bay, I will have to come back to you. I will see if something that has just been handed to me provides me with any further information around Wreck Bay. I'm not sure it does. But I can understand if there is a cancer cluster there that people are genuinely concerned. I will take further advice on what information and support can be provided. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, a first supplementary? 14:45 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Health research clearly shows that there is no safe limit for PFAS in water. Australian limits for PFAS chemicals are often hundreds of times higher than in Canada and the US. Does the government plan to lower the limit for these toxic chemicals in our drinking water? 14:46 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Thorpe for the question. Again, I might need your indulgence to come back and provide you with some further information if I am able to. I am aware that there is more understanding of the impacts of PFAS chemicals and the prevalence of it. I think it previously had been seen to be largely on defence sites and in areas like that, but certainly people are becoming aware that it is more prevalent. I will take some further advice on the issues you raise about contamination and water. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, a second supplementary? 14:46 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Does the government plan to ban all PFAS chemicals given there is extensive evidence confirming their harmful impact on everyone's health and this whole country's environment? 14:47 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I will correct this if I need to. I am not aware of plans to ban, but I am aware that there is a standard. It's the Industrial Chemicals Environmental Management Standard. It provides a national approach to managing the use, storage, handling and disposal of industrial chemicals such as PFAS. But I'll see if there is further information I can provide. In relation to your earlier question on drinking water, I am advised that the NHMRC is progressing an independent review of the Australian health based guideline values for PFAS in the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. The review will consider recent guidance and reviews from international and national jurisdictions and determine whether they are suitable to adopt or adapt in the Australian context. So the NHMRC is doing some work on that. But I will come back to you with more information. (Time expired) Assange, Mr Julian Paul 62 14:48 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Minister Wong. The Albanese government has worked over the last two years to bring Julian Assange home, and I understand that Mr Assange is finally on his way back to Australia. Can the minister update the Senate on Mr Assange's situation and the support being provided by the Australian government? 14:48 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Ghosh. Senator Ghosh, as a very credentialled lawyer, could probably explain much more clearly than I the details of the US legal system, but I will do my best. What I would say is that Mr Assange's case has dragged on for too long and he should return home to Australia. That has been the position I have articulated in this chamber and publicly and that the Prime Minister has articulated very clearly publicly. I am pleased to say that earlier today a plea arrangement between Mr Assange and the United States Department of Justice was finalised in Saipan. It ends a long-running judicial process in the United Kingdom, and Mr Assange is now on his way home to Australia and his family. These are obviously welcome developments, but this is not something that has happened just in the last 24 hours. It has taken a careful, patient and determined approach. It has been complex work and it has been considered work. The Prime Minister, the Attorney-General and I have consistently advocated for Mr Assange's case to be brought to a conclusion. Earlier today, Mr Assange's lawyer, Ms Jennifer Robinson, remarked on the Prime Minister's role in this, thanking him for his statesmanship, his principled leadership and his diplomacy, which made this outcome possible. The Prime Minister was foremost in Australia's efforts. He was ably supported by Australian officials, including by our ambassador to the United States, Mr Rudd, and by our high commissioner to the United Kingdom, Mr Stephen Smith, who have worked over many months to make today's outcome possible. I publicly express our appreciation to the United States and to the United Kingdom for their efforts to find a pathway that met the interests of all parties. We will continue to provide consular assistance to Mr Assange, and I want to recognise the efforts of DFAT and other government officials who have worked with Mr Assange and his legal team to ensure his smooth return to Australia this evening. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ghosh, first supplementary? 14:50 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia Thank you, Minister. It has been more than a decade since this matter began. Can you please outline the work the Albanese government has done to bring this outcome about? 14:50 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Ghosh. For the last two years, the Australian government has engaged in careful, patient and determined efforts to achieve this outcome. We have used all appropriate channels to support this outcome. As I said, the Prime Minister has led these efforts and has personally raised Mr Assange's case with both President Biden and Prime Minister Sunak, and we acknowledge their engagement on this. I have been consistent and clear in this place that resolution would only be possible after legal processes had concluded. In fact, on a number of occasions—I note that Senator Shoebridge has left the chamber—when Senator Shoebridge was accusing me of not doing enough on this case, I made the point to him and to others in the Greens about how these matters had been resolved in a comparable case, as was the case here again. Obviously, we have approached this issue calmly and consistently. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ghosh, second supplementary? 14:52 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia How is the Albanese government's persistent diplomacy securing good outcomes for Australians? 14:52 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia When it comes to securing good outcomes for Australians who find themselves in difficult legal circumstances or detained overseas, the approach we have taken is to pursue outcomes. We haven't taken the approach of seeking headlines or shouting from the rooftops. I know that there are some who seek to do that. We have taken the view that persistent diplomacy is the way we secure good outcomes. Obviously, Cheng Lei, Sean Turnell, Chau Van Kham and Ken Elliott have all returned to Australia in the past two years. I pay respect to former foreign minister Payne, who also engaged in persistent diplomacy on this. We use the appropriate tools of diplomacy and statecraft, and we know there is more to do. Australia will continue to support our compatriots who are detained overseas. Again, I recognise the good work that DFAT and other agencies do in this regard. Renewable Energy 63 14:53 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Minister, does the total cost of Labor's Powering Australia plan include the decommissioning of turbines, solar panels and batteries at the end of their life? 14:53 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Well, well, well—we start as we finish, on costings. Senator Cash I0M Your costings. Senator GALLAGHER ING Yes, don't worry. You can only ask about our costings, because you have none. Honestly! In the week that we've had, your question is about costings of the energy transition—interesting. Our costings— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator Hughes? Senator Hughes 273828 We're 25 per cent through the response, and it's a yes or no question. The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm not sure what the point of order was there. Senator Hughes 273828 We're 25 per cent—just on the maths side of things—through the response time, and it's a yes or no question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Hughes. The minister is being relevant. I will continue to listen carefully. Senator Hughes 273828 No, she's not; she's talking about us. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes! I remind you once again that, when you raise a point of order with me, it is not a debate. I've ruled. Whether you agree or not, you don't continue in a debate with me. Senator GALLAGHER ING On the cost issue, we look forward to the costs when they come, when you've worked out your big announcement—the big announcement that Mr Dutton accidentally made in a newspaper interview. We heard about it. We read about it. Where did that 2030 target go? Whoops! Oh, it's just gone! And now we know Senator Canavan is going to get rid of the 2050 target. Senator Hughes 273828 Point of order on relevance. We're now 50 per cent through the answer. The question was very clearly asking if their plan includes the cost of decommissioning. It's a yes or a no, and we've gone nowhere near it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes, please resume your seat. I will draw the minister back to the question, but, when you rise on a point of order, there is no need to repeat the question. Senator GALLAGHER ING As I said in an answer earlier in the week, we have a budgeted plan that's backed by the AEMO Integrated System Plan, which looked at the total cost out to 2050 of the generation, storage and transmission of renewable energy, and the figure that's being applied to that by AEMO under the release of the new ISP today is $122 billion. In this budget we are investing an extra $22.5 billion over the next decade to help make Australia a renewable energy superpower, including $3.2 billion for ARENA, $1.7 billion for the Future Made in Australia Innovation Fund, $6.7 billion for hydrogen production tax credits and $1.3 billion for Hydrogen Headstart, building on the $2 billion from our last budget. The capacity investment scheme— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes, first supplementary? 14:57 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales I'm not sure how hydrogen impacts the cost of decommissioning turbines and solar panels at the end of their life, but we live in hope. How many wind turbines, solar panels and batteries installed today as part of Labor's Powering Australia plan will reach the end of their lifespan by 2050 and require replacement? 14:57 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Hughes for the question. I would ask: How many nuclear reactors are going to be required, and what is the percentage of nuclear energy on the grid? What is it? We heard there are lots of them. How many? You couldn't answer. Senator Hughes 273828 Point of order on relevance. It's not a question about anything other than the replacement by 2050. I'll give you a tip: it's 100 per cent. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes, resume your seat. Senator Hughes, you rose on a point of order. I reminded you the last time you rose on a point of order not to go beyond the point of order, and you did it again. I will draw the minister to your question. Senator GALLAGHER ING I guess it is a reasonable thing, when you release a nuclear reactor plan, to be able to say how many nuclear reactors you're going to need. What we saw on Sunday is that not only have seven sites been identified but on those sites they could have multiple reactors. Maybe you could have four. Maybe you could have five. Who knows? You don't know yet. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator Hughes 273828 Point of order on relevance. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes, I haven't called you. The reason I haven't called you is that I am waiting for order in the chamber, and then I'll call you. Senator Hughes. Senator Hughes 273828 The question did not use the word nuclear, yet the minister's barely said anything but. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Hughes. I will remind the minister of your question. Senator GALLAGHER ING We back renewables. We back solar. We back wind. We back the turbines. We back the panels. And we will continue to, and we will need firming fuel. What we won't do is come out with a half-baked plan. It's not even half-baked. It's a miniscule-baked plan that delivers no idea on cost, size, or when it would actually deliver the energy or anything else. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes, a second supplementary? 15:00 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Minister, is the government deliberately ignoring the costs associated with replacing ageing renewables to make its uncosted energy plan more palatable for voters. If not, why can't you provide an answer? 15:00 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Our plan is costed. It's clear in the budget paper. And— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING I know you can't stand it, because you don't have the detail and you want to divide. But let me ask a question just as I finish. How much do you think it would cost to decommission a nuclear reactor? I don't know. Is that included in your plan? Oh, no, because you haven't got any costs. And where would you put the waste? And is it a coke can? I don't think it's a Coke can. Does anyone think it's a Coke can? Nobody thinks it's a Coke can. It's a lot of Coke cans, really, isn't it? So how much does it cost to decommission a nuclear reactor? You can't answer because you don't know how much a nuclear reactor— (Time expired) Senator Wong 00AOU President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 65 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers To Questions 65 15:02 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia I move: That the Senate take note of answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by coalition senators today. In so doing, I reflect upon the—I think we would have to say—herculean attempts to defend the renewable industry in circumstances where we simply don't seem to have clear answers on the total cost of Labor's Powering Australia Plan and the decommissioning of these assets. We know these assets are incredibly cost-heavy to build and decommission, but we can't unfortunately get those answers from the government today. Every Australian deserves cleaner, cheaper power, and, of course, the cost-of-living crisis is largely driven by this problem, but under this Labor government that is simply not happening. We were promised, as we have said maybe 400,000 times in this chamber over the last 2½ years, cost cuts of $275 to our energy bills, our power bills, per annum. However, what many Australians have woken up to over the last two years have actually been increases of sometimes up to $1000 every year on their power bills. Many Australians might be surprised by that. We on this side of the chamber are not. We told Australians at the last election that it wasn't going to be easy under—to use the correct title—Prime Minister Albanese. It won't be easy under Prime Minister Albanese. And here we are two years later. It's become very clear. The coalition believes that having a balanced energy mix is important. One of the key attributes of that is going to be our plan for nuclear power. When I walked into this place in 2019, one of the first things I spoke about in my maiden speech was the case for nuclear power, particularly coming from the state of South Australia, which is, of course, home to some of the world's largest stockpiles of uranium. We were the state that produced the 2016 Scarce royal commission, which outlined very clearly and very demonstrably the plan for the nuclear energy fuel cycle. It was a plan to mine uranium, to use it for nuclear energy, for nuclear power and for powered electricity. It was a plan for safe nuclear fuel storage after end of life. It was a plan that ultimately would have provided both my state and this nation billions and billions of dollars both upfront and, of course, in a sovereign wealth fund, which would have meant that our children wouldn't need to suffer from the poverty-stricken future they have under a Prime Minister Albanese government, which they're now tanking under. But, at that stage, Australia was already behind the eight ball in terms of a plan for nuclear energy. The rest of the developed world uses it. The comparable country of Canada uses it very ably, and it turned into a multibillion-dollar-per-annum industry for the people of Canada without a single three-eyed fish or three-eyed bear. All we get from the other side is juvenile undergraduate memes. We know the Left can't meme. We know they can't. A proper meme is like a political cartoon: it requires a sense of humour, and we just don't get that. All we get from this side of the chamber is childish undergraduate scare campaigns when the truth is that this is safe and effective. Safe and effective—for once, that could actually be true. Who would know? What we need to get on the record here is that our nuclear plan will provide an effective, cost-effective and crucial pathway for the Australian energy future, providing a reliable point of access for baseload power. Nuclear power is ultimately clean and safe, and it will be cost effective. We will be able to make that clear. We should let the market decide that in due course, but at the moment we can simply say that, with huge reserves of uranium and our ability to mine and sell it to the rest of the world, this is a reliably important part of our future energy mix. The one thing that was missed in the debate earlier on today about the government's failure to answer the questions about the cost of decommissioning was that, unlike wind turbines and solar panels, nuclear power stations have incredibly long lifespans. They sometimes live up to 60 or beyond years, so these costs are not realised until many years down the track. 15:07 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales In just five days time, the Albanese government will commence taking $300 off the power bills of every household. In two decades time, Mr Dutton will serve up the most expensive form of energy that there is. As today's ISP lays out, renewables are the cheapest form of energy. Getting more renewables into our power system will bring the prices down. Cheap power is why one in three Australian households and small businesses are choosing solar. Australians understand this dynamic in their bones, and yet we have an opposition who in the last week has served up an uncosted, unspecified plan to introduce nuclear, indicating that taxpayers will bear the cost and the risk and providing no information at all about what it will do to bills and how much power it will produce. We're getting on with the job of dealing with the mess that was created by the previous government and their approach to energy policy. Under Labor, we've had a 25 per cent increase in renewables on the grid. We've had record investment in batteries and storage. We've had over 330,000 solar rooftop installations in the last year alone. We've greenlit more than 50 renewable projects since the last election. We're already halfway to meeting our 2030 emissions reduction target in the national grid. We're cutting power bills from 1 July by bringing rebates to every household, and Mr Dutton is promising action in two decades. There is a very clear choice in what is being offered to the Australian people when it comes to energy, and I will say this: now is not the time to turn our backs on the cheapest form of power. I heard Senator Antic indicate, 'We'll let the market decide,' and I'm somewhat confused by this because, as I had understood it, Mr Dutton's plan is that the Commonwealth will build and operate nuclear reactors. As I understand it, Mr Dutton's plan is that this will all be a public sector activity. I don't understand what Senator Antic is talking about when he says that the market will decide, because it's not my understanding that that is the plan that's laid out. It's actually reasonable that people are confused, because so far the information that's been put into the public domain is seven sites and perhaps some polling given to one outlet—sites and some polling. We don't have any numbers. We don't really have any indication of what technology is preferred: modular nuclear reactors, an unproven technology, or large ones, something Mr Dutton previously said he didn't support? We don't have any indication about how much power will be generated by these nuclear reactors, and we don't have any indication whatsoever about what will happen between now and 2037, which, under the coalition's incredibly ambitious timetable, is the earliest point in time that they assert that nuclear power will be available to Australians. Putting aside all of the uncertainty about whether such a timetable could ever be achieved, what is supposed to happen between now and 2037? AEMO tells us that we can expect 90 per cent of Australia's coal fired generation to exit the grid by 2035. What is the plan between now and then? None of these questions have been answered. It is actually quite incredible that a party that aspires to government could put out a policy of this kind, and it's not surprising that, in speaking about it, so many coalition senators seem to be so very confused about what the nature of this proposition actually is, because, as Senator Gallagher pointed out in her answers to questions, this is not even half baked; this is something close to parbaked, perhaps. I'm not sure it's even been mixed. It appears to be a proposition that has been pulled together hastily after a slip of the tongue by Mr Dutton and a realisation by the party that they couldn't allow this vacuum to go on any longer. The coalition has so many questions to answer about this: how many reactors, what will we do for the communities that don't wish to have reactors in these places, how much radioactive waste will be produced on these sites, how much will it cost, who will pay for it, and what will it do for bills? The truth is that this election will be a very clear choice for Australians between a positive, costed plan and a costly and risky nuclear proposal. 15:12 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales It tells you a lot that, when a government minister stands to defend the answers given in question time, they spend most of the time speaking about the opposition. I'd suggest that's a bad sign for the government. The other bad sign for the government is that the government so far have very few policies that I can see emerging as their agenda for the next election. All they've done in the past two years has been to feather the nests of their fellow rent seekers and bloodsuckers and all the other fellow travellers that help them with their internal political machine. That's all they've done. It's been a government for vested interests for two years. The big test for this government now is: can it thread together a coherent policy agenda that it can put to the Australian people and that will solve the problems of today, the problems that are facing the people out there, outside this building, such as inflation and housing? As far as I can see, according to the data released today, the problems are getting worse, not better. Inflation is getting worse, not better. You can talk about wages growth, but what people are really interested in is real wages growth. While inflation is eating the wages of workers, Labor have very little to say. I want to comment on the question that I asked Senator Gallagher today about housing. Unfortunately, we are going backwards on housing. Senator O'Neill 140651 Ha, ha, ha! Senator BRAGG 256063 You can laugh all you like. I'll take the interjection. It's callous and cold from Labor and Senator O'Neill. Senator O'Neill 140651 It's destruction by your 10 years of government. Senator BRAGG 256063 I take the interjection, and I take the opportunity to remind Senator O'Neill and the government members that in 2018, under the coalition, there were 220,000 houses built, and this year there will only be about 170,000 houses built. So, after spending billions of dollars on boondoggle bureaucracies for the unions, the government is building fewer houses than before. The government is building fewer houses than were ever built under the coalition. This is the problem with this government. It is so focused on feathering the nests of the rent seekers and the unions that it has no time to solve the problems of today. The key problem facing so many Australians is the ability to get access to a first home, and Labor could not give a rat's. All they're worried about is how they can feather the nests of their rent seekers in terms of policy and in terms of dollars. So, after having spent billions of dollars on boondoggle slush funds, we are going backwards on housing. You can step through all the policies. On supply, the government has two policies: the Housing Australia Future Fund and the housing targets. Both of these are huge failures, and it shows in your willingness and the willingness of government members to constantly interject. It's because you are so embarrassed about your failure to fix housing. You have made housing so much worse, and that is hugely regrettable for Australians who want access to a first home. This has always been a country where a person on an average wage could buy a home, but not anymore. That is the problem facing so many Australians, and all the government has is callous and cold responses. Then we move to the demand side. We have the Help to Buy Scheme which was, in fact, abandoned last week in the New South Wales budget by the state Labor Party, which said, 'Shared equity schemes are so bad and so unpopular and so horrible that we're going to remove this scheme.' The only demand-side policy the government have here in Canberra is Help to Buy. It was the centrepiece of their election announcement from two years ago, and it is still not legislated. They have no other ideas on the demand side. We have a demand-side policy that is out there which is for people to use their own money and the reason that the government won't countenance relates to the same charge I always lay at their feet: it is a government for vested interests. It is a government that only gets out of bed for its favourite fellow travellers, and the reason it won't consider this idea is that it will hurt the super funds. The government cares more about the super funds than the government cares about people. This is a government for big super funds and unions—not a government for people—and it's disgusting. 15:17 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales It's hardly worth responding to the nonsense that was put on the record just then, and I had my chance to critique some of the nonsense that we've heard. Those who are in the gallery and people who are perhaps listening around the country deserve a better conversation of hope. That is what happened when a Labor government was elected. What we did in the budget that has just passed through the Senate is going to really radically improve the lives of all Australians. For people sitting here—whether you are under the roof of a rental property tonight, an Airbnb or a local motel—the comfort of having your own home and being safe is a really important thing. Trying to keep the lights on is a big challenge. Labor sees that. We didn't ignore it. We didn't come in here and create a litany of miseries about the way the world is. We see what it's like and, instead of leaving Australians hanging, despairing that they're not going to be able to make their payments, we are going to help every single household get $300 off their electricity bill. That will be what happens in Australia on 1 July. We all get bills. It's going to be $75 off each quarter. That's the Australian government—your Australian government—saying: 'I see the challenges that you have in meeting your bills. We won't leave you hanging; we're going to help you.' I want to address an issue that was raised about housing. Once upon a time I used to be an English teacher. English teachers are not always the favourite teachers of kids who go on to be construction workers. Sometimes those kids just serve out their time at school, make a few friends and are busting to get out and make things and build things—to be plumbers, carpenters or electricians. Young men and young women know that there are really good wages to be had, if they can do that, and that they can make a great contribution to their community. So many young Australians' lives were interrupted because of the government of the day, the Liberal-National Party government under Mr Morrison, Mr Turnbull and Mr Abbott. They were unable to get any education to help them fulfil their dreams. They couldn't afford to go to TAFE. They wanted to be the workforce for Australia. They wanted to be ready to handle the supply challenges that we face. But they were cut off by a miserly Liberal-National Party government that didn't see talent and just saw cost. Let me tell you: one of the changes we've made is that 355,000 Australians—young, middle-aged and older—are retraining for free, right now, to build the workforces we need and to make sure we have the teachers we need. We've delivered support for those who are experiencing prac poverty, where they have to go out and train, and they can't afford it. They're going to get $319 a week. Not too far from here is the seat of Hume, if you head to Goulburn and then up to the southern parts of the city. In Hume there are 79,000 people. This is just one seat. It is the shadow Treasurer's seat. And he's whingeing and moaning. I don't know what makes him so unhappy that 79,000 people who live in the electorate he's supposed to represent are going to get tax cuts of the kind that Senator Wong outlined in her response to questions from government senators today; 13.6 million Australians across the country are going to get a tax cut come 1 July—just a few sleeps away—79,000 of them in the shadow Treasurer's seat. And those opposite are very unhappy. Why are they unhappy? They are unhappy because, the way they had it concocted, most of these people—teachers, hospitality workers, chefs, sales assistants, receptionists, truck drivers, electricians, cleaners and nurses—were not going to get a tax cut, because people from the opposition do not believe in making sure hardworking, ordinary Australians who have aspiration should get the help they need from this government. They wanted to give it all to the upper end. Those opposite don't understand that aspiration starts in a fibro house in Blacktown and that people on the lowest wages deserve a tax cut even more than those on the highest ones. If we believe in the opportunity of this country, that is what we have to do, and that is what Labor has done. That is why 13.6 million people will be very happy on Monday that it's an Albanese government here in the Lodge. 15:22 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland A couple of weeks ago we had the Nambour show, which is now known as the Sunshine Coast Agricultural Show. It's a show that I went to when my family were canefarmers on the coast. And as the local senator, my office is in Nambour. Marty Hunt, who was our candidate for Nicklin—a local copper—had a stall at the show, and Ted O'Brien, who's the local member for Fairfax, had a stall. And I did what many on our side of politics do, which is stand there and listen to the concerns of people at the Nambour show. We even had one of those placards for people to put stickers on. What people are concerned about—the No. 1 issue in Queensland, whether at the Nambour show or out in Quilpie or Cairns or wherever it is—is the cost of living. What drives the cost of living? It is inflation. What we saw today, an inflation rate of four per cent, is a figure that should send a shiver up the spine of every Australian, because they know things are going to get more expensive. And what is driving inflation? The main factor driving inflation is that we have a federal Labor government who are spending billions and billions of dollars driving up the cost of everything. Why are your mortgages going up? Well, you've got a federal Labor government, and since they've been in power, mortgages have gone up 12 times. Why is your rent going up? You've got a federal Labor government who fail to understand how to achieve an equilibrium in the housing market so we can get young people into the housing market and open up the housing supply. It is cost of living. What is also interesting is that the concerns of my fellow Queenslanders reflect the concerns of David Crisafulli and the state LNP. Mr Crisafulli's priorities—the right priorities for Queensland—are based on housing, health, crime and the cost of living. Queenslanders are getting a double hit at the moment. They've got a state Labor government who are throwing money out the door like a particularly drunken sailor on shore leave, and we've got a federal Labor government who are doing a pretty good job at aping it. That is what is driving the cost-of-living crisis in Australia. Finally, I'm not someone who pretends to know a lot about sport—indeed, I broke my arm playing tennis, so I'm not a particularly sporting person—but tonight is the State of Origin. It would be remiss of me, as a Queensland senator, not to say rude things about the Blues, 'the Cockroaches', and also wish my team, the Maroons, 'the Cane Toads', all the best for tonight. Question agreed to. Governor-General 68 15:25 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice I asked today regarding the incoming Governor-General's salary. Since 1974 the parliament has approved the salary for each incoming Governor-General. The salary level has conventionally been commensurate with that of the Chief Justice of the High Court. The last time a Governor-General was paid less than the Chief Justice was in 2008, when Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd appointed Quentin Bryce with a salary $20,000 less than that of the Chief Justice. Precedent does call for consideration to be 'given to any pension received by the incumbent for previous employment'—for the incumbent, not for the person coming after the incumbent. The annual salary during Michael Jeffery's term was $365,000. Quentin Bryce's salary was $394,000. General Peter Cosgrove was paid $425,000, which included a small reduction because of his military pension. General Hurley was paid $495,000. General Hurley is in receipt of a military pension as a result of his lifetime of military service. Sam Mostyn is not entitled to a military pension for her lifetime of service to the culture wars. The huge increase offered to Sam Mostyn takes her salary to $70,000 above that of the High Court Chief Justice, despite Labor themselves setting a precedent that less can be paid in hard times, such as in 2008, during the global financial crisis. In 2024 we have the crisis of the Albanese government's runaway inflation. The inflation rate has increased again to four per cent, announced a few moments ago. This persistent high inflation gives a hint as to why the incoming Governor-General got such a large wage rise. The government knows what bad economic news is coming for everyday Australians in the next five years and sought to insulate its appointment from that ruinous inflation. This Labor government simply doesn't know the value of money and is clearly confused when the public call the government out for it. Sam Mostyn has got a huge increase in salary. Her pension is now hugely increased, and she will have that pension for every day of every year of her life. Question agreed to. Environment 69 15:28 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water (Senator Wong) to a question without notice I asked today relating to a coal seam gas project. The hypocrisy of this government is so stark when you listen to the answers Minister Wong gave to the questions I asked about the environment minister's new approval of a big coal seam gas project for Gina Rinehart, which is going to threaten hundreds of hectares of koala habitat, threaten the water supply and, as we know, make climate change even worse. It will create more fossil fuel pollution right up until 2080. This is from a government who say they want to be at net zero by 2050. They say they want to take action on climate change, yet the environment minister continues to approve and green-light coal and gas mines, over and over again. You can't reduce pollution and tackle climate change if you keep making the situation worse. On the other hand, we know that the government has committed to zero extinctions. We are facing an extinction crisis. We have iconic wildlife in this country, like our koala, facing extinction because they can't continue to live in their habitat. It's being destroyed by coal seam gas projects, by coalmines, by development and by native forest logging. Rather than putting a stop to the destruction of koala habitat—a moratorium that would save the homes of koalas to stop their extinction—the environment minister is continuing to approve projects that destroy their homes. It's incredibly hypocritical for anyone to say they care about the climate and about pollution, to have photo ops with cuddly koalas and to claim to care about them but to continue to be the minister in charge of signing off on these coal and gas mines. This new coal seam gas project, owned by Gina Rinehart, is going to create 151 new gas wells in Queensland. The minister had already signed off on the pipeline for Gina Rinehart's company only two weeks ago, and this week, under the cover of the coalition's dangerous ploy on nuclear, the minister for the environment has now done the whole hog. She has signed off and given approval for Gina Rinehart not just to have the pipeline but to now have 151 gas wells. This is going to threaten our environment, put our climate in further crisis and make it nearly impossible to meet net zero by 2050, let alone the interim targets in 2030. The government seems incapable of sticking by the promises it's made the Australian people to tackle climate change properly, to cut pollution, to protect nature and to stop extinctions of our animals. They say one thing over here and they do another, helping their fossil fuel mates. I know Gina Rinehart would be pretty happy with this decision. The richest person in the country is now getting further approval to continue to make more money off the back of destroying the planet. Australians, including Labor voters and progressive voters across the country, are going to be shocked that Tanya Plibersek, as environment minister, has approved Gina Rinehart destroying more of the countryside and more koala habitat so that she can continue to make more money at the expense of the climate. Gina Rinehart doesn't need to make any more money. She's one of the richest people in the world, at the cost of our planet and our environment. Now we see our precious koalas on the chopping block so that Gina Rinehart can make a bit more money—a few more dollars. It's just obscene that in a climate crisis, in a crisis of nature, we have the country's environment minister greenlighting these climate-destroying, climate-wrecking mines. What is the point of an environment minister if she's not going to stand up for the environment? Question agreed to. NOTICES 70 NOTICES Presentation 70 15:33 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I give notice that on the next day of sitting I shall move: That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings. I also table a statement of reasons justifying the need for the bill to be considered during these sittings and seek leave to have the statement incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows— Statement o f Reasons f or Introduction a nd Passage i n t he 2024 Winter Sittings Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal f rom Amalgamation) Bill 2024 Purpose of the Bill The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024 (the Bill) will amend the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (RO Act) to allow the Manufacturing Division of the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU) to de-amalgamate from that union, if supported by a ballot of relevant members. Consequential amendments will ensure clarity and certainty in coverage rules for members of the resulting two entities. Reasons for Urgency On 27 February 2024, Senator Lambie introduced the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2024 (Private Member's Bill) into the Senate. The Bill provides an alternative option for the Parliament that allows the Manufacturing Division to de-amalgamate from the CFMEU, if supported by a ballot. The Bill retains key elements of the Private Member's Bill, and also contains clear provisions around proposed coverage for members (and other issues consequential to the de-amalgamation, if supported). Addressing this quickly will provide certainty for the affected entities and their members. The Bill is designed to further reduce the risk of demarcation disputes, and passage in the 2024 Winter sittings will give affected organisation members a prompt opportunity to be part of a new registered organisation. 15:34 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales On behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I give notice of my intention, at the giving of notices on the next sitting day, to withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 for four sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Greenhouse Gas Injection and Storage) Regulations 2023, F2023L01551, made under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006, and business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 for 11 sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Regulations 2023, F2023L01629, made under the Migration Act 1958. Presentation 70 BUSINESS 71 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 71 15:35 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That general business order of the day No. 72, Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024, be considered at the time for private senators' bills tomorrow, 27 June 2024. Question agreed to. NOTICES 71 NOTICES Postponement 71 DOCUMENTS 71 DOCUMENTS Services Australia 71 Order for the Production of Documents 71 15:37 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services, by no later than midday on 12 August 2024: (a) briefing notes, file notes, emails, correspondence or other records of interaction between the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the Minister for Government Services (the minister) and his office and Services Australia regarding speeches, speaking notes or talking points written or drafted by Services Australia for the use, or potential use, by the minister; (b) briefing notes, file notes, emails, correspondence or other records of interaction between the minister and his office and the Department of Social Services regarding speeches, speaking notes or talking points written or drafted by Services Australia for the use, or potential use, by the minister; and (c) briefing notes, file notes, emails, correspondence or other records of interaction between the minister and his office and Services Australia relating to the employment and/or contractual arrangements of the contractor of AusTender reference CN ID: CN3917200-A1. Question agreed to. BILLS 71 BILLS Digital ID Repeal Bill 2024 71

Digital ID Repeal Bill 2024

First Reading 71 15:37 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia I, and also on behalf of Senators Babet, Canavan, Hanson, Rennick and Roberts, move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to repeal the Digital IDAct 2024, and for related purposes. Question agreed to. Senator ANTIC 269375 I present the bill and move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 71 15:38 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill. Leave granted. Senator ANTIC 269375 I table an explanatory memorandum and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— Earlier this year, the parliament passed the Digital ID Bill 2024 and the Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2024 without allowing for debate in this chamber. This Bill will repeal the Digital ID Act 2024 and Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Act 2024 and reverse the consequential changes made by the latter. The fact that Bills as important as these were simply passed without allowing members of the parliament the opportunity to scrutinise and debate the details and practical operations of them indicates that the government does not welcome scrutiny. Labor's explanation for the supposed need for a Digital ID system, and the circumstances in which Australians will be required to create one, could probably not withstand it, hence they rushed the Bill through without debate. The point of having parliamentary debate is that elected representatives bring not only their own concerns but the concerns of their constituents to the chamber in the hope that informed discussion would create laws that help the Australian community to flourish. Sadly, Labor simply hopes that Australians will not notice their clunky, haphazard, and potentially draconian Bills being ushered through. Is it any wonder, then, that more and more Australians, and indeed people throughout the western world, are becoming disillusioned with the democratic process and our longstanding institutions? Labor have dismissed any concerns with the potential for their Digital ID Act to be misused and have repeatedly assured us that the Digital ID system will be voluntary and will make Australian cybersecurity more secure and our transactions more convenient. However, the Digital ID system as passed has the potential to make it difficult to access certain key services without a Digital ID. Having a government issued Digital ID may not be "mandatory" in the sense that Australians will be forced to use it, but if it becomes very difficult to do, say, online banking, without a Digital ID, then it might as well be mandatory. It may not be mandatory in the strictest sense, but you will have to "choose" to create one if you want to work in certain professions and access certain basic services. Section 74 of the Act reads: (1) A participating relying party must not, as a condition of providing a service or access to a service, require an individual to create or use a digital ID. Note: The effect of this subsection is that a participating relying party that provides a service, or access to a service, must provide another means of accessing that service that does not involve the creation or use of a digital ID through the Australian Government Digital ID System. (1A) A participating relying party is taken to contravene subsection (1) if: (a) the participating relying party provides the service, or access to the service, by means other than the creation or use of a digital ID through the Australian Government Digital ID System; and (b) either of the following apply: (i) the other means is not reasonably accessible; (ii) using the other means results in the service being provided on substantially less favourable terms. Essentially, a relying party requiring the use of the Digital ID system must provide their service(s) in another way that does not require a Digital ID and is "reasonably accessible" and not "being provided on substantially less favourable terms." At first glance, subsection 74(1A) appears to provide some level of protection from a mandatory Digital ID, especially when compared to the original version of the Digital ID Bill when first introduced in the Senate. However, you do not need to dig far past the surface to discover that in practical terms subsection 74(1A) does not do much to prevent a Digital ID being required in almost all aspects of your domestic, personal and professional life. What exactly does "reasonably accessible" and "substantially less favourable" mean? These are details that could have been ironed out had Labor allowed us to debate the Digital ID Bill at the time. Is a bank "reasonably accessible" if you must drive to your local branch in order to transact using a bank that requires a Digital ID to access online banking? What about a farmer who must drive two hours to the local branch? Is that bank making their service "reasonably accessible" in those circumstances? Section 74 of the Act continues: (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a service of a participating relying party if: (a) the service provides access to another service; and (b) the individual can access the other service by means other than the creation or use of a digital ID through the Australian Government Digital ID System; and (c) the other means is reasonably accessible; and (d) using the other means does not result in the other service being provided on substantially less favourable terms. This section is essentially clarifying subsection 74(1A). To illustrate that point, the Digital ID Act provides the following example (unchanged from the original version of the Bill as introduced in the Senate): To open a bank account, ABC Bank requires new customers to verify their identity. ABC Bank allows customers to do this in person at each branch of ABC Bank or alternatively by using the bank's online application service, which requires the use of a digital ID. Jacob wants to open a bank account with ABC Bank but he does not wish to use his digital ID to do so. Because Jacob can verify his identity by going to his nearest branch instead, ABC Bank does not contravene subsection (1). A bank may require customers to use the government's Digital ID service to use its online banking services. There's no reason to presume the exemption applies only to opening new accounts. The example provided could be a deliberately innocuous example used to mislead Australians into believing that "voluntary" really does mean "voluntary" when even the slightest interrogation of the Act and the example contained in it reveals a much less voluntary system than advertised. In the example provided, Jacob is welcome to go to the bank and do his banking in person if he does not want to create a Digital ID, but if Jacob currently does most of his banking online then Jacob needs to start regularly travelling to his nearest branch. Given this example, we have an answer to the question about whether travelling to a local branch is "reasonably accessible." The Act's own example says that it is. There are more exemptions in section 74. Paragraph 74(3)(a) provides that a Digital ID may be mandatory where "the participating relying party is providing a service, or access to a service, to an individual who is acting on behalf of another entity in a professional or business capacity…" This exemption to voluntariness ensures that anyone representing a corporate or business entity will have to create a Digital ID of their own so that their personal identity can be verified. This is a potentially subversive avenue through which many Australians might be required to create a Digital ID, even if they don't want one for themselves, as it becomes a condition of their employment. Subsection (4) of section 74 states: Subject to subsection (6), the Digital ID Regulator may, on application by a participating relying party, grant an exemption under this subsection to the participating relying party if the Digital ID regulator is satisfied that it is appropriate to do so." That's hardly a comforting statement. The regulator being "satisfied that it is appropriate to do so" is ambiguous, and the reference to subsection (6) doesn't change much, as what that reads is: "the Digital ID Regulator must not grant an exemption under subsection (4) to a participating relying party that is: (a) a Commonwealth entity, or a Commonwealth company, within the meaning of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013; or (b) a person or body that is an agency within the meaning of the Freedom of Information Act 1982; or (c) a body specified, or the person holding an office specified, in Part I of Schedule 2 to the Freedom of Information Act 1982. Subsection 74(4A) was inserted as an amendment to clarify this section before the Digital ID Act was passed: (4A) In deciding whether to grant an exemption under subsection (4), the Digital ID Regulator must have regard to whether granting the exemption in relation to the participating relying party's service would unduly undermine access to services of that kind. This subsection is seemingly designed to reassure us about the voluntariness of the system but is still susceptible to the same ambiguity as the other exemptions. The fact that the regulator "must have regard to whether granting the exemption… would unduly undermine access to services of that kind" does not necessarily mean that they will not grant an exemption anyway, only that they must have "regard" to this in some nebulous fashion. Commonwealth entities and agencies essentially mean government and parliamentary departments, meaning the Digital ID Act is saying that government departments will not be able to require Australians to use the Digital ID to access their services. However, there remains broad scope in the Digital ID Act for minimising peoples' ability to engage in online transactions, including when it comes to banking. In my view, the protections against an unreasonable and dangerous degree of government control are not nearly robust enough here. Continuing through section 74, subsection (5) states: Without limiting subsection (4), the Digital ID Regulator maybe satisfied that it is appropriate to grant an exemption [from not being able to make the ID mandatory for accessing services] if: (a) the participating relying party is a small business (within the meaning of the Privacy Act 1988); or (b) the participating relying party provides services, or access to services, solely online; or (c) the participating relying party is providing services, or access to services, in exceptional circumstances. The phrase, "Without limiting subsection (4)" is important. Subsection 74(5) is not saying that these are the only examples of when an exemption may be granted, it is merely listing a few examples. We don't know the full scope of the criteria for exemptions. Small businesses receive permission to require people to use a Digital ID, as does any relying party that provides services solely online. This has serious implications. The large proportions of shops and services Australians use every day are small businesses and online shopping is now ubiquitous. With these exemptions in place, it will suddenly become very difficult for those who do not wish to subscribe to the Digital ID system. Furthermore, the phrase "exceptional circumstances" raises questions. The Explanatory Memorandum tells us that "this may apply during an emergency situation such as flood or fire," but I think it's fair to say that "exceptional circumstances" is a broad term that leaves open many possibilities. Finally, we keep on hearing about how convenient and secure this Digital ID system would be. Our data, we are told, will be safer in one centralised digital location than it is when it's spread all over the digital realm. However, The Adelaide Advertiser recently reported that "The Albanese government has admitted sensitive information was lost after a cyber-attack. The hack was allegedly carried out by a Russia-linked hacker. The Prime Minister's office, the Reserve Bank of Australia and Australia Post have been confirmed as victims of the hack. Around 62 offices have been confirmed to be included in the breach. The government confirming information lost in the breach includes data relating to national security and law enforcement, legal advice and medical information." At the risk of pointing out the obvious, if Labor can't protect their own data, which relates to national security, then it seems unlikely that they're sufficiently competent to protect yours. With the Digital ID Act in place, we continue to tip-toe into a future in which the government exercises more control over what you can and cannot do based on your compliance with their agenda. In my view, subscribing to a Digital ID service, where your personal information and data is stored, should not be a prerequisite for online banking or shopping. The government may arbitrarily determine that the nearby (or faraway) bank is "reasonably accessible." I am introducing this Bill in the hope that the parliament will contemplate the dystopian direction it has the potential to lead our country down. We ought not to allow Australia to carelessly wander in this direction. We should repeal the Digital ID Act 2024. Senator ANTIC 269375 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 74 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Labor Government 74 15:39 The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie has submitted a proposal: Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of public importance: The Government has failed to implement evidence-based policies to promote wealth equality and affordable housing and education which has exacerbated class struggles across Australia". Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The PRESIDENT 112096 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with informal arrangements made by the whips. 15:39 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I am a proud working-class woman. My dad drove trucks and my mum worked in a factory. I went to a public school and lived in public housing. Thanks to the Army, I got some real skills eventually, and thanks to the love and support of family and friends I made it here to the Australian Senate. There are not many like me in this place. In fact, 50 per cent of Australian federal MPs went to private schools. A Tasmanian woman contacted my office the other day. Her parents were also working-class, and they moved to Tasmania in the 1950s. They got what we used to call a 'bank house', known on the mainland as a council house. Her parents paid a little bit of rent each week, and after 30 years they finally owned it. That meant they had an asset, and because higher education was free, all the kids got degrees. This Tasmanian wanted to ask: what would happen to her family now? They wouldn't have been lifted out of poverty and the kids wouldn't have had careers that they have today. She said, 'What happens to families like mine now?' The top earners in Australia have about six times as much income as the lowest earners. But it's about more than money and wealth; it's about class. Australia likes to think of itself as a classless society, but if we ever were, we definitely aren't any more. Clive Hamilton and his daughter Myra have written a book called The Privileged Few. For the book, the authors did a lot of research and put in FOIs that show how the wealthiest and most privileged dodge the rules the rest of us have to abide by. For example, in July 2021, when Sydney was suffering through their worst COVID outbreak, the whole city was in lockdown. Workplaces and schools were closed to everyone except essential workers. The most impacted area was Fairfield, one of Sydney's most disadvantaged areas. Kids were being schooled at home, mainly in situations where both parents had jobs and their educational levels were, unfortunately, low. Homeschooling was pushing many of these parents to the point of no return. Meanwhile, just a few kilometres away, it was a completely different story for the children at Sydney's most elite private schools. As experts wrote about kids in Fairfield falling further behind, students at Scots College were allowed by the government to travel to the school's outdoor education campus in Kangaroo Valley for a six-month camp. How lovely! Soon after that, students at another elite private school, where school fees are $42,000 a year, were given a free pass by the New South Wales government to travel to the other campus in Jindabyne. Wealthy Australians—the elite—know the rules and how to manipulate COVID restrictions and other restrictions. They did not accept COVID restrictions the way Australians had to. They travelled freely to their holiday homes until a decision of the New South Wales crisis cabinet explicitly prohibited travel to holiday homes, except to carry out necessary maintenance. I don't know when millionaires carry out their own maintenance—let's put that on record right now. Reports then began filtering back that wealthy Sydneysiders were travelling to their holiday homes—would you guess, to mow their lawns? I doubt it, I doubt if they know how to pull the choke on it. Everyone knows rich people don't mow their lawns. In one of the authors' focus groups, one of the participants reflecting on the elite schools said, 'Even if you have the capacity to solve the problem, unless you speak to the right person at the right time in the right circles, you know you're never going to go anywhere.' Expensive private schools like to boast about how well their kids do in exams, but actually they don't do better than the kids from public schools. So why do the wealthiest Australians pay these massive fees? I'll tell you why. The privileged few suggest that private schools are about accessing privileged networks—mummy and daddy's friends. These are networks that get them into career breaks, networks that put them in front of the queue. Even if they don't have the necessary skills, they get the opportunities. These elite networks aren't interested in giving a leg up to the kids from our poorest households, even if they have the qualifications to do so. So my question is this: what is the government doing about this? What are you doing about this elitism? What are you doing? You haven't done a damn thing to bring down those arts degrees fees. You haven't lifted JobSeeker and you haven't done nearly enough to lift the three million Australians living in poverty out of it. And this is from a party that say they are all about levelling the playing field. Really? How about we see a lot more action and a lot less of this talk and flapping going on? I'm sure that would be great. 15:44 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I rise today to speak to Senator Lambie's matter of public importance on the fact that the government has failed to introduce or implement policies to promote wealth equality in this country. The Labor government has a long, long history of driving wealth inequality in this country. I'll go way back to the 1980s and 1990s to the introduction of superannuation. That effectively drove up the cost of living, and it's still rising. If you wanted to deal with the cost of living, you could put a pause on increasing the amount of superannuation being contributed, being forced, being taken out of people's pockets. Next week you are going to have to take another half a per cent of your salary and give it to someone you have never met, and you may or may not get it back when you are 67. This is a classic example of wealth inequality, because we have $30 billion in fees every year paid to manage superannuation accounts. I think that's a little bit less than what is spent on the military. Imagine how many base-load power stations you could build if you actually set about spending money on more productive means. But I ask you this: why on earth are you taking money out of people's pockets when, today, we have just seen inflation jump back up to four per cent? There are genuine concerns now we're going to see another rate rise. If the interest rate rises, that's going to impact the 33 per cent of people in this country who have mortgages and it is going to impact the other 30 per cent of people who pay rent. Those people that pay rent, they rent from landlords who often rent out their property or whatever and have it negatively geared or even positively geared. So they are going to stick rents up as well. So we're going to have 60 to 70 per cent of people in this country lying awake tonight—not just tonight but for the next number of years—hoping and praying that the RBA governor doesn't increase interest rates again. While people may have been able to sustain the first few increases in interest rates, it is getting harder and harder. It's like one of those machines you see at the show where you put in your 20c and it slides out, eventually, and then a few coins fall over. Eventually, you are going to have a big bundle of people falling over, because that mortgage rate cliff is getting steeper and steeper, and more and more people are being pushed towards it. The easiest lever to pull to reduce demand in this country is to lower the rate of immigration, especially in regard to higher education, where they are not necessarily out in the workforce increasing supply. Today's immigration is very different to the days in the earlier history of Australia. After World War I, immigrants came in and built Lake Hume and Lake Eildon. After World War II, they built the Snowy Hydro project. They came into North Queensland and they contributed to increasing the amount of land under agriculture and under irrigation. That is the type of immigration we need in this country—people who are going to come here, go to the regions and increase the supply of goods and services. But we are not seeing that. What we are seeing is a massive rise in the number of students coming here and going to university. Yes, they may get a job as an Uber driver, delivering ice cream to people's homes, but that is not productivity. The other thing we need to see is money going into base-load power, because there is no substitute for cheap, reliable energy. What we have seen is that $23 billion has been allocated in this year's budget for renewable energy projects. The problem with renewable energy projects is that there is the usual conga line of wealthy rent seekers lining up, many of whom aren't even Australians, to be on the receiving end of that money. That's $23 billion of hard-earned taxpayer money going into renewables that aren't reliable, that aren't efficient and that are only driving up the cost of energy and destroying the environment as well. So we need to see a much better policy by the Albanese government that is going to deal with the wealth distribution in this country so that it is distributed in a much more equitable way. 15:49 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I have a great opportunity here to set the record straight in relation to this MPI, because there is nothing further from the truth than the fact that this government, the Albanese Labor government, is not doing everything it can to help Australians deal with the cost-of-living crisis. If we look at what's going to happen next week. On 1 July, every taxpayer in this country is going to get not only a tax cut but a larger tax cut from those that Mr Morrison, when he was Prime Minister, promised the Australian people. The difference is that low-income earners will also get the tax cut, which, under the Liberals and Nationals, they would never have gotten. We also know that, at the top end of town, people like politicians here are going to get a lesser tax cut than what they would have done under the Liberals. We also know that from 1 July there will be a $300 energy rebate for every household in the country. We have introduced fee-free TAFE. We've reduced the cost of medicine. We've implemented urgent care clinics around the country, and they are helping families. You don't need to have a credit card to go and see a doctor at the urgent care clinic; you just need your Medicare card. So that's taking pressure off our hospitals and helping with the cost of living. We are doing more to incentivise GPs to bulk bill around the country, and that's having an amazing impact in the electorate of Bass where I live. We have overseen three increases to the minimum wage. We've actually raised wages in this country, unlike the former government. It was their policy, as they come in here and crow about, to keep wages down. So we have done an awful lot already. We have actually improved paid parental leave in this country. We've made it more equitable so that both parents can share paid parental leave. We're bringing manufacturing back to this country. We want to invest in skills, and we want to invest in jobs that are high paying and highly skilled. All these things are helping with the cost of living. It might be an idea, Senator Lambie, instead of coming in whinging and trying to get a grab for the media, to actually work with the government— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Polley, withdraw that comment. Senator POLLEY e5x I withdraw. What I am trying to emphasise is that, if you look at what we're doing in terms of improving superannuation, closing the gender pay gap and supporting the things we have done to try and assist the Australian community, everyone is going to be better off. But to say that we are not doing everything we can to help deal with the cost of living is disingenuous. It really is. If you want to look at the difference between what we're proposing in terms of an energy rebate as opposed to what we've heard all this week about the future going back to the 1950s with Mr Dutton and bringing nuclear energy here, that's not really going to help with the cost of living because there's not one expert who believes Mr Dutton's suggestions—the thought bubble that he's grabbed—are ever going to deliver cheaper energy in this country. Not only is it not likely to ever be funded by any financial institution or bank to build these nuclear reactors; the Liberals want to become almost like the Soviet Union and come back to controlling energy in this country rather than supporting renewable energy. We know, Senator Lambie—because we come from the great state of Tasmania—that renewable energy is the way of the future. We know that hydroelectricity, for over 100 years, has stood the test of time for Tasmania. It's clean, it's cheaper, and we should be doing more— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Polley, I'm sorry: please resume your seat. Senator Lambie, it is incredibly disrespectful not only to call out, but you're not even sitting in your seat. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, you're not in a debate with me. Either be silent or leave the chamber. Please continue, Senator Polley. Senator POLLEY e5x Thank you, President. The reality is that we've got the rungs on the board, we know there's more to be done, and you should be working with us. (Time expired) 15:55 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland From a tax system that rewards property hoarding by a privileged few at the expense of affordable homes for the many, to a social security system that forces millions into poverty and then punishes them for being poor, to the systematic underfunding of public services, Australia's ruling class has rigged the economy in their favour while pitting everyone else against each other in a battle over artificial scarcity. Nowhere is this war on the working class more evident than in our school system. Under Labor and the coalition, Australia's public schools have been neglected, underresourced and undermined for decades. While elite fee-charging private schools bank millions a year in public subsidies so they can build performing arts centres and hire fashion designers, public schools are forced to scrape by on less than the bare minimum. Our school funding model is catastrophically broken. Recent data from the Productivity Commission shows that real per-student government spending on private schools grew by 3.7 per cent a year in the decade to 2022. That's 60 per cent greater than for public schools, which saw only a 2.3 per cent annual increase. The same report showed that a third of public school students were from low socio-educational advantage backgrounds, compared with only 13.2 per cent of students in private schools. In other words, public funding to the richest schools is increasing at a faster rate than funding to the poorest. Even more perversely, state and territory governments are incentivised to withhold resources from public schools because their budget bottom line improves for every young person who is forced out of the public system. School is meant to be a great driver of equity and upward mobility, providing every young person with the same opportunity to thrive, regardless of where they live or how rich their parents are. But under Labor and the coalition, Australia's education system has become yet another way that wealthy elites extract public money to entrench their privilege. It is time we said, 'No more.' 15:57 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I'd like to thank Senator Lambie for highlighting the desperate need for more evidence based policies to promote wealth equality and affordable housing and education. Senator Lambie points to the growing social inequality in our country, and to this I would add the growing intergenerational inequality that we are seeing in this country. Too many people in this place are turning their backs on current and future generations and their needs—turning their backs on the evidence before us about what needs to change to shift the trajectory of this growing divide. Let's start with housing. We're fast becoming a country where, as a young person, the only hope you have of owning a home one day is if you have wealthy parents, and we're becoming a country where more and more Australians—over 1.2 million households—are now living in rental stress. Over 116,000 people are homeless. More than 150,000 others are waiting for public housing, in most cases for years. We're becoming a country where here in the nation's capital, a jurisdiction that's constantly pointed to by others in this place as a wealthy, out-of-touch place, social workers from Canberra Hospital, just down the road from this place, are discharging women who are fleeing domestic violence onto the street because there is nowhere for them to go. At the same time, there are workers in that hospital who have to live at the caravan park because they can't afford rents. Unfortunately, we have become a country where the major parties won't even have a conversation about tax reform when it comes to property. They won't even debate the merits of limiting negative gearing to, say, someone's first or second investment property or winding back capital gains tax discounts to 25 per cent instead of 50 per cent or even legislating a requirement for current and future governments to have a plan. Let's legislate a plan to deal with this housing crisis that is hurting so many Australians. As a parliament, we could agree on some common objectives, like making housing affordable or ending homelessness. This surely isn't something that's too big to ask, and I thank Senator Lambie for seconding the private senator's bill I introduced this week, which would do exactly that. The government, as we've heard, is doing some good things. They are taking some steps, but they aren't going far enough. The Housing Australia Future Fund will deliver 30,000 new social and affordable homes over five years. It may sound like a lot of houses, but, if you hold it up against the current shortfall which is measured to be some 640,000, then 30,000 isn't even going to touch the sides. That's an indication of how much more ambitious we need to be. The same is true of climate action, in relation to which I've also tabled a bill seeking to legislate a requirement to consider young people and future generations when we're making decisions. We have to be lifting our gaze beyond the next election. I see this constant focus on the next election, rather than on what is good for the country over the long term and on what's good for our kids and their kids. Finally, on higher education, despite railing against the former government's job-ready graduates system, which jacked up the prices of some degrees by 90 per cent for some students, two years into the term of this government, we've seen nothing. We've seen no movement on job-ready graduates. At the time it was, rightly, called out by Labor in opposition for what it is: a totally unfair system that is saddling some students with a lifetime of debt. We also haven't seen them change the date of indexation for HECS, so we're still, effectively, charging people with a HECS debt interest on repayments that they've already made to the ATO. These are simple changes that you would have expected the Labor government to make because they're evidence based and because they deal with rising inequality, but we've seen nothing yet. So, while they've done some good stuff, there is so much more to do. 16:02 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I wish to thank Senator Lambie for raising this important issue, yet I submit that Senator Lambie may have become a little confused as to what's really going on in Australia. There are two classes in a class war now: the political class, from the uniparty, versus the rest of us—everyday Australians. There are plenty of things going wrong in this Labor government's attempts at governing this country. Labor believes in promoting wealth equality. So did Karl Marx, but the way the government go about it is as if they have been watching some old videos of the Marx brothers. It's ludicrous. They're destroying wealth. Labor's version of promoting wealth equality is to ensure that, in the end, most Australians will be poor. The exceptions will be Labor Party bosses, union bosses and the political elite, including those making a living from the black and white Aboriginal industry and those who profited from the COVID-19 industry fraud. Labor are the big achievers in driving up inflation. It's back to four per cent now; it's got a four in front of it. As of today they are pushing policies that make even the cost of living out of reach for many Australians and ensuring that energy costs keep rising by trying to force us to rely on unreliable renewables, like wind and solar, that are sending the cost of electricity sky-rocketing. Several years ago, when we were all locked up by governments, pandering to drug companies during the COVID response, the Labor state governments combined with the federal government to print huge amounts of money, with no basis, in a feeble attempt to buy us out of strife that was completely government created. Now we've got the inflation. Look at the thousands who lost their jobs and became vaccine injured, and the billions of dollars that were lost to the Australian economy. In the meantime, the political elites have given themselves pay rises ahead of inflation rises, and now want to pay a new governor-general a pay rise of 43 per cent. How much of a pay rise do everyday Australians get? Stuff all, as our disposable incomes go backwards by five per cent under this government. Every major problem that Australians face today has stemmed from the decisions made in this building. Labor and the coalition—the uniparty—still refuse to make decisions that are evidenced based. Instead, they govern by knee-jerk reaction or brain-snap, instant decision-making to look good, not to do good. How nice it would be if the government decided to actually govern for Australians based on data and facts, not spin and looking after mates. As I said, instead of trying to look good, let's do good. As for affordable housing, how many houses have been built using the much-touted Housing Australia Future Fund? Wait for it: zero, zilch, nada, zip—much the same as the value of Labor promises. We are yet to see workable policy from either side of the uniparty to solve the housing crisis that plagues Australians, including those Australians earning what, historically, would have been considered reasonable incomes. They are housing problems caused by excess immigration, foreign ownership, inflation, COVID restrictions, government restrictions eroding the supply of houses and energy prices. The problems in education in Australia stem from the warped curriculums of schools, starting from teaching primary school students about the ins and outs of transexual practices, to slanted views of Australian history that try to rewrite the facts as recorded at the time of writing by explorers and truth-telling observers of the time. Many in our society now want to castrate children and warp children's minds. Our high schools and universities perpetuate the mistruths and promote political views that our European immigrants immediately recognise as communist, totalitarian extremist views reminiscent of the histories of Nazi Germany and the dark days of Stalin. The class struggle that I see in Australia relates to the thuggish actions of some extremist union bosses such as the CFMEU and MEU in the Hunter Valley in Central Queensland, who refuse to actually represent their worker members and steal their wages in secret, dirty deals. As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I agree this government is failing on multiple levels of policy creation and implementation because it does not make decisions based on data and facts. The losers are Australians, young and old, and our future generations. Today's class struggle, as I started this speech saying, is between the political class—the uniparty, pushing globalist agendas—and everyday Australians, who are the real Australians. 16:07 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania The Greens will be supporting Senator Lambie's matter of public importance because we agree that wealth inequality is spiralling in Australia and that housing unaffordability has worsened. The share of the Australian economy going to profits has never been higher than it is today, and the share of the Australian economy going to wages—that is, to ordinary Australian people—has never been lower than it is today. The social contract is in tatters. It used to be possible to believe in this country that, if you studied hard and if you worked hard, you could have a decent life, but today that promise—that social contract—is a cruel joke for millions of Australians. If you can't hear that social contract creaking under your feet, colleagues, you are simply not paying attention. This is particularly true for young people. The great Australian dream of owning a home is receding faster and faster from more and more young people. Young people's futures are tied far more closely to the wealth of their parents than they have ever been in Australia's history. The new class divide in this country is between property owners on the one hand and people who don't own property because they can't afford to get into a spiralling property market on the other hand. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Thank you, Senator McKim. The time for the discussion has expired. MATTERS OF URGENCY 79 MATTERS OF URGENCY Nuclear Energy 79 16:09 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x I inform the Senate that Senator Duniam has submitted a proposal: Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "The need for the Senate to recognise and welcome the growing contribution that nuclear energy is making around the world to the reduction of global carbon emissions, including the Biden administration's "acceleration of civil nuclear deployment" to deliver clean, affordable, reliable electricity for American consumers and manufacturing industry. Is consideration of the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 16:09 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland At the request of Senator Duniam, I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Senate to recognise and welcome the growing contribution that nuclear energy is making around the world to the reduction of global carbon emissions, including the Biden administration's "acceleration of civil nuclear deployment" to deliver clean, affordable, reliable electricity for American consumers and manufacturing industry. According to our own Australian Energy Market Operator, last night between seven o'clock and eight o'clock in Queensland, 69 per cent of Queensland's electricity came from coal, 24 per cent of our electricity came from gas, four per cent came from hydro, two per cent came from wind, less than one per cent came from battery and biomass, and—this shouldn't shock anyone, apart from some of those Rhodes scholar runners-up on the other side!—zero per cent came from solar, because it was night-time. This is because last night in Queensland, in addition to the lack of sunlight, we did not have enough wind to generate mass electricity. We didn't have any solar, because the aforementioned sun was on the other side of the world, and we did not have any mass battery power, because that technology does not exist yet. So, 93 per cent of Queensland's power came from coal and gas. But under this Labor government, 90 per cent of that coal and gas, our base-load power source, is leaving the electricity grid over the coming 10 years. Let me say that again. Ninety-three per cent of our electricity in Queensland was generated through coal and gas, and 90 per cent of that is going to be leaving the grid. So, what does that mean? We've got a state Labor government and a federal Labor government—a smorgasbord of geniuses—that are going to basically turn Australia off. We're not going to have the power that keeps our refrigerators running. We're not going to have the power that keeps the lights on. We're not going to have the power that keeps the hospitals running. For those who are going to be watching the State of Origin tonight, we're not going to have the power for people to watch the television. Although renewables may be able to keep our electricity pumping when the sun is out and the wind is blowing, what happens at night? What happens when the wind stops blowing? The Albanese Labor government's only plan to deal with this energy cliff is to hope that we miraculously develop battery and hydrogen technology in the next 10 years—a hope that is highly unrealistic, a hope that's actually politically reckless and also highly reckless in terms of keeping Australians safe. The coalition has another path. The coalition recognises the importance of renewable generation in our energy mix. The coalition recognises that, with 90 per cent of our base-load power source leaving our energy system over the next 10 years, gas plays a pivotal role as a lower-emissions technology in our near future. However, and most importantly, the coalition recognises that we need to develop a base-load power source that keeps the lights on at night while reducing our carbon emissions, and we need to start developing that technology now. For those who are listening at home, the answer to the energy crisis is zero-emissions nuclear technology. Under a coalition government, zero-emissions nuclear energy will complement renewables and gas to reduce electricity prices and keep the lights on as we decarbonise. Nuclear is about lower energy prices and it is about reliability. Under a coalition government, Australia would join the rest of the world's 20 largest economies that are using nuclear energy or moving towards it. Don't forget that, last night in Queensland, 93 per cent of our electricity was generated through coal and gas, and 90 per cent of that coal and gas is leaving our electricity grid within the next 10 years. Labor does not have a plan to fix our energy crisis and lower energy bills that does not involve them praying to the Almighty. The coalition does have a plan, and that is through zero emissions nuclear technology. 16:15 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland What a joke: an urgency motion from those opposite, who had 10 years to come up with an energy plan, and are now proposing a plan so urgent that this Senate needs to speak about it today. It's so urgent, but it will take 20 years to develop and start. What an absolute joke. Those jokers over there come in here to talk about a plan that doesn't exist, that they didn't develop over 10 years of government, that they didn't take to the Australian people and that they won't have in place for 20-something years, as a way of dealing with the climate crisis and ensuring that Australians have clean and cheap energy. The Labor Party has that plan. We're developing it. We have started delivering it. We are hitting those targets. We are making sure that we are getting renewable energy in the system because it's the cheapest and cleanest form of energy, and Australia has a lot of it. It's pretty simple. We did the maths, and we worked out, after all the experts said, 'This is the pathway forward,' that we were going to develop that plan. That's what we're doing. Those opposite listened to the experts and said: 'No. We know better. We've had 10 years to figure this out. Now we're going to start working on a plan that we might be able to deliver in maybe 2040.' There are three main issues with the coalition's nuclear plan: cost, time and where it will be. Let's deal with cost to begin with. We don't know the cost. They can't tell you the costs. They don't know how much it'll cost the taxpayer. It could be billions. It could be billions of billions of billions of billions. I'm going to guess it's a pretty big number, because that's what Peter Dutton was able to confirm: 'It'll be a really big bill.' Let's talk about bills. This will mean that Australians will pay more for their electricity bills. That's a guarantee through this plan. Not only will it cost the taxpayer—because these nuclear power plants will be paid for by the taxpayer, because they're not commercially viable—but also you will pay more for your electricity bill. Talking about time, when will these nuclear power plants be built? Maybe in 2040, maybe in 20 years—that's if they started building them today. Forget about the fact that most states in this country have a ban on nuclear power and that they don't want to see nuclear power in their states. Forget about the fact that we don't have the technology here to develop this type of energy. Even if they started today, which they won't, it would take 20 to 40 years. But they actually confirmed that, if they were in government, they'd take 2½ years after being elected before deciding where these nuclear reactors would be. It wouldn't take just one coalition government to develop this nuclear power plan. It would take one government, another government after that and another one after that to develop this. My two-year-old daughter would have graduated high school before any electricity would be generated under this plan. It is outrageous to come in here and talk about an urgency motion about a nuclear power plan that may or may not be delivered in the 2040s, 2050s—some day never. But this is a policy about delay. It's a policy about delaying where we are going to make sure that people can have lower electricity bills and have cleaner energy. The last question is: where are they going to build them? The coalition have announced some sites. Did they talk to the community about those sites? No. Did they talk to even the local mayors in those places? No, because if they had, they would have found out that a lot of those mayors are opposed to nuclear at those sites. What if a community says, 'No thanks; we don't want to have nuclear power in our community'? The opposition are saying that they would decide and build it anyway and that it would be a decision by the minister. They're going to use your taxpayer money to make you pay more on your electricity bills, and they're going to put a nuclear power plant in your community whether you like it or not, maybe in 2040 or 2050—some day down the track. What an absolute joke. This is all about denying—denying that we need to do something about climate change. They had 10 years to agree on a policy, or to even say they supported taking action, and they couldn't do it, and they're still arguing about it. They don't want to take action on climate change, so they're going to have this plan to, sometime down the track, do something about it, maybe. We have a plan that is developing renewable energy—clean energy, cheaper energy—and that is seeing investment roll into our regions. It's creating jobs right now and it will save jobs in the future, particularly those on the Great Barrier Reef. It is not urgent, because we're doing it right now— (Time expired) 16:20 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise to contribute to this discussion today and to call out what is an absolutely dangerous lie from Peter Dutton and the Liberal Party. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Senator Hanson-Young, I'll just remind you to use Mr Dutton's correct title. Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U This is a dangerous lie from Mr Peter Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Liberals. It's a lie designed to wreck climate action, to put a radioactive wrecking ball through the economy, to push up power prices and to run cover for the coal and gas industries so they can keep burning for longer. There is nothing in this dangerous ploy of Mr Dutton's that in any way helps tackle climate change. In fact, it comes off the back of Mr Dutton dumping climate targets for 2030 only a few weeks ago, following the lead of Donald Trump, and now we have Mr Dutton wanting to build radioactive power plants across the country in decades to come, all at huge expense to the Australian taxpayer and all designed to halt and throw into disarray the climate action and renewable energy sector. For South Australians, this radioactive, toxic, dangerous plan of Mr Dutton's is obscene. Mr Dutton wants to build a radioactive reactor, a nuclear power plant, in South Australia, and then he wants South Australians to take everyone's nuclear waste from around the rest of the country. If you are a resident of the electorates of Sturt, Boothby, Adelaide or—dare I say it—Grey and you don't want Mr Dutton's toxic radioactive ploy, designed to put a wrecking ball through our South Australian economy, you can't vote for the Liberals this election. The only thing Mr Dutton is offering is radioactive danger—a danger to the economy, a danger to people's power bills, a danger to our climate and a danger to the future of our state of South Australia. He has no plans for how he's going to pay for it, so he's going to make the taxpayer pay. He's got no plans for convincing business, because they don't want a bar of it. He's got no plans for how to deal with the waste, except for dumping it in South Australia for South Australians to cop. We will not have a bar of it. 16:23 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia This is a matter of urgency, because there's an urgent need to have a mature discussion about a very important policy area, and all we get from those opposite is, quite frankly, childish renting, particularly from the government, and the circulation of memes of characters from The Simpsons. What could be a more childish response to what is a serious policy issue? I ask those listening and those in the gallery: what country in the world is Australia most often compared to, in terms of the size of our population, the size of our landmass and the make-up of our economy, in terms of mining and agriculture? Senator Scarr 282997 Canada! Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Canada, Senator Scarr! You're absolutely right. I have an article here from Canada. In fact, this article is only a couple of weeks old, Senator Scarr. The newly appointed minister for energy and electrification, Stephen Lecce, was actually on site where the first stage of the planned four small modular reactors was completed on time and on budget. The first stage of four small modular reactors was on time and on budget in the nation of the world that is most comparable to Australia in terms of our wealth, our technology, our can-do attitude and our ability to get things done when they need to get done. What those opposite are doing by spreading these silly, childish memes about nuclear energy is effectively saying: 'We are not as smart as the Canadians. We cannot do what the Canadians have done.' Let's hear from Minister Lecce. Let's hear what he had to say at the announcement of the movement from the first to the second stage of building those four small modular reactors. He said: I'm pleased to officially announce today that the first phase of site preparations work for the small modular reactor has been completed again on time and on budget. He said: To maintain this forward momentum, I am officially announcing the start of the next phase, phase two, as we work to build small modular reactors to energize our province, our country and literally the world. He went on to say: It was just a few a days ago after my appointment that I flew to Romania with one mission in mind: to secure a deal that will advance our economy, create jobs for our workers and further solidify Ontario as a global leader in clean energy and this work is critical. What the minister is showing here is that Canada is not just doing something that is good for their own country and good for their own energy supply and energy resources. They are actually building an export industry that is in demand around the world. Why is Canada doing this? Why are they embarking on this journey? The minister said: The reality is we need more energy and the mission of government is to build upon Ontario's already ambitious plan to scale up our energy using all forms, be it nuclear and natural gas and renewables, where you need to take an all-of-the-above approach to build for the future. I say again to those listening at home and those in the gallery: isn't that a sensible position that the Australian government should take rather than circulating pictures of three-headed fish—an all-of-the-above approach? Those opposite say that we are living in fantasyland. This is a project that is underway in a comparable country to ours. This is a project where ground is not even being broken; stage 1 is finished. Stage 2 is getting underway. They expect to deliver power from these small modular reactors in 2028. This is not a pie-in-the-sky fantasy; this is a discussion the Australian community needs to have. 16:28 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia The words of this urgency motion are emblematic of the coalition's nuclear power policy. It's more a mud map than a policy in the sense that they are misconceived. But it is illustrative that they actually constantly try to avoid the detail. This motion asks for the Senate to recognise and welcome the growing contribution of nuclear energy in other countries around the world to reducing carbon emissions, and that includes America. But the observation that nuclear power programs form part of the energy mix in other countries does nothing to answer the fundamental question about whether investment in nuclear power in Australia is good public policy in Australia either in 2024 or in the future. Motions like this and attacks on the government in relation to its supposed childishness is a convenient way for the coalition to avoid talking about the details of their policy—that is to say the specifics of how they propose to implement it in Australia. To propose such a significant change to Australian energy policy and to do it in such a nebulous and ill-defined way is irresponsible. All accusations of childishness aside, this kind of thought-bubble policy experiment is irresponsible for a coalition that is the alternative government in this country. Fundamental details of this policy have been omitted. They remain hidden. What type and what size of nuclear reactors are to be used? That's quite fundamental. How many reactors will there be, both around Australia and per site? How much radioactive waste will be produced? That is also fundamental. Where is that waste proposed to be stored? Will local communities have a say about whether a Dutton led federal government can put a nuclear reactor in their neighbourhood? How much will it cost? And how long will it take. As much as the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, might want the country to do his homework for him, under the guise of a great national debate or a mature conversation, the debate that's been started is a reflection not of Australia's maturity but of the willingness of this opposition to, unfortunately, engage in a form of misdirection and to avoid questions about how precisely they propose to develop nuclear power in Australia. David Crowe, writing for the Sydney Morning Herald on Monday, summed it up with a felicitous turn of phrase: Peter Dutton has invited Australians into a nuclear maze that has dozens of dead ends and no clear pathway because his plan is so free of facts. I'm going to talk about three issues today: time, cost and feasibility. First to cost: the development of nuclear power in Australia is unviable because of the cost and economics of such a proposal. Senator Brockman 30484 So, why can Canada do it? Senator GHOSH 257613 Well, because they're a different country at a different stage, and in different circumstances—to respond to my colleague's interjection. In its Levelized Cost of Energy analysis, financial services firm Lazard found that nuclear energy was the most expensive. I mean, they're not a bunch of radicals, but they did confirm the conclusion that was also contained in the CSIRO report. On the Lazard analysis, onshore wind was the cheapest option, at between US$25 and US$73 per megawatt hour; large-scale solar was slightly more expensive per megawatt hour, and nuclear power was between US$145 and US$222 per megawatt hour. That analysis corresponds with the analysis undertaken by the CSIRO recently. Other than sledging that organisation, there's been no substantive response to the cost arguments put. The CSIRO found that renewables would supply electricity from renewable sources at a cost of $89 to $128 per megawatt hour by 2030 and that nuclear power would supply electricity for $136 to $226 per megawatt hour by 2040. Nuclear power is going to be more expensive. I note that I've probably taken too long on the issue of cost, and my time is about to expire, so I will leave time and feasibility— (Time expired) 16:33 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland Well, well, well: how much can a koala bear? Talking facts and figures with these people is like taking candy from a baby. Let's quote the CSIRO, will we? Let's do that, shall we? They assume there's going to be no more transmission lines or storage needed until renewables get to 60 per cent of the grid. Well, guess what? We're at 30 per cent of the grid. Do you really think we're going to go from 30 per cent to 60 per cent and there'll be no more transmission lines and no more storage? And they don't count the cost of recycling. Well, 'recycling' is a funny term, because I thought they were renewables. I thought these things renewed by themselves—but of course they don't. I just did a post at lunchtime about the amount of concrete steel that goes into the base of a wind turbine. That post is already up to 5,000 'Like's. People are onto it. People are onto the con of renewables. To have that side of the chamber suddenly concerned about the cost of nuclear energy just smacks of hypocrisy. Seven years ago, in 2017, the CSIRO said it was going to cost $1 trillion to get to net zero using renewables. Then, a couple of years later, they flip-flopped and modelled it down to $500 billion. Of course, this is the problem with models; they are like rubber dolls. They're not as good as the real thing. Because at the end of the day you don't want to look at the CSIRO. You want to look at the International Energy Agency, because they think nuclear is the lowest-cost energy, and they base that off existing nuclear power plants that today are competing against renewables. They leave renewables stone cold dead. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Thanks, Senator Rennick. I'll take your word on that; I wouldn't have a clue. 16:35 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I'll also associate myself with your remark there, Acting Deputy President Sterle. Can I tell you where our power is coming from as we are having this debate today in 2024? This is where our power is coming from—this is from AEMO: 50 per cent is coming from black coal, 16 per cent is coming from brown coal, and eight per cent is coming from gas. That gets you up to 74 per cent. Five per cent is from hydro, four per cent is from solar, and 17 per cent is from wind. As we've been having this debate, the percentage coming from wind has dropped from 18 per cent to 17 per cent. What that should tell all of us is that baseload power is incredibly important, and the proposition which the opposition is putting forward, and which the Australian public needs to carefully consider, is that we are not convinced that renewables are going to be able to provide the energy future and secure the energy future for Australia without baseload power. What we're proposing is gas and nuclear to supplement renewables. I'd like to turn on its head Senator Ghosh's comment with respect to responsibility of government decision-making. I actually think it would be irresponsible for me to stand here today in the Senate and not to carefully consider and prepare Australia for a nuclear energy future. Why? Because, of the top-20 industrialised economies in the world—we're talking about the UK, China, South Korea, Japan, France and Canada—Australia is the only country that either (a) doesn't have nuclear power or (b) is not on the path to nuclear power. That deeply concerns me. The fact that the Australian government had to make a recent decision to move away—the previous government, with the support of the government now—to move away from diesel-fired submarines to nuclear-powered submarines because that's what we needed to do to keep up with the rest of the world, is really a warning signal that we can't be left behind. That's my deep concern. It won't impact me personally, but it will be the future generations that it will impact. That's why I think we have a moral responsibility to consider all options, including nuclear power. I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition for his leadership on this debate. Let me just quote to you something put out by the Biden government in the United States—not Trump, the Biden government in the United States—on 17 June 2024. As part of President Biden's investing in America's agenda, the US Department of Energy issued a notice of intent to fund up to $900 million to support the initial US deployments of generation III+ small modular reactor technology. This is what President Biden says: President Biden is determined— and this isn't Trump, this is Biden— to ensure nuclear power—the nation's single largest source of carbon free electricity—continues to serve as a key pillar of our nation's transition to a safe and secure clean energy future. That's where the United States is heading. Can we actually afford not to go down this path? That's the question I'm putting to people. I'm not convinced that we can. I'm not convinced that it's responsible to do so, because I'm looking at the power that's being used in our grid today, and about 20 per cent is renewable. I think we need to carefully and soberly consider this debate because, as Senator Brockman said, Canada has 19 nuclear reactors at the moment. Can we afford to be left behind in relation to our industrial capacity? If 19 out of the top 20 industrialised economies are moving down this path or are already there, can we afford not to go down this path? I turn it on its head: I actually think we would be irresponsible not to carefully consider nuclear power as part of the energy mix. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 The time for the debate has expired. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the urgency motion, as moved by Senator Duniam, be agreed to.

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

28 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. 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. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. (Teller) 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. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 31 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 84 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Report No. 48 of 2023-24 84 Consideration 84 16:48 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia I rise to speak on the Auditor-General's report No. 48 of 2023-24 and I move: That the Senate take note of the document. As a senator for South Australia, I'm interested in this document and in what it says about transitional arrangements for the cashless debit card, not just in the transition for government departments, related entities and the organisations that received significant resources to deal with the fallout but in what has happened to the people—real people; the women, children and elders—who were protected from humbugging. That's harassment of the worst kind. It's menacing and co-opting family members to pile on when a person couldn't use the card, as they had done, as the excuse for having no money to give away. This Albanese government and its Australian Greens coalition partners have left people hurt, harmed and hungry. But, if you listen to senior bureaucrats, it's all going swimmingly. There's nothing to see here. Apparently they have done consultations and locals are pretty pleased. Well, locals in Ceduna in South Australia are not saying that. When I travelled to Kalgoorlie, locals didn't say that either at a community meeting. They were just two communities that asked for the card to be trialled in their communities. Nearly every Ceduna business wrote to federal MPs earlier this year. All wanted the return of the cashless debit card. The chaos is something they live with every day. That's the evidence, they said. Maybe Minister Rishworth could visit unannounced. Ceduna residents say this costs them and it costs lives and livelihoods. There is no real evidence here to argue otherwise—none. Increasing alcohol and substance addiction, abuse, social unrest, family and domestic violence and crime in Ceduna and other former CDC sites have been the experience. Do you know who's really benefited from the card's abolition? The Aboriginal service industry. It has grown since the card was abolished, and in fact locals also say those same services are now feeding a thriving dependence on those same programs. Couple that with the appallingly slow rollout of the so-called Real Jobs Program, which was promised in an election commitment but is yet to materialise. Indigenous affairs under this government is a fantastic ideological mess. There's no matching that rhetoric with the reality, and you won't hear that at the PM's favourite pilgrimage place at Garma. This document, the Auditor-General's report, states on page 9: Robust program monitoring and performance measurement to inform future policy design has not been implemented and no evaluation plan has been developed for the Enhanced Income Management program. The lack of evaluation of their experiment is extraordinary. On page 10, it states: No additional key performance indicators or performance measures have been established. There are several mentions of no reporting, no documenting and no appropriate record-keeping practices. Success simply wasn't measured, and progress was ignored. So where is the evidence from this so-called transparent, accountable, 'leave no-one behind' Albanese government? It doesn't exist, because they are not collecting it or they won't give it up. We know there are reports that do exist. We look forward to seeing them tabled in this place. Not only that, when the department did receive advice, it was ignored, according to the report, which states: There is no evidence that the design of the Enhanced Income Management program was informed by ANAO audit recommendations, evaluations or lessons learned from the CDC program or other relevant programs. So what on earth has informed this? Ideology has informed this. Failing to recognise the truth has informed this, and it continues to validate the mess that's been created by this. The locals tell the truth, though. This report backs up their concerns, and the people who live with the fallout every single day know just that. They don't sit here in Canberra. They don't sit in the big cities. They live it every single day. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. 16:53 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory I rise to express my continued deep disappointment in the conduct of the Albanese government in serving our most marginalised Indigenous Australians in this country. When the CDC was removed from our most vulnerable community members, they were left behind and forgotten. The only real justification—it was not evidence based justification—was to appease the woke, paternalistic academic voters of the inner city, who are far removed from the circumstances of those living in remote Australia, where the highest rates of domestic violence, fuelled by alcohol and substance abuse, exist. This government has been completely and utterly asleep at the wheel. As the shadow minister for Indigenous Australians, I have not seen any constructive, proactive, commonsense approaches towards improving the lives of our most marginalised Australians. The CDC was ripped away from the vulnerable. It was ripped away because those with a louder voice and with better access to media—those who could belittle the voices of the vulnerable—were heard, and not the vulnerable. The concept of the Voice was to provide an opportunity for the voiceless to be heard. In contrast to the Minister for Indigenous Australians doing what the taxpayer pays her to do, getting out of her seat in Sydney and going into communities in remote Australia to understand the needs of our most marginalised, Senator Liddle and I live in these circumstances. While it was argued by Labor that the cashless debit card is a racist measure, a similar form of income management was still allowed to remain in the Northern Territory, where 25 per cent of the population is Indigenous. So it's okay for some Aboriginal people—but not those outside of the Northern Territory—to have the support of income management? I have firsthand experience, going way back to 2007, of speaking to the very first recipients of income management, who told me their stories. A non-Indigenous woman was able to get her child back in her life. The child was taken from her because she was an addict. She managed to improve her life and get off her addiction, and her child was able to be returned to her care. Another woman, an Indigenous woman, said she could now feed her children; there was food in the fridge for the kids because family weren't taking that money from her. In traditional culture we have a demand-sharing economy: anything that you own your family has access to. When your family members are struggling with substance abuse and addiction, you are a target. They will badger you. It is not right in Warlpiri culture to say no to your family, and you're confronted with this behaviour. The cashless debit card was a protection, but, no, some academic in Sydney or Melbourne knows better than the Aboriginal person out bush living this culture—the culture that you all romanticise but that you're not subjected to. This government cannot come up with a single policy to improve the lives of our most marginalised, because all its eggs were put in one basket: the failed Voice to Parliament. As Minister Burney said, if she had the Voice she would tell the Voice: 'Bring me ideas on this; bring me ideas on that.' She couldn't be bothered to go and find out herself from the people on the ground who are affected by policies such as removing the cashless debit card. Shame! I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 86 COMMITTEES Supermarket Prices Select Committee 86 Additional Information 86 16:59 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania As Chair of the Select Committee on Supermarket Prices, I present additional information received by that committee. Scrutiny of Bills Committee 86 Scrutiny Digest 86 16:59 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales On behalf of Senator Dean Smith, I present Scrutiny digest 7 of 2024 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, together with ministerial correspondence received by the committee, and I seek leave to incorporate a 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 7 of 2024. The Digest reports on the committee's consideration of 24 bills which were introduced into the Parliament during recent sitting weeks, amendments made to six bills, as well as two bills which respectively establish and amend standing appropriations. In the Digest, the committee has identified potential scrutiny concerns in relation to 16 newly introduced bills. The Digest also contains the committee's comments on recent ministerial responses in relation to nine bills. The Digest reports on the committee's comments in relation to Appropriation Bills (Nos 5 and 6) 2023-2024 and Appropriation Bills (Nos 1 and 2) 2024-2025. For a number of years, the committee has raised ongoing concerns in relation to parliamentary scrutiny and oversight over government expenditure in the Appropriation Bills. As the committee is the primary way in which parliamentary concerns with Appropriation Bills are routinely raised, the committee proposes to make contributions in the second reading debate of such bills to draw these concerns to the attention of senators. The first such concern relates to the potentially inappropriate classification of measures as ordinary annual services. Under section 53 of the Constitution, both Houses of the Parliament have equal legislative power except in relation to limited circumstances. One of these limitations is that the Senate cannot amend proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the government. Reflecting the importance of the role of the Senate in the legislative process, to protect the rights of the Senate, section 54 of the Constitution provides that any proposed law which appropriates revenue or moneys for the ordinary annual services of the government shall be limited to dealing only with such appropriation. Appropriation Bill No. 1 seeks to appropriate money from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the ordinary annual services of government. However, it appears to the committee that the initial expenditure in relation to certain measures may have been inappropriately classified. As the meaning of 'ordinary annual services' is not a question that will be considered by the judiciary, the meaning of the phrase is a matter to be settled by the Houses of the Parliament. The Senate passed a resolution on 22 June 2010 reaffirming its constitutional right to amend Appropriation bills not for the ordinary annual services of the government. Based on this resolution, it appears that at least part of the initial expenditure in relation to the particular measures may have been inappropriately classified as 'ordinary annual services' and therefore improperly included in Appropriation Bill No. 1. Details of these measures are contained in Scrutiny Digest 7 of 2024. The inappropriate classification of items in appropriation bills as ordinary annual services, when they in fact relate to new programs or projects, undermines the Senate's constitutional right to amend proposed laws appropriating revenue or moneys for expenditure on all matters not involving the ordinary annual services of the Government. The second concern relates to the Advance to the Finance Minister. Clause 10 of Appropriation Bill No. 1 enables the Finance Minister to allocate additional funds to entities when satisfied that there is an urgent need for expenditure and the existing appropriations are inadequate. The additional amounts are allocated by a non-disallowable determination made by the Finance Minister referred to an AFM determination. The amount available under the AFM provisions in both Appropriation Bills Nos 1. And 2. together add up to $1 billion. The committee considers that, in allowing the Finance Minister to allocate additional funds to entities via non-disallowable delegated legislation, the AFM provisions delegate significant legislative power to the Executive. The committee notes that one of the core functions of the Parliament is to authorise and scrutinise proposed appropriations. High Court jurisprudence has emphasised the central role of the Parliament in this regard. In particular, while the High Court has held that an appropriation must always be for a purpose identified by the Parliament, '[i]t is for the Parliament to identify the degree of specificity with which the purpose of an appropriation is identified'. The AFM provisions leave the allocation of the purpose of certain appropriations in the hands of the Finance Minister, rather than the Parliament. The committee has sought further information from the Finance Minister as to how the combined cap of $1 billion to the additional amounts that may be allocated by the Finance Minister in Appropriation Bills Nos. 1 and 2 was determined. In relation to the broad discretion provided to ministers to determine terms and conditions for grants to the states, section 96 of the Constitution states that 'the Parliament may grant financial assistance to any State on such terms and conditions as the Parliament thinks fit'. Clause 16 of Appropriation Bill No. 2 seeks to delegate this power to the relevant minister and, in particular, provides the minister with the power to determine the terms and conditions under which payments to the states and territories may be made, as well as the amount and timing of the payments. Notably, these determinations are not legislative instruments. As the Constitution empowers the Parliament, rather than the Executive, to grant financial assistance to the states on such terms as the Parliament thinks fit, the committee considers that it would be appropriate that the exercise of this power be subject to effective parliamentary scrutiny. This is particularly so noting the terms of section 96 and the role of senators in representing the people of their state or territory. The committee notes, and welcomes, that as a result of the committee's engagement on this matter, important progress has been made to improve the provision of information regarding section 96 grants to the states since the 2017-18 Budget. These measures aid in improving the ability of the Parliament to scrutinise the Executive's use of the delegated power to make grants to the states and to determine terms and conditions attaching to them under section 96 of the Constitution. Nevertheless, the committee draws the attention of senators to the appropriateness of delegating the Parliament's power to determine the terms and conditions of payments of financial assistance to the states to ministers. Further, the committee draws the Senate's attention to the high debit limits set out in clause 13 of Appropriation Bill No. 2. This provision specifies debit limits to both the general purpose financial assistance and national partnership payments that the Finance minister can make by non-disallowable determination under the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009. The committee has repeatedly raised concern at debit limits that are significantly higher than expected expenditure, in some instances by billions of dollars. The committee considers that setting such high limits, alongside the power of the minister to authorise the funding of further grants by non-disallowable determination, means that significant new expenditures can be made without oversight by the Parliament and therefore greatly reduces transparency over expenditure of public money. The committee draws the attention of senators to the appropriateness of setting debit limits for grant programs well above the expected level of expenditure. Finally, the committee draws the Senate's attention to measures marked as 'not for publication' in associated Budget papers. The non-publication of the financial details associated with budget measures is an issue of concern to the committee due to its impact on the ability of the Parliament to scrutinise such measures. The committee considers that parliamentary scrutiny would be enhanced if the default position is to publish the full amount of funding allocated to each Budget measure. However, where it is considered to be appropriate not to do so, the committee considers that adequate explanation should be included within the Portfolio Budget Statements, noting that the onus is on those claiming confidentiality in relation to the provision of information to the Parliament to argue the case for it. This would enable the Parliament to scrutinise the reasons for non-disclosure of the financial details of the measure and would focus the minds of the Executive on the appropriateness of non-disclosure in each case. The committee welcomes the Minster for Finance's advice earlier in 2024 that she has asked her department to consider, where possible, enhancing the guidance on information which may be provided as part of measure descriptions in budget papers and portfolio budget statements in relation to measures that have been marked as not for publication. In the meantime, the committee reiterates its significant scrutiny concerns that the Parliament is being asked to authorise appropriations without clear information about the amounts that are to be appropriated under each individual budget measure. Moving on to other matters in the Digest, the committee welcomes undertakings by the Minister for Health and Aged Care in relation to the Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024. In response to scrutiny concerns raised by the committee relating to the breadth of the secretary's discretionary power, the minister has undertaken to amend the bill to require the secretary to have regard to specific criteria determined by the minister in a legislative instrument when granting or refusing an application to manufacture, supply or possess vaping goods. The minister has also undertaken to amend the bill to provide for internal and external merits review of decisions made by the secretary to issue enforceable directions under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. The committee welcomes these undertakings which appropriately constrain administrative discretionary power and provide for independent merits review over decisions which can impact rights, liberties and obligations. In relation to the scrutiny concerns identified in this Digest, I would like to draw the Senate's attention to the committee's comments on numerous bills which provide for instrument-making powers not subject to sufficient parliamentary oversight. This includes instruments exempt from disallowance, instruments exempt from sunsetting and non-legislative instruments. Disallowance is the primary means by which the Parliament exercises control over the legislative power that it has delegated to the executive. Exempting an instrument from disallowance interferes with democratic oversight of Commonwealth law and with the constitutional role of Parliament as the source of the executive's law-making power. In June 2021, the Senate acknowledged these implications and resolved that delegated legislation should be subject to disallowance unless exceptional circumstances can be shown which would justify an exemption. Relatedly, sunsetting plays a key role in ensuring legislative instruments are regularly reviewed to determine whether they are still fit for purpose and only in force as long as required. Once they have sunset, instruments can be remade and tabled in the Parliament, which promotes parliamentary oversight and scrutiny. In each of these cases, the committee expects a strong justification as to the exceptional circumstances that permit an exception to the usual disallowance and sunsetting processes, and an explanation as to why an instrument is considered administrative rather than legislative in character. The committee does not consider the fact that an instrument falls within one of the classes of exemption in the Legislation Act 2003 or the Legislation (Exemptions and Other Matters) Regulation 2015 is, of itself, a sufficient justification for excluding parliamentary disallowance or sunsetting. Similarly, the committee does not consider that a desire for efficiency, commercial certainty, flexibility, consistency with past practice or the fact an instrument forms part of an intergovernmental scheme as suitable justifications for exempting instruments from these processes. Numerous bills in this Digest seek to introduce instrument-making powers exempt from disallowance or sunsetting. These include: the Appropriation Bills (Nos. 1 and 2) 2024-2025 and Appropriation Bills (Nos. 3 and 4) 2023-2024, in relation to: non-disallowable determinations made by the Finance Minister to allocate additional amounts of money to entities when satisfied there is an urgent need for expenditure; non-legislative determinations made by the minister to provide payments to the states and territories, including the terms, conditions, amounts and timings of those payments; non-disallowable determinations made by the minister under the Federal Financial Relations Act 2009 to provide financial assistance to the states for general purpose financial assistance and national partnership payments, up to a specified debit limit amount; the Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024 which seeks to empower the Education Minister to make non-disallowable instruments determining that an Education Services for Overseas Students agency for a provider is not required to, or must not, deal with applications until after a day specified in the instrument; the Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024 which seeks to provide that the minister may make non-disallowable determinations for an amount to be paid to a state for the purpose of making a grant of financial assistance for the financial year in accordance with the skills and workforce development agreement; the Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Market Infrastructure and Other Measures) Bill 2024 which seeks to provide for instruments to authorise payments under a standing appropriation which are exempt from disallowance, cannot be revoked by the minister and can commence prior to registration on the Federal Register of Legislation; the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 which seeks to exempt instruments made under the National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 from sunsetting; the Net Zero Economy Authority Bill 2024 which seeks to provide that the minister can give non-disallowable directions to the Board of the Net Zero Economy Authority about the Board's performance of its, or the Authority's, functions or exercises of its power; and the Parliamentary Business Resources Legislation Amendment (Review Implementation and Other Measures) Bill 2024, now passed into law, which provides that the Prime Minister can make non-legislative determinations for the Commonwealth to provide specified goods, services, premises, equipment or facilities, or pay specified allowances or expenses, to a former prime minister, or a spouse, dependent, or employee of a former prime minister. In each of these examples, the committee has sought from the relevant minister a stronger justification for the exemption from the usual disallowance or sunsetting processes, or further explanation as to the administrative nature of the instrument, given the effect these provisions have on reducing parliamentary oversight and scrutiny over the measures they seek to introduce. 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 7 of 2024 to the Senate. Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee 88 Delegated Legislation Monitor 88 17:00 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I present Delegated legislation monitor 6 of 2024 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, together with ministerial correspondence received by the committee. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I rise to speak to this tabling of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Delegated legislation monitor 6 of 2024. The monitor reports on the committee's consideration of 143 legislative instruments registered between 26 March and 13 May 2024. This includes 129 disallowable instruments and 14 instruments exempt from disallowance. I would first like to draw the chamber's attention to the Recycling and Waste Reduction (Export—Waste Paper and Cardboard) Rules 2024. The instrument regulates the export of mixed waste paper and cardboard from Australia and forms part of a new regime to regulate the export of waste materials. In this monitor, the committee is raising a number of scrutiny concerns including in relation to offences of strict liability provided for by the instrument. Under Senate standing order 23(3)(h), the committee must consider whether an instrument trespasses unduly on personal rights and liberties, such as whether it provides for matters relating to strict liability offences. Further, under Senate standing order 23(3)(j), the committee must consider whether an instrument contains matters more appropriate for parliamentary enactment, including where an instrument imposes significant penalties or sets out significant elements of a regulatory scheme. The committee is raising scrutiny concerns in this regard as the contravention of particular conditions provided for in the instrument triggers civil and criminal penalties for strict liability offences under the Recycling and Waste Reduction Act. The committee is therefore seeking the minister's advice about why it is considered necessary and appropriate for delegated legislation to include content of strict liability offences that carry such significant criminal and civil penalties. The committee also notes that the Recycling and Waste Reduction 2020 was previously reported on by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills in relation to leaving a number of significant matters of the legislative framework to delegated legislation, including what kind of waste material will be 'regulated waste material' for the purposes of the new regime and conditions that will apply for the export of regulated waste material. This instrument defines waste paper and cardboard as 'regulated waste material' and prescribes conditions for export of this material. Accordingly, the committee is seeking the minister's advice about why it is considered necessary and appropriate for delegated legislation to include content of strict liability offences that carry significant criminal and civil penalties, and the inclusion of significant matters including in relation to prescribing the kind of material that is 'regulated waste material' and conditions for export. I would also like to draw the chamber's attention to the committee's comments in relation to the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visas) Regulations 2024. The committee is raising scrutiny concerns as the explanatory statement to the instrument does not address whether merits review is available for a decision made under regulation 2.25AB of the Migration Regulations, of which the instrument amends the operation. It appears to the committee that merits review is available for decisions made under regulation 2.25AB, and accordingly it is seeking the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs' advice as to whether the explanatory statement can be amended to clarify this and specify any other safeguards or limitations that apply to the exercise of the minister's power. The committee notes it has raised similar concerns in relation to the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Regulations 2023, which the committee has been engaging with the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs on since Delegated legislation monitor 1 of 2024. On behalf of the committee, I'd like to reiterate the committee's expectation that explanatory statements must provide details of any state safeguards or limitations that apply to the exercise of a minister's powers or functions, including the availability of the review mechanisms. In this monitor, the committee has resolved to conclude it's examinations of the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Regulations 2023. One of the committee's scrutiny concerns in relation to this instrument concerned the information provided in the explanatory statement regarding consultation and the committee's expectations under Senate standing order 23(3)(d). In this instance, the explanatory statement to the instrument indicated that the Office of Impact Analysis and other Commonwealth agencies were consulted in relation to the instrument, but it did not specify which agencies were consulted or whether any persons likely to be affected by the instrument or experts were consulted. The committee thanks the minister for his advice detailing roundtable discussion with three key stakeholders for the purposes of information sharing in relation to the instrument's operation; however, it remains unclear to the committee why a broader range of stakeholders were not consulted, including those representing the interests of the individuals most likely to be affected by the instrument. It also appears to the committee that the nature of the roundtable discussions did not amount to consultation in line with its expectations. The consultation process is a critical part of making delegated legislation, as it is the only opportunity for stakeholders to participate in the process and to provide input, particularly for those who may be affected by the instrument. The committee is also concerned that it has raised similar matters in this monitor regarding another instrument in the same portfolio, the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visas) Regulations 2023. The committee considers tabling statements to be a useful tool by which the committee can draw the Senate's attention to specific scrutiny concerns about delegated legislation, such as inadequate consultation. This approach is informed by the Westminster parliament, where the UK Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee is empowered to draw the special attention of the House of Lords to an instrument on the basis: … that there appear to be inadequacies in the consultation process which relates to the instrument. The committee has resolved to draw its concerns regarding the consultation undertaken in relation to the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visas) Regulations 2023 to the attention of the Senate. I would also like to take this opportunity to reiterate the committee's expectation that explanatory statements include details of the consultation undertaken on the specific instrument, including who was consulted and the outcomes of that consultation. The committee expects that genuine consultation will take place with those likely to be affected by an instrument and/or relevant experts prior to an instrument being made. The committee will continue to closely monitor legislative instruments to ensure they meet legislative consultation requirements and the committee's clear expectations. Finally, in this monitor the committee concluded its consideration of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Greenhouse Gas Injection and Storage) Regulations 2023. The measures in the instrument facilitate and regulate safe and sustainable greenhouse gas injection and storage operations in offshore areas. The committee raised scrutiny concerns with the instrument in delegated legislation monitors 1 and 2. One of the committee's scrutiny concerns related to the scope of discretionary powers under the instrument that enabled the minister, in deciding whether to approve a draft site plan or a variation to a site plan, to have regard to 'any other matters' they considered relevant. In engaging with the committee on this matter, the minister provided two responses advising on constraints of the scope of the powers and providing examples of what might constitute 'any other matters'. Following her first response, the minister undertook to amend the explanatory statement to the instrument to reflect the detail provided in her response. The minister has since undertaken to further amend the explanatory statement to include the information provided in her second response, including detailed examples of 'any other matters'. The committee thanks the minister for her undertakings to address the committee's scrutiny concerns and meet the committee's expectations that, where an instrument confers discretionary powers on a person, the explanatory statement to the instrument should set out the factors which the person must consider in exercising the discretion. With these comments, I commend the committee's Delegated legislation monitor No. 6 of 2024 to the Senate. Question agreed to. BILLS 90 BILLS Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) Bill 2023 90

Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) Bill 2023

Report from Committee 90 17:09 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Pursuant to order and at the request of the Chair of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Senator Grogan, I present the report of the committee on the Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) Bill 2023, together with accompanying documents. DELEGATION REPORTS 90 DELEGATION REPORTS Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 148th Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly 90 17:09 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales by leave—I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to the 148th Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly, which took place from 23 to 27 March 2024. I seek leave to move a motion to take note of the document. Leave granted. Senator O'NEILL 140651 I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I was very honoured to represent the Hon. Milton Dick MP, Speaker of the House of Representatives and member of the executive committee, at the meeting of the IPU in Geneva on 22 March. In his capacity as executive committee member, Mr Speaker is also a member of the subcommittee on finance. He's also on the preparatory committee for the 6th World Conference of Speakers of Parliament set to take place in mid-2025. In March I was very pleased to lead that delegation, as the Speaker had to attend and serve the parliament in the way that he usually does as Speaker of the other place. The delegation comprised of me, Senator Linda Reynolds, Mr Julian Hill and Mr Warren Entsch. We were very ably assisted in our endeavours there on behalf of the nation by our secretary Dr Jane Thomson. I want to thank all of my colleagues and our support staff. Though the IPU enjoys less publicity than other organisations, its work is no less essential in promoting democracy and international cooperation. When it was founded in 1889, co-founders William Cremer and Frederic Passy envisaged a forum of peace and diplomacy through dialogue rather than the force of arms, the foundations of democracy and international law. More than a hundred years on, their organisation has achieved so much more than they could ever have hoped. It has succeeded in bridging divides where some thought it would be impossible, such as between France and Germany after the First World War and across the 38th parallel in Korea. Even in the time we were in Geneva, it was facilitating meetings between the delegations from Azerbaijan and Armenia to ensure that people of goodwill can have conversations. People who desire to use the IPU as a safe harbour are using it in that way today. The IPU supports unconditionally those parliamentarians who wish to improve domestic democratic institutions through an extensive education and capacity building program. As a parliamentarian who stands for peace, democracy and human rights, I'm very proud to represent Australians in this prestigious forum. In terms of participation, I was honoured to contribute to the general debate on the theme of the assembly, which was 'Parliamentary diplomacy: building bridges for peace and understanding'. In my contribution there I reflected on the challenges the global community faces, including conflict, rising inequality, the lack of economic opportunity and rapid technological change. There were 184 legislators from 129 member parliaments that contributed to that general debate, which led to the IPU's endorsement of the Geneva declaration on parliamentary diplomacy. That is a pledge by parliaments globally to support peace, defend human rights and condemn hate in pursuit of a stable and prosperous global community. The delegation participated in the work of the four main committees and subsidiary bodies of the IPU and of the assembly. I presented a proposed resolution to the bureau of the standing committee on sustainable development focused on tax avoidance, on behalf of the Australian delegation. The bureau of the standing committee agreed to hold a panel discussion on the topic and the role of parliaments in preventing corporate tax avoidance and achieving sustainable development based on my proposal, and that will occur at the next assembly in October 2024. Happily I will be able to serve as a moderator for the purpose of this discussion. We will have an opportunity to share Australia's knowledge and experience with regard to tax avoidance and collaborate with international parliamentarians on best practices for a stronger and fairer international tax system. I want to thank and acknowledge the delegations from New Zealand, Thailand and Nigeria, who supported us in advancing that important matter. The delegation was a very collaborative group. It spread itself across the vast number of activities and events that took place in the assembly to ensure that we as Australians made a significant contribution to the work of the IPU. In the margins of the event, Australia hosted a multilateral meeting with Pacific island neighbouring nations of Fiji, New Zealand, Timor-Leste and Tonga to discuss matters of shared importance with our Pacific family, forging strong cross-parliamentary ties with our closest neighbours. We also had bilateral meetings with Indonesia, Thailand, Ukraine, Vietnam, Timor-Leste, Nigeria and Afghanistan. I particularly want to thank Amanda Gorely, Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations and to the Conference on Disarmament, and her staff. She hosted the delegation at her residence, and I thank her for providing ongoing support to the delegation during that time. I also want to particularly acknowledge the support of Mr David Hevey, First Secretary, Cyber and Digital Affairs, who provided invaluable support to the delegation. I also acknowledge DFAT and the Parliamentary Library for providing briefing material, which very much assisted the delegation in making a meaningful contribution. Question agreed to. Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Nepal and India 91 17:15 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria by leave—I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to Nepal and India, which took place from 4 to 12 October 2023. BILLS 91 BILLS Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024, National Health Amendment (Supporting Patient Access to Cheaper Medicines and Other Measures) Bill 2024 91

Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024

National Health Amendment (Supporting Patient Access to Cheaper Medicines and Other Measures) Bill 2024

First Reading 91 17:16 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 92 17:17 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I table a revised explanatory memorandum relating to the Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024 and I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— ILLEGAL LOGGING PROHIBITION AMENDMENT (STRENGTHENING MEASURES TO PREVENT ILLEGAL TIMBER TRADE) BILL 2024 Illegal logging has wide-reaching and devastating impacts on climate, nature, and people. As the world's most profitable environmental crime, this complex problem is linked to corruption, organised crime, civil war, exploitation, and violations of human rights. Illegal logging can destroy forest ecosystems, reduces biodiversity, and contributes to species extinction. It deprives local communities of opportunities to improve their quality of life and undermines the rights and practices of Indigenous Peoples that care for country. And it costs governments and primary industries billions of dollars every year in lost revenue. Australia is not immune to these impacts. Trade in low-priced, illegally sourced timber undermines the prices that can be obtained for local, sustainably produced products. This has negative effects on supply chains, business decisions, industry profitability, investment, and jobs in the Australian economy. Given the scale and reach of these environmental, social, and economic impacts, global action is necessary to effectively combat illegal logging. The Australian Government is committed to playing its part and working with the international community to address illegal logging. In 2012, Australia introduced world-leading illegal logging prohibition laws that were among the first of their kind internationally. The Illegal Logging Prohibition Act 2012 seeks to reduce the harmful impacts of illegal logging by restricting the importation and sale of illegally logged timber and timber products in Australia, and the processing of domestically grown raw logs that have been illegally harvested. This includes a requirement for timber importer's and processor's of raw logs to conduct a risk assessment process known as 'due diligence' to minimise the risk of importing or processing illegally sourced timber or timber products. As global awareness of deforestation and consumer demand for sustainable timber products has increased, Australia has welcomed regulatory approaches introduced by many other countries to combat illegal timber harvesting and associated trade. This wider action globally has helped produce new approaches that Australia can adopt to augment our own laws. This Bill seeks to do this, implementing the improvements identified through both the Statutory Review of the Act and the Sunsetting Review of the Illegal Logging Prohibition Regulation. Measures in the Bill will modernise and strengthen the Act, to better protect the Australian market from illegally harvested timber and timber products and support sustainable and legal timber trade into the future. In particular, new and emerging timber identification technologies hold great potential to enhance existing compliance and due diligence efforts. The Australian Government is currently delivering a $4.4 million trial of timber identification methods. This trial will inform effective implementation of timber testing under a reformed Act. It aims to ensure the supporting reference databases, systems and access to testing tools are in place to do so that Australian can readily identify products entering its market. Timber testing offers compliance officers a means to verify whether claims made about harvest origin and species of regulated products are accurate and assess whether importer's and processor's due diligence efforts are up to scratch. Timber testing can also confirm whether products are in fact illegally logged through closely pinpointing the harvest location and has supported prosecutions overseas relating to illegally logged timber. We know that the Australian timber producers and environmental groups alike support these developments and want to see these tools and techniques used effectively in Australia. The Bill will allow for the taking of samples and testing of timber products at the border and beyond for compliance purposes. This will be complemented by a new requirement for importers and processors to give notice before importing or processing regulated timber products. This will enable the government to target testing and other regulatory efforts through having more information on what is entering Australia's market in advance. The Amendment Bill will also provide more flexible enforcement options and expanded monitoring and investigation powers. This includes the addition of strict liability offences, injunctions, and enforceable undertakings to the Act. Amendments will also enable audits to be carried out to determine compliance with the due diligence requirements and extend the timeframe for issuing infringement notices to 24 months to afford more time for audits and other compliance actions to first take place. Finally, further amendments will permit the publication of details of contraventions of the Act on the Department's website, which provides a further deterrent for non-compliance, and allows the Regulation to be remade as Rules, enabling more flexibility in updating key guidance on sourcing legally harvested timber that is incorporated by reference. Together, these amendments to the laws will help make Australia an even less attractive destination for illegally sourced timber and further protect Australia's reputation in international markets as a supplier of sustainable and legally sourced timber products. Strengthened illegal logging laws will complement other key Australian Government priorities, such as supporting global action to mitigate climate change and protect biodiversity, combatting organised crime, and alleviating the costs of corruption in developing countries. As a leader in international efforts to combat illegal logging, we know the eyes of the world are watching us. Other countries look to Australia to lead the way on timber legality laws. This Bill will both uphold our reputation as a global leader through adopting further best-practice regulatory approaches, and help address the environmental, social, and economic harms of illegal logging and associated trade. _____ I commend the bill to the Senate. NATIONAL HEALTH AMENDMENT (SUPPORTING PATIENT ACCESS TO CHEAPER MEDICINES AND OTHER MEASURES) BILL 2024 The National Health Amendment (Supporting Patient Access to Cheaper Medicines and Other Measures) Bill 2024 will support a strong pharmacy sector, deliver cheaper medicines and boost pharmacy services across the country. The Albanese Government has already saved Australians more than $370 million on the cost of their medicines. This Bill supports implementation of the Eighth Community Pharmacy Agreement (8CPA) reached between the Australian Government and the Pharmacy Guild. Negotiations for the 8CPA began in August 2023, and the agreement has been developed following over 100 meetings with more than 20 stakeholder organisations with an interest in better health for Australians through cheaper medicines. The 8CPA supports the objectives of the National Medicines Policy—equitable, timely, safe and reliable access to medicines and related services, at a cost that individuals and the community can afford. It will provide pharmacies with predictable remuneration to support a sustainable, efficient, and effective network of community pharmacies across Australia. This Bill delivers key elements of the 8CPA, including establishing an Additional Community Supply Support (ACSS) payment for eligible supplies of pharmaceutical benefits made by approved pharmacists. The new ACSS payment will be paid to approved pharmacists separate to the existing Commonwealth price based mechanism for payments on dispensing pharmaceutical benefits. This will provide a means through which the Commonwealth is able to provide the necessary level of financial support to community pharmacies for the dispensing of Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) medicines, without increasing the costs of medicines for some patients. The Government is also replacing the optional $1 discount with a $1 reduction in the PBS co-payment for all patients. The optional $1 discount was failing to drive competition and make medicines cheaper for most prescriptions at most pharmacies. It was particularly failing for patients outside of the inner cities. The vast majority of people did not get the existing optional $1 discount—around 4 in 5 subsidised prescriptions were not discounted in 2023. Of the scripts that were discounted, 76% went to patients in the inner cities. Outside of the inner cities, only 1 in 7 subsidised prescriptions had the $1 discount applied. Patients cannot take advantage of the $1 discount if there is just one pharmacy in town and no price competition. The independent Review of Pharmacy Remuneration and Regulation in 2017 recommended the former government abolish the $1 discount for this very reason: it worsens inequities, it does not address them. The former government ignored this recommendation and allowed these inequities to continue. The independent Review said this: "if the government considers that lower copayments are desirable, they should lower them for all consumers, with appropriate remuneration provided to pharmacies for dispensing." That is exactly what we are doing: we will make medicines cheaper on every script at every pharmacy and in every community, as we phase out the measure that only benefits some. This will be achieved by freezing indexation of patient co-payments. There will be a one year freeze in indexation of the PBS general patient maximum co-payment and a five year freeze in indexation of the PBS concessional patient co-payment. This will mean that the cost of PBS medicines will stay lower for longer, instead of rising with inflation. This will help Australians with cost of living pressures, and help people to keep taking their necessary medicines. Going forward, all patients will have more equitable access to cheaper medicines, particularly those in rural and remote areas whose access to pharmacies offering the optional $1 discount has been limited. We are committed to ensuring that all Australians are able to access high quality health care. This includes timely, reliable and affordable access to necessary medicines through the PBS, supported by the reforms in this Bill. _____ I commend the bill to the Senate. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day. DELEGATION REPORTS 94 DELEGATION REPORTS Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 148th Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly 94 17:18 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I seek leave to make a short statement. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Leave is granted for two minutes. Senator REYNOLDS 250216 I'm very grateful for the leave from colleagues. I would like to very much endorse the comments of Senator O'Neill on the last IPU delegation to Geneva. I'd also like to commend her for her leadership, in the absence of the Speaker, who was missed. You did a fantastic job as a parliamentary delegate but also in leading the delegation, particularly in terms of parliamentary diplomacy. I think, in that sense, what the last IPU delegation demonstrated is that all of us here in this chamber play an important role in parliamentary diplomacy. It has never been more important in our nation's history for everybody in this chamber to work as part of 'team Australia' with colleagues—in this case, in the IPU—from 180 countries. I'd also very much like to thank Ambassador Gorely, who's the Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the UN and to the Conference on Disarmament, for her and her team's amazing support for the delegation, including her kind hospitality at her residence. I'd also like to thank Ambassador Emily Roper, the Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations, and staff of the Australian permanent mission in Geneva. Mr David Hevey, the first secretary of cyber and digital affairs, provided ongoing support and invaluable assistance to the delegation, particularly during my and Julian Hill's participation in a very instructive workshop and series of sessions on artificial intelligence. I also thank the Parliamentary Library, who always do a good job but, in this case, did a particularly outstanding pack for the delegation. In closing I'd like to briefly thank Mr Speaker. As some people in this chamber would know, I have been actively pursuing the issue of orphanage trafficking to get global action on orphanage trafficking. At the IPU before this, I was successful, as part of team Australia, in getting a very comprehensive resolution up that 180 nations supported. But now it's a matter of getting that resolution implemented, and I want to thank Mr Speaker very much for, on behalf of the Presiding Officers, supporting a new initiative with the IPU, which we're just waiting for approval to go ahead with, so that we can start preparing a manual for legislators globally on how to tackle orphanage trafficking. I'm thankful for the support-to-be from the Parliamentary Library. Thank you very much for your indulgence. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 94 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS McBride, Mr Vincent 94 17:21 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 With the indulgence of the chamber, I'd like to acknowledge the presence in the chamber today of Vincent McBride, who is sitting in the advisers box. He's the grandson of the former member for The Entrance, Grant McBride, and the nephew of Emma McBride, the member for Dobell. He is here from Christian Brothers' High School Lewisham on work experience, and we very much welcome him to his observations of the parliament in action. COMMITTEES 94 COMMITTEES Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee 94 Reference 94 17:22 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Prior to my contribution, I wish to add senators to this motion who've come to me since it's been lodged. In addition to National Party Senators Davey, Canavan, Nampijinpa Price, McDonald and Cadell, I'd like to add Senators Brockman, O'Sullivan, Reynolds, Cash and McGrath. I, and also on behalf of Senators Davey, McDonald, Nampijinpa Price, Canavan, Cadell, Brockman, O'Sullivan, Reynolds, Cash and McGrath, move: That the provisions of the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 25 November 2024. Here we have another tick-and-flick, cheap-and-dirty attempt by the Labor Party to consult the communities they have continued to abuse for over two years after coming to power. The pathway to the Lodge for Anthony Albanese was paved through Western Australia. What has he done? East coast Labor has turned their back on the west. How have they done this? They have instigated the ban on live sheep trade forthwith. In Senate estimates, the minister made it very clear: 'It is Senate inquiries that do the legislation inquiries, and I'm sure that will happen.' Well, Minister Watt, now it is time to stand up for the agriculture community. Now is the time to actually put your political muscle and mouth—which is always on show—to work. Give us the Senate inquiry that you promised industry and that industry, our exporters, our producers and our regional communities, particularly in Western Australia, have requested after the absolute sham process in the other place, which was an abomination and a shame on what should be good consultation. This government, time and time again, has made decision after decision that undermines the legitimacy and the strength and the prosperity of our mighty agriculture industry. As Australia's first female agriculture minister and having had the great privilege of serving the industry and serving our country, I know firsthand what a world-class live sheep export industry we have out of the west. In terms of servicing culturally appropriate protein to the Middle East, you love to talk about cultural appropriation but not when talking about how the Middle East communities would like to receive their food and what sort of industry we have, which is absolutely world-class. I had the great privilege to head over to Muresk, in the great state of WA, for the second of those Senate inquiries, to hear directly from primary producers, from advocacy bodies, from local champions, from those employing thousands of people in the West. And don't think this is a west coast problem. When this occurs, as is already happening, it's having a flow-on impact to the east coast industry as well. In Muresk, the Keep the Sheep campaign spokesperson, Benno, was very clear: 'The clear message we want to send today, come and look us in the eye and see the people you're hurting. Listen to our stories. Do you think you know better than us?' Thank you, Benno. It's the transport operator. It's the supply chain. It's not just the primary producers. Glenn Sterle comes in here and talks a big game backing truckies. Now is his opportunity to do that. He could actually chair the legislation inquiry that the minister has promised and that the Senate and these communities deserve. The Keep the Sheep petition has over 44,000 signatures in a single week. It's up to 60,000 now. Log onto any of our Facebook pages if you want to show your support for this great, world-class industry. Brownie also said, 'Labor is actually wanting to take away our livelihoods and potentially our lives.' We heard from farmer Leanne Dring: 'This was a line-in-the-sand moment. I never thought that at the age of 60 I would have to fight for a social licence to feed the world.' Well, under Anthony Albanese and Murray Watt, that's exactly what you have to do. He'll come in and say, 'We had an election commitment, and we're going through with it.' At least have the decency to look these people in the eye and give them the opportunity to put their case. Over 13,000 submissions were received to the House of Representatives inquiry. They haven't even been able to be uploaded and publicly available. If that happened in one of the Greens' or the Labor Party's Senate inquiries, there would be an uproar that we were silencing the people. But, when it is an industry that underpins the regions and the seven million of us that live out there, this government doesn't care. This motion is about giving them a voice. 17:28 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria (): Ending live sheep exports is a commitment that has been well known for some years, and it has been well consulted. Labor went to both the 2019 and 2022 federal elections committing to phase out live sheep exports by sea. In government, we've overseen a significant consultation on how to implement that commitment and implement it in a way that delivers jobs and opportunities to regional Australia. The coalition, apparently, wants to stand in the way of these opportunities. They want to stand in the way of the certainty that industry needs to navigate the future, a future with a four-year phase-out, a future with $100 million of investment for new opportunities, a future that has long been signalled, has been extensively consulted and has been well known for some time. The independent panel, which we established, consulted on how and when this phase-out could occur. Between March and October last year, it went out and sought views about how this would work. The independent panel hosted over 2,000 people at in-person forums and 330 attendees at virtual forums. They held 80 meetings with organisations and farmer representative groups. They received over 800 written submissions and over 3,000 survey responses. Through all of this consultation, they made their 28 recommendations to government, including the recommendation to end the export in four years' time. That was the recommendation that was made by the independent panel. This recommendation was strongly informed by the overwhelming decline of the live sheep export industry. In 2022-23, live sheep exports by sea represented less than one per cent of the total value of Australia's sheep exports—less than one per cent! The government has put forward a bill to address this economic reality. The bill that is before the parliament has been consulted on and it's been examined by members of parliament. It's been examined by members of the coalition. They've had that opportunity. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture conducted an inquiry into this bill. They've looked into it. They've held two public hearings on it. They've sought the views of everyone. They have received hundreds of submissions. They have received thousands of letters—notably, 7,000 letters in support of the bill. But those opposite just close their eyes, block their ears, and pretend that didn't happen. They pretend that an independent inquiry and another parliamentary inquiry never happened. They ignore all of the evidence before them and they just say, 'No, apparently we need another inquiry.' Instead of watching the trade, businesses and communities just collapse slowly over time, as live sheep export by sea makes up less than one per cent of the industry today, the government has stepped in to maximise the opportunities that are actually here: to focus on and grow the processing of these animals locally, right here in Australia. We have allocated over $100 million to assist the entire supply chain, including farmers, processors, truckies and shearers. We have allocated $100 million to navigate that transition. This is something that you would think that those opposite would embrace: more jobs in the agriculture sector, more jobs in regional Australia, more support for local businesses, building a new meat processing industry in Australia— Senator Dean Smith 241710 Where are the WA senators? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 Senator Smith! Order! Senator WALSH 252157 But they can't pass up the opportunity to play politics with this. They want to pass up all of those opportunities and instead play politics on this issue, play politics with regional Australia and try to block the opportunities that we want to create. 17:33 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales The Greens oppose this referral, and that should come as no surprise to anyone in this chamber. The Nationals just can't deal with the fact that this is it. This is it! This is the end of the cruel live export industry which lost its social licence decades ago, and for good reason. It is a barbaric trade that results in the suffering of animals as they are crammed into overcrowded, filthy containers and forced to endure long and gruelling journeys, subjected to extreme temperatures, thirst and hunger, and thousands upon thousands have actually died. There is no need for another inquiry. Everyone knows why this trade must end. The research has been done. Extensive and lengthy stakeholder engagement has been undertaken. The independent panel appointed to investigate a ban on live sheep export has received 800 submissions and over 3,000 survey responses. They met with over 2,000 people and held 96 stakeholder meetings. The 225-page report recommended the phase-out of live sheep export, although of course the Greens would like it to be in 2026 rather than in 2028. Live exports, we all know, have been in long-term structural decline for decades, and there is now a generous package to transition to the chilled meat trade to provide some sustainability and security. The community knows that sheep are not cargo. Here's why it needs to end. They are not a commodity or a cargo. They are living, breathing, sentient beings, and the horrors inflicted upon them, all for the industry to make profits, are an affront to anything decent and humane. This cruel trade must end, and this cruel trade will end, no matter how many motions the coalition brings into this chamber. Eighty per cent of submissions to the independent panel supported the end of live export. Eighty-five per cent of submissions to the recent House inquiry supported the end of live sheep export. In 2023, 71 per cent of Western Australians supported the phase-out, including 69 per cent of people in rural and regional areas. In 2022, polling showed that nationally 78 per cent of people support the phase-out of live sheep export. Back in October 2018, I tabled a petition against live sheep exports in the Senate, and it was signed by 238,000 people. That's about 10,000 pages long. So all the hard work done by the community, animal welfare advocates and activists, whistleblowers and the Greens has finally forced Labor to end live sheep exports, and we're not going to let you undo this historic decision. The motion does nothing other than delay the inevitable. The Nationals are not interested in inquiring into the bill; they just want animal cruelty to continue, and they will not be successful. I have said this many times, and I will say it again: until this cruel trade ends, live export will remain incompatible with animal welfare, because animal cruelty is at the absolute core of the industry's business model. The coalition would have you believe that animal cruelty is a problem of the past, but that's just plain wrong. In fact, with summer temperatures rising unbearably because of global warming, these ships of misery will get even worse for animals, and no set of standards will make live export ships safe for the sheep. They will still remain ships of misery for the sheep. This cruel trade is irredeemable, and the only option is to shut it down. It was really good to see the bill to end live sheep export pass the House today, and I am looking forward to it coming to the Senate and passing as well, because it is way past time to end live sheep export, and the bill to ensure that must pass immediately. 17:38 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia What an utter series of falsehoods we have just heard from those opposite—the Labor Party and the Greens! It is a complete tissue paper of falsehoods. I won't say what I really think, because I'm not supposed to use that word in the chamber, but, quite frankly, this is a disgrace. The committee process in the House of Representatives was an absolute farce. It was one week long. They couldn't even read the majority of submissions they received. They couldn't process them. Two thousand Western Australians turned up in Muresk to say: 'No, do not ban the trade. Keep the sheep. Keep our regional communities. Keep our shearers working. Keep our truckies driving.' This is a trade that deserves to survive, and we on this side will continue this fight for as long as we need to, because what the Labor Party is doing to the Western Australian sheep industry is an absolute disgrace. Every single Western Australian Labor member in the House of Representatives who voted in favour of banning the trade will suffer at the next election. Whether it is the member for Swan, Zaneta Mascarenhas, whether it is the member for Tangney, Sam Lim, whether it's the member for Hasluck, Tania Lawrence or whether it's the member for Pearce, Tracey Roberts—each and every one of them will pay the price for this ridiculous, ill-informed, counterproductive legislation, a piece of legislation that will actually make animal welfare around the world worse. We heard this at Senate estimates. It will make animal welfare worse because we do not just export live animals; we export animal welfare standards all around the world. We have seen in the last couple of days a Labor member of parliament crossing the floor to support a cause thousands of miles around the world. Well, I challenge each and every Western Australian member of the Labor Party and the Western Australian Greens to cross the floor to support the thousands of Western Australian farmers and their supporters who have turned out in support of this trade. It is a trade that deserves to thrive. It's a trade that supports local communities. It's a trade that supports other parts of the sheep industry. Today a meat processor in WA joined the Keep the Sheep campaign because their general manager in speaking to the issue said, 'If this policy comes into law, the size of the industry in Western Australia will shrink.' That won't just hurt the live export industry. That will hurt the processing industry. That will hurt the local communities. That will hurt the IGA. It will lose the town its doctor. It will lose the town its school. Darren Spencer, head of the shearing association in WA, talked about the role he and his business play in a small country town in WA. He talked about the $100,000 he spends at the local IGA. He talked about the $50,000 he spends at the local petrol station. He talked about the people who have had jobs because of his shearing teams, people who wouldn't necessarily have had jobs otherwise. He talked about people who had made their lives in that small country town, who had bought houses and who attended the local school. This is what the Labor Party is doing to Western Australian communities. They are sucking the heart and the lifeblood out of Western Australian communities. It's an absolute disgrace. If those members opposite from WA don't cross the floor on this, they have no guts. This is an issue of fundamental concern to Western Australia. It's an issue that will tear our local communities in the bush apart. Every single one of those Labor members in the House of Representatives will suffer the consequences at the ballot box for what they did to betray Western Australia. This Labor government does not care about Western Australia, and it certainly doesn't care about the bush. 17:43 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia We won't be supporting the establishment of this inquiry. Why? Because it's time to give Western Australian communities and farmers certainty in this debate. Opposition senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 Order! This is not the behaviour that we'll be having this afternoon. Everyone just calm down, please. Senator PRATT I0T The policy is about better animal welfare standards. It is also about more local jobs and more economic value being added to my home state of Western Australia. It is about supporting farmers in this transition. Farmers need that certainty, and you are just leading farmers down the garden path for your own political gain. Senator McKenzie 207825 Why don't you want them to have an inquiry? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 Order, Senator McKenzie! Senator Carol Brown F49 Why don't you want to have a debate? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 Order, Senator Brown! That is enough. We will continue this debate in an orderly fashion. Senator PRATT I0T Getting on with passing this legislation instead of diverting it to an inquiry paves the way for more jobs in value adding through onshore processing. It is absolutely critical that we get on with planning and working with communities on the $107 million transition support package. We need to get it rolled out to scale up meat processing and create new jobs in the communities, right around my home state of WA, that grow our nation's sheep, exporting meat and feeding the people of our nation. The time for delay is over. It is time to get on with delivering on this commitment. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 Please resume your seat, Senator Pratt. Okay. It's late in the afternoon. Let's take it down and have an orderly and respectful debate, please. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 Thank you for that interjection, Senator Smith. I'm not sure how helpful it really was, but thank you anyway. Senator Pratt. Senator PRATT I0T The time for delay is over. It is time to get on with delivering this important commitment, one that I note is backed by the majority of Australians. The Albanese government went to the last two elections with a promise to phase out the live export of sheep by sea. We have consulted and worked with communities right around the country on how to best deliver a considered and orderly transition. We've been very clear with Australian farmers, meat processors and communities about our intention to fulfil this commitment. Last year, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry appointed an independent panel to consult with stakeholders to seek advice on how and when the government should phase out the export of live sheep by sea. I've had many meetings with stakeholders over many years now, and you have been misleading people, time and time again, about how and when we need to get this done. Panel members were selected on their diverse sets of skills and experience, in agriculture, public admin, economics and animal welfare. From March to October the panel met with 2,000 people, received more than 4,100 submissions and survey responses and held 80 virtual and face-to-face meetings with industry and stakeholders. The panel recommended that the trade end on 1 May in 2028, that the date be legislated so that farmers and communities can plan with certainty, and that transition support be made available by government. We've considered the transition plan and its recommendations: four years for farmers and communities to prepare, backed up by a really big investment of taxpayers' money to work with communities to get this done. In addition to the panel's work, we know that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture held two public hearings this month and had 13,000 contributions from individuals, organisations and stakeholders. I know the reason you want to go to an inquiry on this: it's because you're going to vote against it. We already know that. You are not intent on working with the government to implement this policy; you only want to run interference for your own political gain. The lower house inquiry has received 6,700 form letters and campaign emails in support of this bill. There were some 1,100 that weren't in favour. I might add that, over the years, I've received more than 12,000 emails, not from interstate but from Western Australians, in support of ending— (Time expired) 17:49 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia What can I say? I remember very clearly the campaign that was held in Western Australia in the lead-up to the last election. There were billboards and there were slogans plastered all over polling booths across electorates right across Western Australia saying that Labor would put WA first, and we've just heard from Senator Pratt, a Western Australia senator, who is selling out the farmers of Western Australia. These are generational farms. They are farms that have been held by generations of families who are providing futures for their children. I want to commend Senator Brockman for the powerful speech that he just delivered. He knows better than anyone here in this place the impact on WA farmers because he's from a WA farming family. Actually, I was down at his family property recently, where they used to have sheep. They can't have sheep now, because of the impact this is already having, without the decision and the regime having even been put in place. This is already having an impact on farmers. I was at the Wagin Woolarama and I saw people signing the petition. There were thousands of them walking up, and there was despair on the faces of families because of this change that is coming in. As I said, there were generations coming up and signing the petition. Young people and older family members were signing this petition not just for their own sake but for the sake of their families and future generations. It is an absolute travesty to hear what I'm going to say is this diatribe of a response—peddled by a WA senator, no less—that this government is providing in this situation. I've been to the feedlot where they prepare the animals before they go onto the ships. I've seen the incredible welfare standards that have been put in place and the great measures that have been taken to support this industry. I've been onto the ships to see how they're treated. I've seen the ventilation that has been installed and the welfare of these animals when they're on board. I've seen the measures that this industry has taken to ensure its sustainability. They've done everything that the government has asked them to do—and more—and this decision being made just because of some votes over here in the eastern states is an absolute travesty. Why don't you front up, Prime Minister, and go and speak to some people in Western Australia, instead of just refuelling your jet before you go overseas? You say you're visiting Western Australia by just parking and filling up the plane and flying on to your international visit. Why don't you go and speak to some farmers? Why don't you go and engage with some people on the ground? Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 You put WA first? My foot! You are not putting WA first. You have made an absolute mockery of your own campaign. Tim Picton, your state director, said that one of the hallmarks of your campaign was that you had a WA office running the campaign over there. What a joke! We've seen that all you're about is these eastern states seats. You're trying to win seats in the inner cities, like in the by-election in Dunkley, just for some preference deals with animal activist parties. Labor, you've turned your back on Western Australia, and you're going to pay for it, like Senator Brockman said, at the next election in all of those key seats: Tangney, Swan, Pearce, Hasluck. Wait till you see it happen in Bullwinkel too, when we win that seat, because Western Australians are furious with you. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 The time for that debate has expired. 17:54 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I ask that my name be added to Senator McKenzie's motion. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 Yes. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion as moved by Senator McKenzie be agreed to.

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

29 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. 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. 33 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. 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. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

FIRST SPEECH 99 FIRST SPEECH Hodgins-May, Senator Steph 99 18:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 Pursuant to order, I now call Senator Hodgins-May to make her first speech and ask that senators abide by the usual courtesies that are extended to new senators. 18:01 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria I acknowledge that we are meeting on stolen land and pay deep respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples and their elders past and present, on whose land this parliament was built. I also acknowledge my First Nations colleagues in the chamber today. It is an honour to work alongside you. The wounds of colonialism still run deep on country, language, history and culture. Here in this place, we must commit to facing the truth of our history and work together to right the wrongs of the past. I stand here representing Victoria, home to magnificent landscapes, waterways, wildlife and plants: the cool temperate forests of the Central Highlands, home to the precious Leadbeater's possum; Gippsland's forests, foothills, lakes and plains; the Mallee country of the north-west, dry and sandy but bursting with birds, reptiles and wildflowers; the Victorian grassland earless dragon, which was only rediscovered last year on Wadawurrung country after being thought to be extinct; the Burrunan dolphins of Port Phillip Bay; the ancient eel traps on Gunditjmara country; and the superb fairy wrens and Bunjil, who often greet me on my return to Dja Dja Wurrung country in central Victoria, where I was born and raised. My earliest memories are of helping to plant fruit orchards with my sister, Carla, on the red volcanic soils at the base of Kangaroo Hills, where my family have farmed for five generations. Since I was old enough to write, my late dad, Rod May, was my writing companion, and drafting this speech without him was hard. Dad was a rare combination of deep intellect and visionary who also got stuff done, be it backbreaking farm work in summer or building an elaborate ecovillage in winter. Despite spending most of his life within a 10-kilometre radius of the town where he was born, his worldly perspective extended far beyond the local council that he served on and the rickety fences that border our farm. Dad was one of Australia's first organic farmers, and he drafted certification standards that organic farmers across the world still rely on today. Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, local irrigator politics and the latest sci-fi flicks were often topics of conversation at the dinner table. Every aspect of our upbringing was deeply rooted in restoring ecological balance, protecting our soils and waterways, planting trees and leaving the land in a better condition than we found it. Dad recognised more than 30 years ago that monoculture cropping wasn't a sustainable way forward. Nor was relying on the supermarket duopoly, price-gouging Australian farmers and families alike to this day. Instead, he bypassed them and began his own local distribution network of veggie boxes. To this day I still meet people who praise my dad's—Farmer Rod's—corn as the sweetest they've ever tasted. So when I raise this chamber to talk about protecting our farmland, forests and waterways through innovation and ecological stewardship, this is why. When I rise to speak about issues of justice, intergenerational fairness or gender equality, I do so because of the enormous influence of my dear mum, Viv Hodgins. As a proud public school teacher for more than 30 years, injustice was a daily reality for the students that she taught and mentored. Like so many teachers, mum's work didn't begin and end with the ringing of the school bells. Mum was revered by her students because she refused to accept that they should forgo opportunities based on where they lived or the lack of funding available to them. When I rise in this chamber to demand better conditions for our underpaid, hardworking school and early childhood educators, I remember mum's commitment to tackling inequality. When I fight for our children to receive the best possible start to life through universal, free early childhood education, this is why. Postcodes shouldn't determine the learning opportunities available to our kids. I don't think mum would have seen herself as an activist, but through thousands of small but important acts she changed the lives of her students, like so many of our amazing teachers do. While neither of my parents are with us today, it is with a deep sense of pride and responsibility that I enter the parliament as a federal Greens Senator for Victoria. An incident having occurred in the gallery— The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that people in the gallery are guests, and there should not be clapping. Please continue, Senator. Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 If I focus hard I can hear my dad whispering in my ear, 'Go for it, darling!' and that's exactly what I intend to do. As a kid from Blampied, I didn't expect to be standing in parliament. Frankly, I never expected to get the grades for law school, either, so when I passed and was offered a role as a corporate lawyer in a big, inner-city law firm, I surprised myself and my family. But life had other ideas for me, as it so often does. Ahead of starting my role as a lawyer in 2009, I travelled to Samoa to volunteer with Women in Business, a remarkable organisation that provides microfinance loans to women. While travelling around the islands of Savai'i and Upolu, I spent time learning from these women who were building self-sufficient businesses to support their families through innovative agricultural enterprise. What stood out to me was that these businesses didn't exist to make profit for profit's sake. Their shareholders were community members and their purpose was to sustain and nurture local families. In my final days in Samoa I recall watching the sun glittering over the mighty Pacific Ocean from the shorelines of Lalomanu—the same beach where mum would spend her final days some seven months later. In September 2009, as my mum and her dear friend Claire—who is up in the gallery today—were waking to enjoy their final day in Samoa, the earth shook, the ocean receded and a tsunami tore through the coastline of Lalomanu, taking with it generations of families, livelihoods and my mum. Perhaps unsurprisingly, my career as a corporate lawyer didn't last long after mum died. Carving up my life into seven-minute billable blocks to help the rich become richer became increasingly hard to stomach. I felt a deep pull back to Samoa and the women I met there. I booked a plane ticket and loaded up with seeds and farming equipment to deliver to Women in Business, who were some of the first responders on the scene after the tsunami. My grief has largely clouded my memories of this trip, but one memory that has stayed with me is of standing on the debris as aftershocks continued to shake the earth under my feet. In a local practice called Talanoa, where people talk and listen to each other openly, without judgement, local elders shared their stories. They spoke of the destruction caused by the tsunami, a freak, once-in-a-lifetime disaster, they'd hoped. But as I listened, the elders described the other compounding threats that extreme weather and a changing climate were having on their ability to survive, to feed their families and to preserve their connection to country and culture. Their words reinforced to me that climate change is more than a matter of science. It's a matter of justice, with deep and interconnected structural socioeconomic and intergenerational inequities at its core. It's the voices of these elders that I endeavour to bring to this parliament—their courage, their resilience and their exemplary climate leadership. As a nation, we have a monumental challenge in front of us. The social and ecological crises that beset us demand sweeping, systemic change, bold vision, political courage and a commitment to put people before profit. Our climate is unravelling before our eyes, yet governments across the world, including here in Australia, are tightening anti-protest laws instead of cracking down on climate polluters. Successive Australian governments have made us the world's third-largest exporter of fossil fuels. They've let their corporate donors dictate policy decisions and strong-arm their ways into the halls of power, many of them not even paying their fair share of taxes like the rest of us do. Young people in this country dare to dream about a life of opportunity but are bent down under the weight of soaring rents, student debt and climate disasters. I enter this parliament knowing that we can and we must do better. Since standing on the beach of Lalomanu, my fight for climate justice has taken me across the globe. At the United Nations in New York, I negotiated stronger climate resolutions and reef protections only to watch Australia water them down when it was politically convenient. I worked as an environmental lawyer, and I experienced the devastating consequences of our utterly broken environmental laws on nature and communities. I sailed through the Pacific Islands with Greenpeace and drew inspiration from climate justice activists from across the world, all fighting for a more safe and just future, but up against powerful fossil fuel interests, including Australia. Time and time again, the message from Pacifica political leaders, youth activists and elders was consistent: the government was failing to act and time is running out. The message was to force them to do better or to replace them. That's exactly what the Greens and what I intend to do. Another issue close to my heart is this country's abhorrent approach to refugees and asylum seekers seeking our protection. Today, with a record 120 million people forcibly displaced by war, conflict and persecution, there is a dire need for more humility and compassion in our treatment of refugees and asylum seekers. In 1992, a woman Nevena Simic escaped the conflict in Bosnia with her boys, fearing she could no longer keep her family safe from the gunfire, gunfire that would kill her husband some months later. Nevena arrived in Australia with little more than a suitcase, a few words of English and her three sons. She fought for a better future in Australia, where her sons could have an opportunity to grow up and give back to their new country. This incredible woman is my mother-in-law. It is because of her immense bravery that today I have a wonderful partner and two beautiful children sitting up there. We must recognise the stories of resilience, like Nevena's. These must be the stories that shape our humanitarian response to refugees, not the cruel campaign slogans designed only to scare people and win votes. This is why we need more greens in parliament, and this is why our campaign teams are organising within their communities right across Australia. The history of social change in our nation and across our planet tells us that, when people unite with passion and purpose, we can change the world. Our Greens members and volunteers are the foundations of change, part of a global movement that started here in this country in pursuit of ecological sustainability and grassroots democracy. I'm a member of the Greens because our movement represents hope, optimism, and the power of people working together for the greater good. Our strength as a party is surging as people cry out for leadership and authentic representation. As the great novelist Alice Walker said: The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any. The Greens are here to remind you that you do have power, and a huge amount of it. You have the power to work together, to change elections and to change the world. It is with great privilege that I get to carry on the legacy of former senator Janet Rice; hers are some almighty hiking boots to fill. The voices of former Greens leaders such as Bob Brown, Christine Milne, Richard Di Natale and Greg Barber inspire me. I thank them and commit to living up to their expectations. I am excited and honoured to join our formidable Greens team here in parliament, led by our leader, Adam Bandt. In both chambers, we are the voices of our communities and of our Greens movement. Ours is the collective voice so desperately needed at a time of polarisation, as the major parties fail to rise to the challenges of our times. Innocent children in Gaza are dying from gunfire, bombs and starvation as the Israeli government continues its bloody assault. Women in Australia escaping domestic violence are sleeping in cars because of a shameful lack of crisis accommodation and housing. First Nations people are being incarcerated in record numbers because of racist and punitive policies, and persistent failures to listen to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Parents face huge bills for early childhood education, if they can afford it at all. Young people, queer people and disabled people are experiencing deep structural discrimination. All of this is avoidable. We have a chance to reset the narrative, to put care, people and nature at the heart of how our parliament operates. After all, politics is about choices. In this place we have a choice to prioritise the voices of our community over the megaphones of the fossil fuel lobbyists. We have a choice to make early childhood education free so all children have the best start in life. We have a choice to lead with compassion and nurture a shared humanity for those forced to flee their homelands. We have a choice to protect the land, water and climate that keeps us all alive, and I urge this parliament to remember the power it holds in making these choices a reality. While Australians struggle to afford rent, groceries, dental care and child care, successive governments continue to back big corporations. We need bold solutions to these systemic problems, which is why the Greens are proudly taking up the fight for a rent freeze, for free child care, to drive down grocery prices, to get dental and mental health care into Medicare and to end fossil fuel corporation handouts once and for all. On the day of my confirmation as a senator, my partner, Ogy, presented me with a framed hessian spud sack from our farm. Some people might not know what spuds are—it's a potato sack. Ogy said to me, 'Steph, you'll always have a bit of the farm with you in Canberra,' and he's right. This is part of who I am. I know the challenges that farmers face. They are the backbone of our regions. I promise to carry their voices into the parliament, as I work to support our regional and rural communities that grow our food and fibre. I promise to carry the voices of Victorians who want an affordable home and a secure future, the voices of our inner-city communities, our suburbs, our regional centres and our rural towns. As the Greens senator for Victoria, I will be a proud and loud voice for our state. Whether you live in the city or the country, Victoria is a truly special place to call home. Our rich food bowls are the envy of the world. Our arts and cultural scene is electric. We love sport and we love our trams. We have many, many bakeries across Victoria with the best vanilla slice. We're a progressive state. We're welcoming, multicultural and inclusive. We want strong, public institutions, not endless privatisation. Victorians want clean, renewable energy to finally get us off dirty brown coal and gas. We want to protect our precious forests, beaches and cultural heritage. I am so lucky to work for our Victorian communities. It's an honour to be your representative. As many of you I'm sure can relate to, there is never a perfect time to enter politics. As the mother of two young children, Otis and Vivien, who are here today, it's not a decision I took lightly. But today I stand before you as a Greens senator because I believe that this is the most meaningful way that I can protect my children at this moment in time. I hope to be able to look Otis and Vivien in the eyes and tell them with conviction that I did everything I could to protect them and their future—because, if protecting future generations is not our core purpose in this place, then what is it? Finally, I have some people to thank. To the many, many Greens volunteers, campaigners and supporters across Victoria who continue to roll up their sleeves, election after election: thank you so very much. Some of you are here today, and some are watching on from St Kilda: [list of names] and so many more of you up there. Thanks to my extraordinary staff, my extended parliamentary team and the Senate staff who have instilled in me confidence in these whirlwind first few weeks as a senator. Thanks to my dear friends who have held me over the years and will inevitably keep me grounded on this wild journey. Thanks, of course, to my extended family. Judgement-free parental love is something I thought I would have to forgo after losing mum and dad, but how wrong I was. To Lorna Wyatt, my campaign mum and doer of all the things: thank you for your passion, your clarity, your hard work and your care. Thanks to John and Clare who have loved and supported us as their own. Thanks to Ann E for keeping dad alive through stories and being our kids favourite. And to my relatives who are here today, including Auntie Lyn, who dad regularly likened my resoluteness to: thank you. To Igor, Serge, Stephie, Luna, Stella and Ryan: how incredibly fortunate I am to call you family. Thanks to the strongest woman that I have ever encountered—and I've encountered many—my mother-in-law, Nevena. To my sister Carla: who would have thought that us bugalugs from Blampied would be here today? And, of course to my partner in life, Ogy, daggy dad to our beautiful kids: your love, belief and epic parenting have allowed me to be here today, and I love you so much. My children, Otis and Vivien: I love you with all my heart. Dream big and go for it, darlings. As I penned the final words of my speech back on the land on which I was born and raised, I watched as superb fairy wrens danced on the oaks outside of my window, just as they danced on my mum's coffin some 15 years ago. I was reminded of the vast beauty and mystery of the world, and how important it is to protect it. The future is in our hands. Thank you. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Hodgins-May. Senators, if you're not participating in the debate, could you leave the chamber. BILLS 103 BILLS National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 103

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024

Second Reading 103 18:26 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I continue my remarks about the importance of making sure that the NDIS remains a sustainable and efficient manner of delivering adequate support to the people who need it. That's very, very important because, as I touched upon when I first started this speech two nights ago, unfortunately private equity has moved into this industry and there is very little as a public backstop to ensure that there is ethical competition in the industry. One of the things that I've learnt in my time as a senator—in my life, actually; not just in my time as a senator—is that things work best when we have a public-private structure whereby we have the private practice or industry out there always seeking better efficiency gains, cutting-edge technology et cetera, but we actually— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 Senator Rennick, I'm just going to ask those leaving the chamber to please do so quietly. It's difficult for others in the chamber to hear Senator Rennick's remarks and, indeed, for Senator Rennick to hear me as chair. Senator RENNICK 283596 In having public and private, I think we really need to look at having better government support—public government support—within the NDIS system because, as we saw in the banking sector, when the CBA was privatised we let the private market rip, and 20 years later we ended up with a royal commission into misconduct in the financial system. What privatisation has shown us is that you don't get greater competition; you get concentration of market power. When we look at our hospitals and our schools, I think they are structured the best, in that, for hospitals, we have private hospitals and public hospitals, and, in the school system, we have private schools and public schools. The private schools and the private hospitals are there so that, if people want to pay a little bit extra and get a little bit more of what they think is better service, then they can pay extra for that. But, given that the NDIS, like banking, health and education, is an essential service, we need to make sure that we have a government backstop. There was a very good article in the weekend's Sunday Mail. It talked about private equity entering the NDIS system. We have now got millionaires moving in. They're looking at achieving a rate of over 10 per cent return. I'm sorry, but people with disabilities shouldn't be seen as a commodity to be traded. I find that completely and utterly offensive. I get that farming is a private industry. I get that, because it is better having farms in private hands. But, when we are talking about the lives, dignity and worth of every individual, we have to make sure they get adequate, correct care. This is why I really think we need better public systems in the NDIS system and, as I have said, to make sure that we don't let the private market rip, because we are dealing with people's lives. I accept that this is never going to be easy. It's easy to criticise the current minister, but—I'm going to be honest here—when you have something like almost half a million people on the NDIS, with a range of disabilities, it is not going to be very easy to make a one-size-fits-all type of situation. I don't want to make too many overreaching generalisations. I know there are times to have a bit of a crack in the chamber, but I don't think that we should be doing that in this particular case when we're dealing with people's suffering and disability. I will just conclude by saying I look forward to the amendments that the coalition are going to bring on, but I also would ask that we all work together to support those people who are most in need. I have three beautiful, healthy children. I cannot imagine what it would be like to have a child who needs the support of constant care. In fact, one of my old school friends who I talk with quite often is Toni Mitchell. Her son, Joshy, has needed a lifetime of support and care. She's a single mum. She is a true champion. I don't know if I could cope with the struggles that she has gone through. Toni, if you are listening, this one's for you. I look forward to hopefully this bill helping make life better for people who are disabled. 18:32 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania As Senator Steele-John and others have said in this debate, the Australian Greens have significant concerns around this legislation, and that is for a range of reasons. It's important that people understand how we came to arrive at this juncture in regard to how the NDIS works and what the government is trying to do here to the NDIS. This was legislation that was developed in secret. There was no exposure draft published for this legislation. Disability groups that wanted to engage with the government were forced to sign NDAs, non-disclosure agreements. That is not the way a government that is acting in good faith would conduct itself. Of course, the conclusion there is that this is not a government that is acting in good faith, this is not a piece of legislation that was drafted in good faith and this was not a policy framework that was established in good faith. Why wasn't it established in good faith? For the very simple reason that the government is trying to cut over $14 billion out of the NDIS. We can talk about numbers all we like, but what does this actually mean for the people who the NDIS was originally designed to support—disabled people in this country? What it means for them is a loss of vital supports. This's what we are dealing with here. We are dealing with a government that has come in to cut the NDIS and to remove those vital supports that are so incredibly important for so many disabled people in this country to allow them to live a dignified life, to allow them to lead a life that many of us able-bodied people and able people take for granted. I know I've been guilty in the past of taking my ability and the fact that I don't have a disability for granted. I don't reflect on it often enough. I have to say that it's the friendship I've developed with Senator Steele-John in the time he's been in this chamber that's actually forced me—and I thank Senator Steele-John for helping me to understand this—to reflect on my privilege. In doing that, I was determined to be a better ally for disabled people in this country, and I rise here today as a declared ally to disabled people. I say to disabled people: you are not alone in your struggles. You have a champion in this place in Senator Steele-John, but he is not alone in championing your rights, and he won't be alone into the future in championing your rights. I will do everything I can to champion the rights of disabled people in Australia and to oppose legislation that removes critical supports from disabled people. Much-needed therapies that help them in their day-to-day lives are under threat because of this legislation. We know that the states oppose this legislation, and they are doing so for a lot of the very same reasons that the Australian Greens have expressed our concerns about this legislation. We need to make sure that we understand comprehensively what the amendments to this legislation actually will mean and, in particular, what they will mean for disabled people in Australia. To that end, I move the amendment on sheet 2688 circulated in my name on behalf of the Australian Greens, which is an amendment to the second reading amendment moved by the opposition: Omit all words and substitute: "Omit all words after "That", substitute "the bill be referred to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for further inquiry, including examining any circulated amendments to the bill and the positions of state and territory governments, and report by 5 August 2024". It is absolutely critical that we come to grips in detail with the views of state and territory governments. It is absolutely critical that we come to grips with any circulated amendments to this bill, because this bill, these amendments and the positions of state and territory governments do not exist in a vacuum; these are matters that pertain deeply and directly to the lived experience of massive numbers of disabled people in Australia—660,000 disabled people in this country. For them the Australian Greens move this amendment. For them and to them we say: you are not alone in your struggles. To them we say: we will not rest until your rights are respected and you have the vital supports that you need to support you through your lives. Those of us that are lucky enough and privileged enough not to be disabled should join together and say to the disabled people in this country: we will not let you down. Today, in moving this amendment, the Australian Greens are making it very clear: we will not let you down. 18:38 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland At the recent Senate estimates hearings, the NDIS integrity chief, Mr John Dardo, admirably confirmed that 90 per cent of plan managers displayed significant indicators of fraud. The level of fraud it is now so high that there are dozens of examples of organised crime groups abusing the systems, with millions of dollars being rorted. The system is so out of control that 87 per cent of service providers are unregistered and unmonitored. I quote words that appeared in an article about Mr Dardo: We have no idea of knowing what they do when they put in their invoices. It's taxpayers' money, spent on something they have no idea of. He had the courage to admit that. He said that existing cases exceeded Australia's judicial capacity, without finding more. NDIS funds must not be used to pay for sex workers, expensive holidays or new cars that other taxpayers cannot afford. Projections are for a blowout of NDIS spending to $90 billion within a decade; it must be prevented. Using the system to peddle drugs is happening extensively. The name of this bill says what we already know about the NDIS. It's broken and getting worse. It's a licence for criminals and fraudsters to print money. It's so far off track that the hope that this bill will get things back on track is a pigs-can-fly pipedream. Since the Gillard Labor government's NDIS inception, there has never been a track. It was hatched with no meaningful metrics or plan. It was simply an election slogan to desperately buy votes in an election that Prime Minister Gillard lost. It was hatched as a headline grabber and a vote harvester. Typical of 'uniparty' initiatives—and of policies and legislation in our parliament over recent decades—it lacks the discipline of a system based on hard data and a focus on customer needs. It was done to look good, not to do good. A hastily cobbled together election policy, it had holes in it a mile wide that clearly enabled fraudulent claims to be made with little chance of being picked up and stopped. As servants to the people of Queensland and Australia, Senator Pauline Hanson and I have been calling out the NDIS fraud model since 2016. A significant effort is now needed to remove dodgy plan managers and service providers and to protect capable and honest plan managers and providers, using stricter laws to prevent participants from being defrauded, to prevent unscrupulous service providers from abusing vulnerable people and to save NDIS for genuinely disabled people with real needs. If we really care, we'll clean up this mess. If we really care for disabled people, then we'll have to get tough and sort out the criminals and the rorters. Providers, managers and recipients who commit fraud under this NDIS scheme must be heavily penalised and banned from any involvement in the scheme again. Wasted money through overspending has cost taxpayers well in excess of $8 billion already, and it's essential to ensure that the current 150,000 unregistered care or service providers become registered and then are monitored for effective compliance. The Gillard Labor government introduced the NDIS. In their election loss, they handed the incoming coalition government an illegitimate, loose and sloppy mishmash of slogans and empty titles, lacking discipline, coherence, focus and care, and lacking solid systems. If they'd cared, Labor would have put together a proper system, but they didn't. They should have put together a system to provide effective care and to protect taxpayers' hard-earned money. The Liberal and National parties tried to refine the monster, and now the NDIS is back in Labor hands for more mismanagement. The NDIS must be reconsidered and protections against mismanagement and abuse strengthened. But who should be responsible for management? References to the non-constitutional National Cabinet are just a poor joke. National Cabinet is a mere grouping of state ministers responsible for similar portfolios, with no statutory authority or constitutional recognition of its existence or authority. It's toothless—all mouth and no accountability. There's no accountability in the current system. Right at the very top there's the bogus unconstitutional National Cabinet. In such cabinets the state and federal government ministers just go, 'They're responsible.' That means no-one is responsible. There is no accountability. It's fundamentally structurally flawed. I suggest an inquiry to consider the alternative model: putting the responsibility for providing for the needs of people living with a disability back to the states and territories, where it was stolen from. Clearly, each state is responsible. The states would work to ensure that services were monitored, reasonable and meeting client needs under a model reflecting the proven benefits of competitive federalism, the foundation under which our Constitution and government is made. This will provide the level of accountability that has been missing to date. Centralising doesn't work; decentralising closer to the surface does. One of the unintended consequences of Labor's mismanagement of NDIS funds is the shortage of aged-care and healthcare workers who migrated to work in the lucrative NDIS model. This is because NDIS wages are so overinflated that a worker can receive three times the rate of pay for the same work done in other sectors. This is not just hurting the NDIS. This rorting, mismanagement and waste of taxpayer funds is hurting aged-care and healthcare workers. Labor wastes money in other areas, too. Look at the wasted $430 million plus that the doomed referendum cost Australians—just like the Gillard government's NDIS facade, which was based on slogans and empty promises lacking substance. Just think how that $430 million could have been spent directly to improve the lives of remote Australians living in need or spent on improving NDIS services and security for people who are disabled in some way. Then there are the follies of government cutbacks, such as when psychological services were cut from 20 appointments to a relatively useless 10 appointments for needy participants. Just think about what could have been supported with the wasted money—health, education and child protection are a few. Frontline staff are in short supply now, partly because of poor pay, inadequate training and lack of support and partly because of NDIS rorts and sloppiness. Many NDIS carers and support staff have little or no training in basic personal caring skills. Many recipients have physical health needs and their carers should have sound skills in lifting, mobility, feeding, toileting and showering. Expecting NDIS carers to do these things with no, or inadequate, training is unfair and dangerous for the recipient and the carer. I have described a support system in crisis. This bill tinkers around the edges. As it is, this bill will not make significant positive differences, and who pays for all of this waste? Always, it's we the people. Instead of tinkering around the edges of a broken system, do the work! I call on the government to do the work to define disabled people's needs for service and taxpayers' needs for protection. Instead of the ubiquitous fraud under low levels of accountability, consider returning to the original system of state governance. One Nation knows what history repeatedly proves: administration and services are of higher quality when services are closer to recipients. That enables understanding of needs, which is core to effective service. Replacing centralisation with competitive federalism provides a marketplace in governance. That's what we all want. That's what we need because improved governance provides accountability, effective service and better care. 18:47 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria In the 2019 federal election campaign, when the now member for Corangamite was a candidate, she, very regrettably, decided to run billboards around the electorate when I was the assistant minister for disability services. Those billboards said, 'Libby Coker: putting the heart back into the NDIS.' This was an example of the shabby way in which the Labor Party has a very dark history of politicising the NDIS—crass politicising of people with disabilities. And I say shame on the member for Corangamite for the way that she attempted to use my role as assistant minister to score cheap, crass political points. We have a really proud history of caring for people with disability. But right now, in this chamber, I say, and the coalition says, putting the heart in these changes to the NDIS means ensuring there is proper consultation with the sector. We have seen a gross shortfall in that respect. The coalition will support sensible measures in this bill—measures which the coalition sought to implement when it was in government but which Labor actively campaigned against. That is the height of hypocrisy. So, at the appropriate stage, the coalition will move amendments to improve this scheme, to preserve the scheme's integrity, to ensure the sustainability of the scheme, and to allow it to continue to improve the lives of some of the most vulnerable in our community. However, as we have made very clear, thorough consultation with the sector is absolutely vital. We recognise the critical need to put the NDIS back onto a sustainable footing. It was very much our focus when we were in government, and all that Labor and the now minister, Mr Shorten, could say then was that we didn't know what we were talking about. It is very concerning that the Senate community affairs committee was not given the opportunity to consult the sector on government amendments tabled on the day of the public hearing. This, in itself, shows the need for further consultation. The 2½ days of hearings conducted by the committee pointed to significant concerns from the disability community about the lack of detail and the potential unintended consequences of the current legislation without significant amendment. There is broad consensus in the disability community about the need for greater consideration of this bill. While the coalition is willing to work constructively with the government—in stark contrast to the shabby politics we saw from Labor when we were in government—it is disappointing that the government has opted to reject a reasonable request for an extension to the reporting date for the committee, and for a meaningful hearing day, particularly with the National Disability Insurance Agency. The NDIS is changing the lives of more than 660,000 Australians, and the coalition has a very strong record of support for the NDIS. The coalition was and is committed to a fully funded NDIS as a demand-driven scheme, and has always been clear that the NDIS needs to be sustainable to ensure it delivers for many generations to come. There is no doubt that Labor underinvested in the NDIS when it was established, failing to invest in the unmet needs of people with disability. In fact, just before the 2013 election, then Prime Minister Julia Gillard rushed the NDIS through, contrary to the recommendations that were made, because it was all about getting runs on the board rather than getting the legislation right. We reflect on the shabby way in which the Labor Party stood in the way of the coalition's attempts to put the scheme on a sustainable footing when we were in government. Mr Shorten even accused the coalition of pearl-clutching Kabuki theatre, claiming the NDIS was tracking just as predicted, and that the coalition was hyping fictional cost blowouts. When Mr Shorten was the shadow minister for the NDIS, he said, 'You can't move around the corridors of parliament in Canberra without tripping over a coalition minister whispering, "The scheme is unsustainable".' I am here to tell you today that that is a lie. When the Labor Party were in opposition, they were grossly irresponsible, because, unless this scheme is sustainable, it will not survive. This scheme is incredibly important for tens and hundreds of thousands of Australians, but it has to be put back on track. In the lead-up to the 2022 election, Mr Shorten tried to argue the former coalition government made cuts to the NDIS, even though the coalition rescued the NDIS by investing a record $157.8 billion over four years to support what was then more than 550,000 Australians living with disability. Mr Shorten went to the election promising that no plans would go backwards under his watch and the scheme was sustainable as it was. Now he claims the scheme is growing in its cost base too quickly. In government and mugged by the reality of a complex, growing scheme, Mr Shorten now not only questions the sustainability of the NDIS but blames young people with autism and those with psychosocial conditions for these cost pressures, which is completely unacceptable. What people with disability, NDIS participants and their families need is real honesty from this minister, not just to be used as part of a crass political campaign. Under Labor we saw a very poorly designed scheme allowing the states to walk away from providing key services to those with disability. As I mentioned, when this was first implemented, it was rushed for purely political purposes and, in doing so, the scheme was botched. It was implemented in the dying days of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd fiasco of a government for purely political purposes, and we are now all praying the price for that. Imagine implementing legislation which effectively imposes all the liability on the Commonwealth for cost increases while capping the liability for the states. That's all well and good, but, of course, any change in the legislation requires the consent of the states, more or less. From the very beginning, this was very flawed. We've recently seen many media reports highlighting stories where serial sexual abusers, rapists and paedophiles are receiving substantial support from the National Disability Insurance Scheme, sometimes worth more than $1 million, to live under supervision in the community after they're released from detention. Urgent review is needed to disclose how many individuals with serious criminal convictions are receiving NDIS funding. How many of those people are on self-managed plans? During a Senate estimates spillover in March, we learned that you 2½ thousand NDIS participants have interacted with the justice system. This NDIS minister, Mr Shorten, needs to come clean on how many NDIS participants have serious criminal convictions and how many of those are on self-managed plans. This is vitally important not just to protect the safety of carers and providers but also to preserve the integrity of the scheme. There is no doubt that there is widespread abuse and there is widespread fraud. That includes giving NDIS participants seemingly unlimited rights to access a range of services, including sex therapy and the like. During February Senate estimates, we asked questions probing what specific criteria or guidelines the NDIS has for determining which animals qualify as support animals. Upon ongoing questioning about this, the NDIS officials could not and would not categorically rule out that a participant used NDIS funds for the cremation of their pet rat. We heard, 'We don't have personal details by which we're able to verify or validate that.' Now, I don't want to reflect in any way on the incredible work that this scheme does. It is changing lives. It is profoundly providing support to those who most need the support. All Australians, including the families of those with disability, want to make sure that the very substantial investment that we are making in the NDIS is made for the right purposes—it gets to where it needs to go. In looking at the bill itself, there have been a range of very serious concerns raised by the bill. It's not clear from the bill what a participant can do if they do not agree with the outcome of the needs assessment. NDIA decisions are notorious for being inconsistent and variable, and there does not appear to be any avenue for review. The new definition says the NDIS will only fund eight categories of supports, and these are based on selected elements United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. However, by leaving out other elements the bill also excludes some supports from NDIS funding. Insofar as the transparency of that decision-making, we have really very serious concerns. The review's recommendations contain numerous contentious recommendations. The drafting of the bill lacked opportunity for consultation. Our position and those we represent is that without examination and scrutiny of the full and complete proposed changes, the bill would deliver results in the future that just look not only uncertain but provide essentially the scope to deliver injustice for people disability who really need support. So there is an enormous amount of work to do to make sure that this bill is fit for purpose. We have raised deep concerns about the lack of a co-design approach to developing the bill. It's unclear who has been consulted in its development, and apparently, some disability representative groups were consulted and not others. That is just not good enough. If we are going to make these major changes to the way the NDIS operates, we need to make sure that we have properly consulted. There has not even been a formal government response to the disability royal commission or the NDIS review, so we're even surprised about the release of the bill at this point in time. There is much work to be done, and that is why the coalition is calling on further consultation rather than what we are seeing in recent days from the minister, which is a tantrum. He's having a tantrum because his hypocrisy is being exposed. He wants to try and bury this hypocrisy, and we will not cop it. 19:02 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia If the Albanese government had been listening and fulfilling its promises of transparency and leaving no-one behind, there would been proper consultation with the sector and the community on this bill. The Prime Minister came to office vowing: 'We are going to be an open, transparent and accountable government. We are going to let the light shine in.' Wow. What has actually been delivered is that the shutters are down, the lights are out and they are not listening. For evidence, look no closer than the unwillingness of the government to extend scrutiny by the Community Affairs Legislation Committee and establish parliamentary process to interrogate issues associated with and informing this legislation. It is the job of the Senate; it is the job of senators. It is about bringing the diversity of Senate representation to propose legislation, but time is needed to do that properly. The parliament and, indeed, the Senate should be a place where unintended consequences of legislation are exposed and rectified. An effective upper house is critical to democracy. A crucial part of the Senate succeeding as the house of review is it being respected by the government of the day. Sadly, the Albanese government lacks that respect. Even the sector has said there was insufficient time for proper consultation with them, the participants, their families and the community on this bill. With a lack of detail, it's little wonder there are widespread concerns about this legislation. Legislative instruments and rules are still under development. The NDIS is a demand driven scheme. We know the NDIS has changed the lives of about 650,000 Australians for the better, including more than 55,000 recipients in my home state of South Australia. The coalition are proud of our strong record of accomplishment in supporting the NDIS, having taken it from fewer than 50,000 participants to more than half a million participants in our time in government. Bill Shorten is a 17-year political veteran. He is the current NDIS minister and, as a member of the Labor government back then, was an architect of the NDIS. Yet, with all this commentary on the NDIS in opposition and with his two years as NDIS minister, we get, after much hand-wringing, only to this point and this bill. And now reports in the media are saying that Minister Shorten, just to avoid scrutiny, blames the committee for cost blowouts. How pathetic! Minister Shorten promised that the NDIS was a massive priority, and that promise included a promise of co-design. The Australian disability community has been let down. Families have been let down. The opportunity for thorough consultation is important in bringing the NDIS back onto a sustainable footing, but in a manner that does not disadvantage or negatively impact participants who are most in need. Of all policies, amendments to the National Disability Insurance Scheme require the greatest of scrutiny. It is a scheme that affects the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of some of our most vulnerable Australians. Members of this place, regardless of where in the chamber they sit, are passionate about the NDIS, I have no doubt. This scheme is about delivering for the people it is intended to support. My coalition colleagues in the Senate Committee Affairs Legislation Committee could not provide fully informed feedback and could not consult those most affected by these changes. Of course we are disappointed, so how must NDIS participants and their families feel? They have every right to feel let down. One look at emails to my office proves that Australians care about the NDIS working effectively and efficiently. Over the past month I have received many, many unique emails—they're not form emails—from individuals across the country, all with similar remarks. Their messages are simple and similar: the bill won't induce the positive change it was introduced to effect. As my colleague Michael Sukkar said in the other place, it's as if this government and the minister have gone into the bunker and decided: 'We're going to reverse our position from the election. We're going to do the opposite of what we said before the election. So let's just put the flak jackets on, get into the bunker and do this—not consult intelligently, fairly, openly and transparently with the people whom these changes will most significantly impact.' It's an accurate analogy. Let me provide some examples of emails to my office. I've changed the names for privacy, but their stories are real. Take Laura, who has been diagnosed with autism, complex post-traumatic stress disorder and multiple chronic health conditions. Since being diagnosed and gaining access to the correct supports via the NDIS, she has moved out of her parents' house, maintained steady employment as a face painter and balloon twister at kids parties, volunteered with her community at tree-planting events, established a regular exercise routine and participated in art classes to meet new people, and she's also been working on making new friends. It's about enjoying greater freedom, independence and agency. She says that the bill has the potential to severely limit choice and control. Laura said that the appeal and review mechanisms are unclear and that the bill limits creative and cost-effective support and access, and she is critical of the assessment process. She says it's just plain wrong. A Melbourne university academic shared that the proposed changes to the NDIS are terrifying for her friends, who report looking at losing control of their own destinies, dramatic cuts and losing the benefit of selecting and training their own support workers. This is a real issue for them. This is really important for them. Control and agency for people living with disability is just so important to every single individual and their family. It makes a huge difference to their quality of life. Then there is the struggle of the 66,000 or so Indigenous Australians living with severe disability, many of whom do not access the NDIS, though there is a plan in place started under the coalition to address that. In September 2022 the NDIS was providing disability support to about 41,000 Indigenous Australians, a rise of 18 per cent on the previous year. It has been estimated that about 10 per cent live in remote and very remote communities, where service access is a significant challenge. The very real difficulty of being a wheelchair user or needing a mobility device in a remote community was among the issues raised during the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability in its hearings last year. The disability royal commission's research report found Indigenous Australians are 28 per cent less likely to receive care via the NDIS than their non-Indigenous counterparts. The research found some disability services could be described as unsafe, traumatising and inequitable. In fact, the report concluded that the lack of available, accessible and culturally appropriate services for Indigenous Australians with disability is a time-sensitive national crisis. Where is the evidence to suggest that you're not leaving any Australian behind, as you promised when Labor came to office more than two years ago? Where's that evidence? It is clear that spending must be reined in. As NDIS spending blows out towards $50 billion a year, NDIS Minister Bill Shorten is not leading by example, demonstrating instead one rule for Labor and another for everyone else. I was in that Senate committee that heard that, while Bill Shorten says he is cutting costs, he's spending $620,000 on his speechwriter, despite having a communications team in the department of over 100 employees. As minister he has direct access to them. The waste, double standards and disappointment are symptomatic of the Albanese government. This bill has got an interesting name. We've had a lot of bills come into this place with catchy little phrases that don't actually do what they say they're going to do. This bill is called 'Getting the NDIS back on track'. How about you get this bill back on track? This bill needs to be referred to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee for proper consideration. It's a retrograde step, this bill. Its development has lacked sufficient consultation, and it is not only leaving vulnerable Australians out of its design but also leaving the most important people in this, those living with a disability, to live with the consequences of it. Send it to the committee as proposed by the coalition amendments. That's the right thing to do. That's what's required to get this bill back on track. 19:13 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia The government is pleased to be introducing legislation into the Senate today aimed at securing the future of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I'd like to commence my remarks by adding some context to this bill because we've had an awful lot of information that I think needs some clarity. Before the National Disability Insurance Scheme was rolled out over a decade ago, Australians with disability were often unseen, unheard and living in the shadows. Australians with disability suffered what is called by some the 'misery lottery'—that is, disability support was patchy across the country. It depended on what state you lived in and what suburb you lived in. And so, depending on your postcode, you might be lucky enough to get some funding to help you and your family or, otherwise, you might live a life of uncertainty. Quite often, that would lead to significant disadvantage and poverty. It was in 2009 that the then Labor government, under Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and the minister for social services, Jenny Macklin, commissioned a report to help move the analysis and the debate about people with disability in this country. That report was titled Shut out—an apt title. What was uncovered through the consultation phase was intensely moving and profoundly shocking. It painted a picture then of people with a disability isolated and alone and their lives a constant struggle for resources and support. An article written about the groundbreaking report at that time said: Where once they were shut in, now people with a disability find themselves shut out. Shut out of housing, employment, education, health care, recreation and sport. Shut out of kindergartens, schools, shopping centres and community groups. Shut out of our way of life. This segregation is a national disgrace. It was clear from that report that Australia needed a whole system of disability support and a scheme like the NDIS for people with the most complex support needs. The nation and the parliament at that time made a decision that we would no longer let a person's postcode or financial situation dictate whether they got disability support or not. The National Disability Insurance Scheme has fundamentally changed Australia. The NDIS represents the best of our country. It fulfils a sense of collective responsibility and the essence of the fair go and it is integral to our national identity. Its value is measured in human terms, not just economic terms. People with a disability should have the support they need to participate in the community and lead an ordinary life. Every Australian deserves peace of mind knowing that they, or someone they love, should they acquire a significant disability, has the NDIS there for them. That is the essence of our country. We can never, and must never, return to the days before the NDIS. I know there are people in this chamber and in the other chamber like me who worked in the disability sector before the NDIS and saw firsthand how awful it was. Treating our fellow Australians who have a disability as second-class citizens—too hard, too costly and someone else's responsibility—reflects an image of ourselves that I don't believe we should ever recognise or accept. However, despite its life-changing impact, the NDIS has been losing its way. It has not fully delivered on the original vision. While the NDIS has absolutely changed the lives of thousands of people, it's not working well for everyone. There is a variability out there in the system that we can't continue to accept. Participants have spoken about how every interaction with the NDIS can become a battle. That was not what it was designed for. That is not how the original design was constructed. Thousands of passionate champions for the cause tirelessly worked to try and help establish the scheme. Before our NDIS, people with disability were treated as second-class citizens—out of sight, out of mind. We have worked every day with the disability sector to do what we can to make life on the NDIS a better life for people with a disability in Australia. We promised to make the NDIS a priority and not penalise people with a disability for wanting to live fulfilled lives. We promised to put more people with disability on the NDIS board and conduct a root-and-branch review of the scheme. We've done that. We promised to make the scheme sustainable so that future generations of Australians with a disability could rely upon it and have confidence in it. We now have more people with lived experience on the NDIS board than in the entire history of the scheme. We have our first Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander board member, and we are getting more people with a disability who are eligible for the NDIS and fit for discharge discharged from a hospital rather than waiting in bed when they are medically fit to go home. We've slashed the 4½ thousand legacy appeal cases that were languishing in long queues at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. We've established a partnership between the National Disability Insurance Agency and the First Peoples Disability Network to collaborate on the new First Nations NDIS strategy and action plan. We've established the Inklings pilot with the Telethon Kids Institute in Western Australia to help families with children who are showing early signs of autism with evidence based interventions. Early intervention is one of the key principles of the NDIS, and the world-leading Inklings program takes us from a wait-and-see approach to an identify-and-act approach. Early intervention is crucial for a life with less reliance upon supports later on and a much, much better chance for a child to flourish. We also promised to make the scheme safer for people with disability and to tackle fraud, waste and overcharging so that every dollar goes towards getting a better outcome. In its first year, the Fraud Fusion Taskforce that we established has investigated more than 100 cases, involving more than $1 billion of NDIS funding. Mr Michael Phelan, a former director of the Australian Institute of Criminology and a decorated former police officer, is now the Acting Commissioner of the NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission. The commission is part of the taskforce, along with the ACCC and the NDIA, to weed out those charging more for equipment and services simply because you have an NDIS funding package. It is wrong, and it's a breach of federal law, but we've updated the rules of the NDIS so this won't happen. It's similar to the concept of a wedding tax. You rock up to a service provider and, as soon as you say you've got an NDIS package, they immediately ramp up the prices, in the same way they might if you were trying to book an event and you said it was a wedding. I say to service providers who are complaining about our campaign on price gouging: putting unfair treatment by, admittedly, a very small minority of service providers in the too-hard basket undermines the reputation of all of those other excellent service providers who are doing the right thing. While an enormous amount has been achieved in a short period of time, there really is so much more to do. The independent NDIS review panel undertook some of the most extensive consultations with the Australian community in the history of the Commonwealth, with the aim of setting a new course for the NDIS. The review's final report was publicly released on 7 December 2023, with 26 recommendations and 139 supporting actions for government, all based on what the panel heard from over 10,000 people and disability organisations and what they read in over 4,000 submissions. National Cabinet considered the final report and, as part of the initial response, agreed that the Commonwealth should work with the state and territory governments to implement legislative changes in the first half of 2024. I acknowledge the goodwill of the premiers of the states. The arguments around the NDIS and who is responsible for what have raged for a very long time, and the engagement with them has been exceptionally positive, with their commitment last December to fund additional disability services outside the NDIS program and the foundational supports that we speak of. I also acknowledge that they agreed to contribute more directly to the NDIS from July 2028. Since the report was handed down, Minister Shorten has held no fewer than 10 town hall meetings around Australia, where thousands of people attended in person and online to share their views. The town halls were held to provide transparency, to listen and to reassure people. This is a cornerstone of this government's commitment to people with a disability. We have been on the front line with people with a disability and the sector always. The NDIS is testament to this, and we will not waver from this loyalty and this responsibility. We've had 10 years of delay on the NDIS progressing for Australians. Ten years—we hear that a lot in this chamber. Ten long years when those opposite didn't always do the right thing. Australians with an disability shouldn't wait a day longer than they have to for governments at all levels to work together with people with disabilities to improve the scheme. The Albanese government is committed to engaging and consulting with people with disability, their families, carers, representative organisations, service providers, unions, and the broader community. We've made the promise to co-design with people with a disability as a fundamental tenet of what we are doing. Co-design is the only way forward to make sure we get this right. This bill provides the framework for a broader reform to the scheme, and we are committed to ensuring the design and implementation of these challenges will include extensive consultation to ensure that people's views are heard, that they know that they're being heard. The trust in the scheme is critical for its success and we will ensure that we provide that. We want people to know that they have a seat at the table and that they will be listened to. We are committed to working with people, not doing things to people. Working alongside, working hand in hand, understanding the challenges and the differences and working together to make a difference. The powerful mantra that anyone who's been engaged in the disability sector will have heard over many, many years is 'nothing about us without us', and we are sticking to that. This bill will enable new and expanded rule- and instrument-making powers. This is why we have committed to co-design. The debate on this bill has been raging. I get that people all have very different views, but, as a Senate and as a parliament, we need to come together. We need to chart the way forward. We need to find a way to ensure that the NDIS will provide the services and the supports that people in our community need, that they rely on, that enables them to live a full life, that gives them choice, that gives them opportunities, and that is what we will continue to fight for. 19:27 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia I will start by outlining the purpose of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024. It's designed to moderate the growth in the National Disability Insurance Scheme in the medium and longer term for the purposes of improving the sustainability of the scheme and to improve the experience of those using the scheme and to restore the original intent of the NDIS. The bill was designed to do the necessary repair work in the NDIS in order to ensure that this vital scheme can be maintained for the long-term. There has been significant anxiety in the community around the passage of this bill, and we would acknowledge that. But the passage of this bill will offer some measure of certainty and begin that repair work that is necessary. It will also ensure that unscrupulous service providers do not take advantage of this vital system. The opposition to the amendment in this context is based on the need for that certainty and the need to avoid further cost. A two-month delay in the passage of this bill—this vital bill—means approximately a $1.06 billion increase in NDIS expenditure across the budget forward estimates. Delays in the amendments to this legislation mean delays to the improvements that it will bring to the system, and delays in this legislation will delay the essential scaffolding that is needed to develop a new budget model with NDIS participants and the disability community that will result in a $730 million increase in NDIS expenditure across the forward estimates. A delay in implementing the new budget model could jeopardise the achievement of the eight per cent scheme growth target, with the result of lower estimated savings for 2026-27 and 2027-28. Also, the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee has conducted an extensive— Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 111 ADJOURNMENT Nuclear Energy 111 19:30 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania After 10 long years of the Liberals and Nationals, who had 22 energy policies when they were in government and couldn't land one, now Mr Dutton has tried to take us back to the 1950s. There's not an expert that I have heard that actually supports the proposition. Nuclear energy is a fool's errand that is too expensive, too slow to build and too late to start. Nuclear energy is the Leader of the Opposition's captain's call, and it was made without consulting any experts, without any economic modelling, without consulting energy companies or the states—let alone the communities where he has decided the reactors are going to be built—and, most importantly, without the fully informed acceptance of those communities. Where's the timeline? Where's the costing? Mr Dutton has failed to deliver any detail. One of the things that people have kept asking me all through this week is: where is the waste going to go? If you were in the chamber earlier this evening, you would have heard Senator Hanson-Young talking about the threat of imposing that all the waste go to South Australia. That's alright for Senator Whish-Wilson, Senator Brown and me because we're from Tasmania—that's alright, mate—but I'm not so sure that that's going to be okay for the South Australians. It's against all odds, and what I really want to know tonight is: are those people on that side of the chamber even supportive of this thought bubble that Mr Dutton's come up with? It's quite extraordinary. In your 10 years of being in government, never once was it part of your 22 plans for an energy policy—and you couldn't land even one of those. There is no plan at all to deal with, heaven forbid, the cost of energy. There is not an expert that has come out and said that this will deliver cheaper energy prices to households—none whatsoever. You've got the former New South Wales Liberal minister Matt Kean, who told the ABC's Q+A on Monday night that nuclear failed its assessment on cost and supply, and they were comments which put him at odds, I would suggest, with Mr Dutton. But, really, where is it landing within the Liberal Party and the Nationals? We'll have to wait and see. The Nationals were once against nuclear, but now they're all for it. Maybe I can be forgiven for being a bit confused because I don't know all of the ins and outs of the Liberals and how they decide on their policy. But the one thing I can say is that the Australian community are not confused at all. They know—because this is what the experts are saying and this is what the financial sector is saying—there will not be a bank or a financial institution that will want to fund this on the never-never. They want to put their money into jobs and into renewable energy, because this government, the Albanese Labor government, has actually led the way on this. We're about renewable energy. I'm a bit surprised, frankly, that my Liberal Senate colleagues on the other side are so quiet and not standing up for renewable energy when they come from the great state of Tasmania, where we have led the nation on renewable energy. But what do we get from those opposite? Just as usual, they're not prepared to stand up for Tasmania. They're not prepared to stand up for renewable energy. They're not prepared to stand up for the Australian taxpayer. (Time expired) Gender Dysphoria 112 19:35 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania Today, in the 21st century, we look back with horror at many of the deadly dangerous medical practices of the past. Well, how do you think history will look back on young girls suffering irreversible damage because they were prescribed testosterone by a doctor who claimed they had a testicular disorder. Yes, you heard that correctly. Doctors are giving drugs with serious long-term side-effects to young girls on the basis that they allegedly have a testicular disorder. This is a drug which, when given to girls and young women, can cause infertility, osteoporosis, incontinence and increased risk of cardiovascular disease. After learning that this was being openly promoted to doctors and young people by certain lobby groups, earlier this year I asked the Department of Health and Aged Care how many biological females have been prescribed testosterone in each of the past five years by doctors using the PBS authority indication 'antigen deficiency due to an established testicular disorder'. The table that came back four months later showed that, in 2023, 6,599 females were prescribed testosterone through this method, a 140 per cent increase since 2019. Thousands of young Australian women and girls are being prescribed taxpayer subsidised testosterone for gender affirmation by doctors, despite the known dangers and irreversible effects on their bodies. As taxpayers we are paying for this because some doctors are using a backdoor method of claiming that these girls and young women have testicles. Australian girls between 14 and 18 years old are more than four times as likely as boys to commence taking PBS subsidised testosterone. Young Australian women aged between 19 and 23 are nine times as likely to be starting taxpayer subsidised testosterone as men in the same age bracket. Remember that this is just a small segment of the total number of girls and young women being put on testosterone by doctors, because many others will go through private prescriptions or other sources. Why is this a problem? A recent study of young females taking testosterone for gender affirmation found that 95 per cent had developed pelvic floor dysfunction. The experts said the impact of the drugs were 'underresearched and underreported'. The systematic evidence review undertaken as part of the Cass review concluded: There is a lack of high-quality research assessing the outcomes of hormone interventions in adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria/incongruence, and few studies that undertake long-term follow-up … Uncertainty remains about the outcomes for height/growth, cardiometabolic and bone health. Let's turn to a fact sheet from the Endocrine Society of Australia. It says: The long-term effects of testosterone … are not fully understood. There may be an increase in risk of heart … problems. … … … Some trans men on testosterone therapy develop pelvic pain, which is currently not fully understood. The effects on the risk of breast, uterine and ovarian cancer is also not fully understood. These are quotes not from an organisation which is warning against prescribing pharmaceuticals with unknown long-term effects to young women and girls but actually from one which is actively promoting it. These quotes are directly from an Endocrine Society of Australia fact sheet titled 'Masculinising hormone therapy for gender transition'. The very same fact sheet says this about how to access taxpayer subsidised testosterone for gender transition: Different formulations of testosterone are PBS listed (making them cheaper to purchase). These can be obtained by using the approved indication 'androgen deficiency due to established testicular disorder' … Why is a medical group advising that females can be listed by their doctor as having a testicular disorder despite the fact that we all know females don't have testicles? Why are they doing so in a document that is not about testicular disorder but specifically about gender transition drugs and how to get them? It's because, under PBS rules, it is not permitted to prescribe taxpayer subsidised testosterone for gender affirmation. In order to do it they need to find a loophole, and the loophole they have found and are promoting is that doctors can say that female patients have testicles. In Australia and around the world we have already seen many young women who came into the gender medicine industry as children and left it with devastating permanent and irreversible consequences. How are we going to look back at this period of medicine when we had doctors putting female patients down as having testicular disorders in order to get taxpayers to subsidise a drug which they knew was not proven to be safe? It's no wonder that Labor governments and activists around the country are so desperate to avoid an independent expert inquiry into— (Time expired) Assange, Mr Julian Paul 113 19:40 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Senators, I literally got a text 30 seconds ago to tell me that Julian Assange has just landed at the airport in Canberra. Yes, it's a momentous moment. Perhaps I could start by acknowledging the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese; Stephen Smith, the Australian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom; Kevin Rudd; and everyone in the Labor Party who has worked to make this happen. It shows exactly the kind of courage, conviction and leadership that Australians want to see from their Prime Minister. Thank you. I'm overwhelmed—I really am overwhelmed—especially as this has happened, completely by coincidence, when I was going to be giving an adjournment speech on exactly this issue. I might start by thanking some people, because that's an easy thing to do. There have been so many Australians—many, many thousands of them—who have campaigned for Julian's release, and there have been millions of people around the world who have done so: stakeholder groups, unions, universities, academics and politicians. I met with Julian's father, John Shipton, seven years ago in my office in Canberra. He could secure only two meetings the first time he came to Canberra—with me and with fellow Tasmanian Andrew Wilkie. No-one wanted to know Julian Assange back then, seven years ago. It was a really tough time, but he persisted. We persisted. We started a parliamentary friends group. We built a political alliance that has over 50 members now, and more than a third of the MPs in this parliament signed a letter for us to take to Washington last year. That's what we can do when we work together on an issue that we care about, and I do think we need to acknowledge that tonight. There are so many people that I can't thank them in three minutes, but I would especially like to thank ex-senator Scott Ludlam, who came before me, for all the work he did on Julian Assange, and, of course, Felicity Ruby, who used to work for Scott and has been one of his fiercest and strongest advocates and has helped us with our campaign. But there are so many others. Many were on that plane with Mr Assange. Many of them will be standing with the Prime Minister tonight at a press conference. But I am so glad that he is home. I will express some disappointment that he had to plead guilty to a charge of espionage. I do think that a journalist and a publisher having to plead to espionage is a very dangerous precedent. This is a precedent. The US has never ever used its Espionage Act in over 100 years to pursue a foreign journalist for activities on foreign soil. But he did it because he needed to be home with his family. I accept that and understand that, and the fight to clear his name and clear this charge will continue. I will use a quote to perhaps sum up why this campaign that I've been involved in for the last seven years with so many good people is so meaningful to me, and I go back to the Iraq war, the thing I've felt most strongly about in my life. There's a quote that says: 'Truth is treason in an empire of lies.' In this day and age, it's hard to meet people who don't believe that we live in an empire of lies, when they look at politicians and they talk to you. There is the age of Trump in the US, and I could go on, and you all understand it: people want to see integrity and honesty in politics. What WikiLeaks did was publish facts. You may disagree with that, but they published facts. And media saw that these facts were in the public interest, and journalists all around the world, including many in Australia who even won Walkley awards, published that information. The information that WikiLeaks published and that Julian Assange has been persecuted for saved lies in the US and saved lives in Iraq, and it ultimately ended the war in Iraq. The great truth-teller of that war has been behind bars in solitary confinement, but tonight he is home in Australia to be with his family. I wish Julian the best. I wish his wife, Stella, the best. What a wonderful woman she is. He's a very lucky human being to have Stella in his life. She has led this campaign. His two children will see their father outside prison for the first time in their lives tonight in Canberra when he steps off that plane on the tarmac. I wish them all the best in their new life, and I thank him for being there for us, for what he has endured and for telling the truth. I hope we have more debates in this place about Julian and the importance of what we've seen here tonight. Albanese Government 114 19:45 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I want to acknowledge the significance of the return of Mr Assange and how important people's care for this issue has been in achieving this. I also want to accept the praise of Senator Whish-Wilson of the careful work that a government is required to do. The careful, quiet work is necessary to deliver things that actually have outcomes. That's why I want to talk about what's going to happen next week. It's the careful work of this government that's going to improve and change the lives of Australian people. On 1 July, every Australian taxpayer is getting a tax cut under the Albanese Labor government's stage 3 tax cuts. For my duty seat of Farrer in south-west New South Wales, that will be 76,000 people. Of those people working in Farrer, 66,000 are going to get a bigger tax cut than they would have under the coalition's original plan. Australians are experiencing a cost-of-living crisis. Seventy-six thousand is a lot of people and families across that beautiful part of New South Wales, and each of those families and individuals will be earning more and keeping more of what they earn. That's more food on the table, more fuel in the car and less stress on the bank account. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition may have been too busy last week forcing nuclear reactors on unwilling communities to notice the cost-of-living relief the Albanese government is delivering to people in her electorate, but everyone I spoke to last week was very excited to receive their energy rebates and tax cuts. On 17 June, I was out in the seat of Farrer visiting Albury's new urgent care centre. It's one of 58 centres delivered in the 2½ years that the Albanese government has been in power. While there, I spoke with a number of doctors and community members who've utilised the urgent care centre. They couldn't be happier. There were just a few of the 3,500 members of the Albury region who've already used their urgent care centre to access rapid and free care with just that little green Medicare card in their pocket, the one that Labor believed in, the one that Labor delivered and the one that Labor continues to protect, uphold and improve after years and years of attack by the Liberal and National parties. We're taking pressure off GPs, we're taking pressure off the emergency departments and we're making sure that people can get the care they need without having to fork out money for private treatment. On the 18th of this month, I was fortunate enough to spend time meeting with students and teachers at Albury TAFE, where the Albanese government's 355,000 fee-free TAFE places are already changing lives for the better. I met two young men in particular, one aged 26 and one aged 28, who are currently training there. One is training to be a mechanic and the other is training to be a hospitality worker. They are gaining skills and qualifications at the Albury TAFE with great teachers. Both of these young men have been in and out of casual employment for several years, unable to attain stable enough work to pay for further training. But now, thanks to the Albanese government's fee-free TAFE, they're back at school with new passion, drive and resolve to improve their lives and the communities in which these two brand-new minted trainees will be able to take on their jobs. I met a class full of aspiring chefs, completing their assessment dishes, on track to support our world-class hospitality industry. How good did that room smell! Of course I met a class of carpentry students, who are essential to delivering our home building targets so that Australians can buy their first home. The people I met at Albury TAFE campus are the backbone of this country, and the Albanese Labor government is investing in them. In Walla Walla, I visited the Kotzur grain silo facility, which employs 140 highly skilled workers in a town of just 700. I was fortunate enough to meet one of those workers, Mr Rizaldy Sinag, and his wonderful family. Originally from the Philippines, the Sinag family is now a vital new addition to the Kotzur welding team, the local primary school, the Walla Walla community and Australia as a whole. Mr Andrew Kotzur, his son and his team are creating world-class manufactured products in the heart of regional New South Wales, and I wish the very best to the Kotzur family and the Sinag family. The Kotzurs train great young Aussies, but they need to grow—and quickly. There are export opportunities that are going begging because they need a skilled workforce. It's great to be in regional New South Wales under a Labor government. (Time expired) Democracy 115 19:50 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia On 26 June 1963, the United States President John F Kennedy said these immortal words: 'Ich bin ein Berliner.' Those words captured the essence of the middle of the Cold War, bookended by the amazing turn of phrase of Winston Churchill, who said, 'From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has fallen across this continent,' and, at the other end of the Cold War, the remarks of US President Ronald Reagan: 'Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall.' Through that period of the Cold War, the West—not without difficulties, not without disagreements and not without conflict on issues that are significant—remained united: united in its sense of self and united in its belief in the core principles of Western democracy and free and open markets, which allowed the world to grow at an unprecedented rate and to have peace for a long period of time in most of the world, although, sadly, not all. It also allowed the Western nations to unite in challenging those parts of the world which used oppression and coercion, and which treated their citizens with contempt and as playthings for authoritarian regimes that offered them no human dignity. We are coming into a new era where, once again, we see the strands of authoritarianism rising and uniting around the world. We've seen, just in the last few weeks, the heads of state of various nations who do follow that authoritarian path come together in their shared vision of the world, which, quite frankly, should be horrifying to all of us and horrifying to all peace-loving and freedom-loving people around the globe. So, as we head into the next hundred years, the West must once again come together with a sense of unity of purpose and shared belief in the value of freedom, democracy and free enterprise—those beliefs that underpin not just our standard of living but who we are as free peoples. We must remember that, at its heart, society is about giving people the best possible life they can have. Authoritarian societies cannot deliver a good life. In fact, they can deliver only the opposite of that. They can deliver only suffering, misery and pain to the people who live under those coercive regimes. It is incumbent upon us, as a Western democracy, to always hold that dear to our hearts and do everything we can to cherish, preserve and expand democracy throughout the world. Senate adjourned at 19:54