DOCUMENTS

2024-06-27 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Thursday, 27 June 2024

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

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 09:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised. BILLS 1 BILLS Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 1

Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024

Second Reading 1 09:02 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I seek leave to table my second reading speech. Leave granted. Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Everyone on a university campus has a right to be safe. This includes the University of Sydney, which is today in crisis because of its serious continuing failures to protect Jewish students and staff from antisemitic hate and incitement and discrimination. As reported in today's Australian article 'Jewish groups turn on Sydney University', a coalition of Jewish organisations has united to say they have lost confidence in the ability of Australia's oldest university to keep Jewish students safe. In a joint statement, the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the Australasian Union of Jewish Students, the Zionist Federation of Australia, the Australian Academic Alliance Against Antisemitism, and the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council states they 'stand ready to provide support to Jewish students and staff' who now wish to leave the university. Last Friday, the university recklessly agreed with its Muslim student society to disclose all research projects, partnerships and investments in defence and security related industries. The society is demanding the university cut all ties with Israel. The university has included a member of the society in a working group to review all such arrangements, raising expectations of full divestment. In appeasing pro-Palestinian activists, as a condition of removing their protest encampment, the University of Sydney's vice-chancellor, Mark Scott, has capitulated to people linked to the radical Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, a prescribed terrorist organisation in the United Kingdom. Such weakness by university leaders not only rewards antisemitic protest activity but exposes many researchers and companies to the risk of being targeted by further campaigns of hate and incitement. How can students and staff be safe on a university campus when vice-chancellors are bargaining with extremists? To make matters worse, as has now been revealed, the vice-chancellor's office was reportedly informed the encampment had been infiltrated by members of this extremist group in early May but took no action to remove these people from university grounds until it was exposed in the media many weeks later. Mr Scott's decision to turn a blind eye to the activities of radical extremists on campus is a serious dereliction of duties. Appallingly, the rationale for not acting, according to a university spokesman, was because Hizb ut-Tahrir is not deemed a terrorist organisation by authorities here in Australia. The Jewish groups also say in their statement: Many of the protesters were from outside the University, yet they were allowed to menace the University community and disturb campus life without challenge. They have now been rewarded for doing so. The Jewish groups have rejected the University of Sydney's offer to participate in the working group and have called on others not to partake in this sham and fundamentally flawed process. I have called on the Albanese government to urgently investigate all circumstances surrounding the presence on campus of Hizb ut-Tahrir and any other extremist group at the University of Sydney and to overturn this reckless agreement with activists, along with a similar agreement reached by the University of Melbourne. The government must urgently act to restore the reputation of Australia's oldest university, which is supported by more than $1 billion of taxpayers' money a year. So far, we have heard nothing but silence from Labor's Minister for Education, Mr Clare in the face of this failure of leadership and moral clarity from Mr Clare. Enough is enough. There is now an even more compelling case for a judicial inquiry into antisemitism at Australian universities. The Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 is a bill to do what it says: to establish a commission of inquiry into the alarming rise in antisemitism at Australian universities. This bill is drafted in the same terms as the private member's bill introduced by Mr Leeser in the other place, who, as a fine Jewish Australian, has been a warrior against the scourge of antisemitism. Our bill reflects the coalition's determination to do whatever it takes to stamp out antisemitism in all its ugly forms on Australian university campuses, just as we are determined to stamp out antisemitism across our nation. As opposition leader, Mr Dutton, said in his budget reply speech in the other place on 16 May: It will also take a coalition government to turn the tide of antisemitism afflicting our country. Antisemitism is not just a threat to one segment of our community; it's a threat to our social cohesion and to our democratic values. Some of the most strident antisemitic standard-bearers have come from our university campuses. We will also provide the moral and political leadership which makes it abundantly clear that we expect the law to be enforced readily, not reluctantly, against those inciting hatred and violence. Regrettably, we have not seen that same commitment from the Albanese government. In the face of a more than 700 per cent increase in antisemitic incidents on Australian soil since last October, the Prime Minister has too often spoken from both sides of his mouth, frequently drawing a false equivalence between antisemitism and other forms of racism, including Islamophobia. But he did publicly rebuke his education minister after Mr Clare said that terrorist slogans such as 'intifada', calls for the annihilation of Israel and chants such as 'from the river to the sea' have 'different meanings to different people'. Mr Clare could not even directly condemn the encouragement of children to chant 'intifada', as happened at a kids excursion to the University of Sydney. Since 7 October, Australians have witnessed an unprecedented spike in antisemitic activity across our country, on our streets, synagogues, in businesses and online. But, arguably, nothing has been quite as bad as on some university campuses. Jewish students were already facing challenges. Last year's Australian Jewish University Experience Survey found that 64 per cent of Jewish students have experienced at least one incident of antisemitism during their time at university, with 88 per cent of those students experiencing antisemitism in the past 12 months. Since 7 October 2023, things have got so much worse—the posters, chants and slogans of antisemitic hate and incitement, such as 'Intifada' and 'River to the sea'; the endorsement of the horrific actions of Hamas by some academics and students; the classroom invasions, where those who don't support the activists' cause were photographed and vilified like something from the 1930s; the protests and occupation of buildings, which breach university rules against intimidation and harassment; the failure of university leaders to take disciplinary action against every person responsible for intimidation, hate speech, racial vilification and discrimination; and the encampments of hate which have fuelled antisemitism and emboldened radical activists. In the face of weak and unprincipled leadership from the Albanese government against antisemitism on campus, the coalition will not tolerate universities being a law unto themselves. Over many months, we have consistently called on all universities to enforce their misconduct rules against intimidation, racial vilification and discrimination and combat the unprecedented levels of antisemitism on campus. This includes shutting down unauthorised encampments and banning from campus any protester who is not a university student or staff member. I also called for new laws to fine universities which fail to uphold their codes of conduct and rules, and for time and place protests to have limited times and locations at which protests can be held. We announced that a future coalition government will use provisions of the Migration Act to cancel the visas of any student protesters found to be involved in spreading antisemitism or supporting terrorism. Under section 116 of the act, the ministers for home affairs and immigration have significant powers to cancel the visas of any person who is or may be a risk to 'the health, safety or good order of the Australian community or segment of the Australian community'. Section 501 of the act gives the ministers the power to do so if visa holders show contempt or disregard for the law or human rights, including terrorist activities and political extremism, and for vilifying a segment of the Australian community or inciting discord in Australia. There is no evidence that the Minister for Home Affairs or minister for immigration have cancelled a single student visa under the significant powers available to them under the Migration Act. This bill would establish a commission of inquiry to examine instances of antisemitic activity on campuses both before and after 7 October. It will consider whether the response of university leaders, regulators, representative organisations and others has been adequate. The commission of inquiry, if established, will examine a range of matters including: whether universities accurately define and recognise the modern manifestations of antisemitism; the extent to which universities have in place the appropriate policy responses to prevent, reject and deal with antisemitism; university policies and their enforcement, including complaints-handling and disciplinary policies, security arrangements, and university powers to expel people from campus for antisemitic activity; and what steps universities are taking to ensure that lectures and tutorials do not include materials or teachings which are antisemitic. In making recommendations, the commissioner will consider, among other things, whether any institution-specific or sector-wide policy changes are necessary to better combat antisemitism on Australia university campuses; any legislative or regulatory changes which may be needed to better protect Jewish students, academics, staff and visitors from campus antisemitism; and to sanction universities which do not address antisemitism, as well as those who engage in antisemitic conduct. The commission of inquiry is in stark contrast to the government's establishment of a racism study led by the Australian Human Rights Commission into various forms of racism on campus, which is woefully inadequate. This study has neither the independence, the powers nor the personnel to deal with these matters. To make matters worse, the government's pathetic attempt to ward off our proposal for a judicial inquiry means the Australian Human Rights Commission will not hand down its final report until 30 June next year—after the federal election—which reflects the government's paltry commitment to combating antisemitism on university campuses. I'm inspired by Ben Sasse, the President of the University of Florida, who recently said, in relation to pro-Palestinian protests: We will always defend your rights to free speech and free assembly—but if you cross the line on clearly prohibited activities, you will be thrown off campus and suspended. … that means a three-year prohibition from campus. That's serious. We said it. We meant it. We enforced it. We wish we didn't have to, but the students weighed the costs, made their decisions, and will own the consequences as adults. We're a university, not a daycare. We don't coddle emotions; we wrestle with ideas. It is regrettable that we have not seen the same leadership at some universities here in this country. The University of Melbourne showed little resolve to act in the best interests of all students when it allowed pro-Palestinian activists to, for days on end, occupy the arts building, wreaking chaos on campus. As we heard in Senate estimates, ANU continues to support its protest encampment, seemingly oblivious to the fact that the right to protest and academic freedom does not include the right to intimidate, racially vilify or incite hatred towards any group. Some universities that were targeted by anti-Israel and anti-Jewish activists, most notably the University of New South Wales, Monash University and Deakin University, have stepped up to enforce their codes of conduct and shut down their encampments, and I pay credit for those efforts. I also note that ANU has expelled two students, one who endorsed the Hamas attack in a radio interview, and has referred four students to police. But much more work needs to be done, which is why the passing of this bill is so important. Enough is enough. We must stop the antisemitic hate and incitement on university campuses. I commend this bill to the Senate. 09:16 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I rise to speak on the Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024. According to the explanatory memorandum, this bill establishes a commission of inquiry with identical powers to those of a royal commission. The commission would look solely at instances of antisemitism on Australian university campuses. It would not examine instances of Islamophobia or other forms of discrimination. Of course, it wouldn't be a Liberal Party bill if there wasn't an attack on unions as well. As the explanatory memorandum states explicitly, this bill empowers the commission to investigate the National Union of Students and the National Tertiary Education Union. Those two unions are mentioned by name. Others that are mentioned throughout the bill are Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and the National Socialist Order. They are the only groups Senator Henderson has mentioned by name in the explanatory memorandum. It's pretty extraordinary, isn't it? The explicit attack on unions in the bill further fundamentally undermines the integrity of the bill as a whole. Before I go any further into the bill I should acknowledge the context surrounding this debate—the horrific attacks carried out by Hamas on 7 October that resulted in the deaths of around 1,200 people and the subsequent Israeli invasion of Gaza, for which the latest death count stands at around 37,000 people. Any loss of life, whether Israeli or Palestinian, is a tragedy. That's why the Albanese government has consistently called for a ceasefire and continues to do so. That is why we continue to call for civilians to be protected for humanitarian aid to reach Gazans who are in desperate need and for hostages to be released. And that is why Australia supported the ceasefire endorsed by the UN Security Council and wants to see it fully implemented by both parties. Coming back to the question of protests on university campuses and this bill, there is no place for hatred or discrimination in this country, whether it's antisemitism, Islamophobia or any other despicable form of racism. When it comes to our universities, there is nothing more important than the safety and wellbeing of students and staff. Of course, students and staff have the right to go about campus without fear of abuse, but another part of protecting the wellbeing of students and staff is upholding their fundamental human rights, and one of those rights is the right of freedom of speech, freedom of political expression and freedom of protest. That speech cannot be hateful, and protests must be peaceful. But balancing these competing rights—the right to safe and peaceful enjoyment of the campus and the right to protest—is not always easy. Our priority in dealing with this question has always been to prioritise social cohesion and community safety. It is clear that there are genuine concerns held by some Jewish students about the way that protests on campus have unfolded. It is also clear that, while many protests have been peaceful, there have been publicly reported incidents of clearly unacceptable behaviour. So it's essential that the government and universities respond in an appropriate manner, and that's what we have actually done. The government has announced an inquiry into antisemitism, Islamophobia, racism and the experience of Indigenous people at our universities, to be undertaken by the Race Discrimination Commissioner. It is appropriate that this work be led by the Human Rights Commissioner and the Race Discrimination Commissioner, who are leading experts in this field. The government has provided $2.5 million in funding to ensure the investigation is comprehensive. This follows on from the groundbreaking work of the then Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Kate Jenkins, whose investigation into sexual violence occurring in our universities led to the establishment of the National Student Ombudsman. Additionally, the Attorney-General has announced he will bring legislation to create new criminal offences and strengthen existing laws against hate speech. On top of the government's actions, universities themselves have codes of conduct. As we heard at the Senate estimates just three weeks ago, these are being enforced, including at the Australian National University here in Canberra, whose vice-chancellor, Professor Bell, told the Education and Employment Legislation Committee: ANU has initiated disciplinary action under our disciplinary rules against 10 students in relation to protest activities associated with the Middle East conflict. … … … Five of those have had decisions rendered. Two of those decisions included exclusions from our campus … On top of the universities' own enforcement actions, the regulator, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency, has stood up a regulatory response team to proactively monitor the actions that universities take. These are proportionate responses to ensure that we protect the right to peaceful protest but also ensure the safety and wellbeing of all students and staff on campuses. To accuse every student or staff member participating in a protest of being antisemitic, as some have suggested, does nothing to move towards a solution or to support social cohesion. It's cheap and it's easy, but it's not right, and it would set a very troubling precedent. But there have been unacceptable cases that have no place in campuses or anywhere else in Australia. In May it was publicly reported that a student at the Australian National University had allegedly made Nazi gestures during a student meeting. The Vice President of the Australian Union of Jewish students has said: Students are afraid to go to class, they're missing lectures and tutorials … They're being filmed, followed, intimidated. It's essential that these reports be thoroughly investigated, which is what is being done by the universities themselves and will also be picked up by the investigations by the Race Discrimination Commissioner. I would also wholeheartedly say that those matters should be handled by the appropriate authorities, including police. There's also been a troubling rise in antisemitic incidents in other settings, including an antisemitic graffiti attack on Mount Scopus Memorial College in Melbourne in May. This is, of course, absolutely unacceptable and is being investigated by the Victoria police. When we talk about incitement to violence, which is unacceptable in any context, we should also consider the impact of the commentary that has surrounded these protests. On 8 May the Guardian reported on student protests at Monash University being physically assaulted: 'During the first incident a dozen men entered the campsites, smashing a marquee, taking food and shaking students tents. Four days later, many of the same people—middle-aged men from outside the university—again attended the camp.' The Guardian reported that, in another incident, a student from the campus forcibly entered the encampment and physically assaulted one student protester and that, in another incident, the same man entered this camp with the support of a few dozen counterprotesters who repeatedly threatened to bash members of the camp. So it's important that we remember that our words matter. There are many people who have made strong statements about the importance of freedom of speech on campuses, and one statement I agree with said: Academic freedom is a fundamental foundational principle of a university. It protects the rights of academics and students to engage in free, robust speech which is vital to critical thinking and the development of new ideas. The role of all educational institutions in our democracy is to teach Australians how to think, not what to think. Learning environments should present a balance of all arguments. The statement also said, 'I trust universities will honour their promise to facilitate an informed public debate and not influence academics and students which would seriously compromise academic freedom and freedom of speech. Academics who don't believe in free speech have no place in Australian universities.' The statement was made by Senator Henderson in March last year when she was criticising the University of Melbourne executive over their support for the Voice to Parliament. I hope that Senator Henderson would also apply those same principles when it's a speech on campus she doesn't agree with. Coming back to this bill, as I said earlier, it is clear that there are Jewish students who have been the victims of unacceptable incidents of antisemitism. This bill purports to investigate those experiences. But it's notable that the bill stops there and does not seek to investigate other forms of discrimination that are equally linked to the conflict in Gaza. The word 'Islamophobia' does not make it into the bill or the explanatory memorandum. The way it's drafted leads you to believe that a recent increase in antisemitism has occurred in a vacuum and that there is no corresponding increase in Islamophobia that needs to be addressed. Indeed, the author of the bill believes just that. On 28 May Senator Henderson was interviewed on ABC Radio Canberra, and I will read the exchange to make it clear that I'm not selectively quoting: ABC host: Are you also proposing identical action to students who might commit acts of Islamophobia? Senator Henderson: No, we're not. We are proposing that … because, frankly, there is no issue with Islamophobia. ABC host: Sorry no issue on university campuses or in society with Islamophobia? Senator Henderson: No, there is no issue with Islamophobia. A few days later on 31 May, Senator Henderson took an opportunity to clarify these remarks during the Human Rights Commission appearance at Senate estimates. She said, 'When I was asked about Islamophobia, I said "No, that is not an issue."' She went on to clarify that what she was really meant was, 'It was not an issue in the context of what is currently happening on university campuses.' This is a very serious issue, and I know Senator Henderson agrees. because she is so concerned about antisemitism on campuses that she has introduced a bill to establish what is effectively a royal commission on the matter. So, surely, before she repeatedly makes the comment that Islamophobia is not an issue in the context of what is happening on our university campuses, she would have verified whether or not that is true. There is an organisation dedicated to monitoring Islamophobia in Australia called Islamophobia Register Australia. Four days before Senator Henderson's radio appearance, they put out a media release revealing that, since October 7, there has been a 39-fold increase in reported incidents of Islamophobia on university campuses. Words matter. When you repeatedly make the statement that this is not an issue, just days after a 39-fold increase is announced, what are you saying to the Australian Muslim community? The statement goes on to say: One such incident occurred at a university food court in NSW where a group of Muslim female students wearing hijabs were reportedly called "terrorists" by a group of male students. It goes on further to say: In an incident earlier this week, a Muslim male was physically assaulted … when he attempted to prevent a hijab wearing female from being recorded without her consent. It begs the question: why does this bill intentionally exclude any consideration of the 39-fold increase in these sorts of attacks? I don't see how this furthers the cause of social cohesion on campuses or across our communities. The enforcement action being taken by universities against breaches of their codes of conduct covers all forms of unacceptable hatred, as does the investigation being undertaken by the Race Discrimination Commissioner and funded by the Australian government. These investigations, as we know, will examine antisemitic incidents on campuses, which, I'll make clear again, are absolutely unacceptable. There is no place for antisemitism on campuses or anywhere else in Australia. There is no room for any form of discrimination or incitement to violence or hatred on campuses or anywhere else in Australia. The government is taking action. Universities are taking action. The police are taking action. And, unfortunately, this bill falls short. 09:31 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales The Greens will not be supporting the Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 (No. 2). The budget handed down last month includes a commitment for the government to undertake a study into antisemitism, Islamophobia, racism and the experience of First Nations people in the universities sector. This was a recommendation of the Australian Universities Accord final report. This much broader study to be done by the Race Discrimination Commissioner will develop recommendations for the government to consider that can contribute to reducing racism and creating safer and more respectful and inclusive learning environments for all students and staff. We support this review by the Race Discrimination Commissioner, whose office is best placed to conduct such a review. They have the expertise and resources to conduct this review, and it is exactly the type of work that they should be doing. Unlike what some in here think, racism, in all its forms, exists in this country, and it is a problem in this country. The Greens are the only party in this place with an antiracism portfolio, because we recognise the need to tackle systemic and institutional racism; to confront our bloody colonial history, which, to this day, targets First Nations people; and to counter the growing tide of far-right nationalism. Racism exists at universities, as it exists everywhere else. Just last week, threatening Islamophobic graffiti, referencing the Christchurch mosque murderer, was discovered by a Muslim engineering student in the University of Melbourne toilets. In May, it was reported by the Islamophobia Register that there was a 39-fold increase in reports of Islamophobia on Australian university campuses alone. The Universities Accord report itself spoke of instances of racism at higher education providers experienced by First Nations students and staff, both on campus and online. It recommended that an important element of the study would specifically focus on the experiences of First Nations staff and students, while another could extend to staff and students from other groups who have experienced racism in the sector. During the COVID pandemic, we saw a shameful spike in attacks on students with Asian appearance. A study by the Migrant Worker Justice Initiative found that racism had impacted a staggering quarter of Australia's international students during the pandemic. A review by the Human Rights Commission into racism, one which tackles all different types of racism, is the kind of broad-ranging, expert-led review we need, not one whose motivation we know all too well, which has been brought into the Senate today. I agree with Dr Max Kaiser from the Jewish Council of Australia, who has expressed deep concern about what he calls the weaponisation of antisemitism by the Liberal Party to target students who are standing up against the genocide of the Palestinian people. I also agree with his colleague Ms Sarah Schwartz, who recently told a Senate inquiry into right-wing extremism that the only way to effectively fight antisemitism is by committing to work in partnership with other groups facing bigotry and discrimination and to fight all forms of racism. I have zero trust in a party whose leader is Peter Dutton to push for any good-faith review into racism. I have zero trust in Senator Henderson— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 Please resume your seat, Senator Faruqi. Do you have a point of order, Senator Scarr? Senator Scarr 282997 I do. Could Senator Faruqi refer to members of both this place and the other place by their proper titles, please. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 Indeed, Senator Faruqi, you should refer to anyone from the other place or this place by their proper title. You have the call. Senator FARUQI 250362 I have zero trust in a party whose leader is Mr Dutton to push for any good-faith review into racism. I have zero trust in Senator Henderson, who thinks that there is no issue with Islamophobia, to push for any good-faith review into racism. Let's be clear: this bill is a thinly veiled attempt to attack student encampments and tarnish students and staff who are calling for justice for Palestine, a free Palestine and the end to a genocide in which Israel has already slaughtered more than 37,000 Palestinians. It is also an attempt to force the IHRA definition of 'antisemitism' onto universities. This definition has been widely criticised, including by many progressive Jewish organisations, for its ability to stifle academic freedom, silence Palestinian voices and prevent legitimate criticism of the state of Israel. More than eight months into a genocide perpetrated by Israel, with complete impunity and in flagrant disregard of international law, the need to apply scrutiny to Israel's actions has in fact never been greater. The Greens are firmly on the side of students and staff and everyone fighting for a free Palestine. We condemn the actions of universities, like Deakin and ANU, that have cracked down on student camps. We praise the brave students who have won concessions from their universities to disclose investments in weapons companies. The encampment organisers have made clear many, many times that these are anti-war protests that are opposed to all forms of racism and discrimination, including antisemitism. Jewish students and staff have played significant roles in many of them. Shame on the coalition, and Labor too, for being more concerned about those protesting the genocide than the genocide itself, in which Israel has mercilessly slaughtered more than 37,000 Palestinians in the last eight months and reduced much of Gaza to rubble. 09:38 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise to speak on this bill with, quite frankly, sadness and deep regret. It is devastatingly sad that Senator Henderson has had to bring this bill before the Australian Senate. This is a bill about antisemitism, which has infected our Australian universities. It is a shame—in fact, it is a stain on the leadership of our nation, under Anthony Albanese as Prime Minister, that we have found ourselves in a position where it is indeed needed. The Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill is a bill that is deeply necessary, but our reality is: it should not be. As we've seen in the months since October 7 last year, antisemitism in Australia has run rampant. The Hamas atrocities of October 7 commenced an incredible wave of domestic antisemitism here in Australia. This bill is needed in particular because it seems that the root of the infection is found sadly and, quite frankly, appallingly in our university campuses. We have seen encampments where students chanting 'intifada' and 'from the river to the sea' are deciding who should be allowed access to university buildings based on their religion. Their stories are deeply troubling. We have seen stories of Jewish students being spat on and taunted with swastikas. They are threatened and they feel unsafe. In one incident, an expat Israeli staff member's working area was urinated on, and the word 'resign' was scribbled on their desk. We have seen academics saying that Jews don't deserve cultural safety and denying that the rapes on October 7 last year even occurred. The message in all of these stories is that Jews are not welcome in places where they live, they work and they study. The message is that the universities in our great country have closed their doors quite frankly to Jewish people and are intent on driving them away. It is a fact that in our great country, the tone is set from the top. The Prime Minister sets the parameters for the debate through his actions and his words. And I firmly believe that had Mr Albanese, as our Prime Minister, actually stood up on 8 October last year to defend the Jewish Australians, who were always going to be targeted in the wake of the Hamas attacks, we would be in a different position today. Australians deserve a prime minister who sets the moral boundaries for our public discourse. But we do not have a prime minister who was prepared to stand up on 8 October and call out antisemitism. We do not have a prime minister who was prepared even to set the tone within his own party. A strong prime minister would have dealt with the incipient wave of antisemitism immediately. Why? Because it was predictable. But we do not have that. We have a weak prime minister. We have a prime minister who is focused only on domestic polling. We have a prime minister who has allowed the infection antisemitism to spread here in Australia, and that diminishes us all. The bill is needed because the only response by the Albanese Labor government to the rampant antisemitism on campus has been to commission an inquiry by the Australian Human Rights Commission. It was a response that has left the Jewish community dumbfounded. We have seen a 738 per cent increase in antisemitism since October 7 last year. It has, on any analysis, grown out of all proportion. As my friend in the other place Mr Julian Leeser pointed out in a speech to the Cook Society: In the last— three months— of 2023, Victorian Police registered 145 prejudice-based crimes, with 102 of those complaints, or 70 per cent, relating to instances of anti-Semitism. Twelve of the reported crimes, around eight per cent, were Islamophobic. Let me be very clear: we are against Islamophobia. In fact, in 2019, in the wake of the Christchurch terrorist attacks, the Prime Minister announced an immediate $55 million in grants programs to fund upgrades for religious communities. This was a direct and immediate response to Islamophobia. We should have seen a similar response after 7 October. Instead, what we have seen is a narrative of false equivalence. Worse, the disturbing trend is reflected in the terms of reference for this study of racism on campus. There is another problem with the Albanese government's weak response: the Australian Human Rights Commission is not a fit and proper body to deal with the rampant antisemitism we are seeing on Australian campuses. It has become abundantly clear in the last eight months that the Australian Human Rights Commission has lost its standing in the Australian community, particularly in the Jewish community. It is no longer an organisation that is seen to be guided by principle. The very clear trend is that the Australian Human Rights Commission is beholden to activists who, in many respects, embody the worst aspects of student politics. It is now seen as a body that advances its own political agenda rather than a body that handles legitimate complaints about discrimination. Worse, there is a very disturbing pattern of behaviour whereby antisemitism within the commission itself is either ignored or overlooked. There's the engagement of Hue Consulting. Hue Consulting was contracted by the Australian Human Rights Commission to develop antiracism materials. But, at the same time as it was preparing those materials for the commission, its principal was involved in the doxxing of Jewish creatives. To use her own words, the person that the AHRC, the Australian Human Rights Commission, thought should prepare materials about racism urged her followers to 'let these effing Zionists know no effing peace'. She claimed: … "Zimbos" maintained their positions due to other Zionists "in management", calling them "genocidal fascists" who had moved "too deep into fascism" … Then there's the Human Rights Commission decision to employ a lawyer who was formerly an employee of the Australia Palestine Advocacy Network and who has publicly reposted statements that describe Hamas as: … "an effective political player in the struggle against apartheid, oppression and colonisation" which has "achieved remarkable success in preventing Israeli violence in Jerusalem and freeing Palestinian hostages abducted by Israel". She publicly claimed: Looking at Israel's psychopathy today, October 7 should make a little more sense to ya'll … Quite frankly, there are no words. How on earth could a person credibly suggest that the murder, torture, rape and violence of 7 October make sense? How could a person credibly be appointed to hold a position in the body charged with investigating antisemitism? Then there's the engagement of Mr Nazeem Hussain to promote Australian Human Rights Commission events. This is a man who supports the phrase 'from the river to the sea', which we all know calls for the destruction of the Jewish state. Then, of course, there's the belated decision to stand aside Ms Tasneem Chopra as an antiracism ambassador because she appeared to dismiss the concerns that Jewish women were raped by Hamas on 7 October. Ms Chopra shared posts saying 'Israel has forfeited its right to exist' and 'Zionists are just your common garden variety racists and white supremacists'. Keep in mind, again, that that is one of the faces of the Australian Human Rights Commission, the faces of antiracism. Then there was the decision at last year's Human Rights Awards to engage for entertainment a singer named Kee'Ahn and her co-performer, Yara. They appeared on stage at the Australian Human Rights Commission's premier event of the year chanting, 'Free Palestine,' and claiming that Israel was engaged in a genocide. Then there was the anonymous letter signed off by staff across eight teams in the Australian Human Rights Commission which condemned the commission for not speaking out forcefully—wait for it—in support of the Hamas attacks. The president of the commission said the concerns of staff expressed in the anonymous letter were 'of paramount concern'. Even at that point, months after 7 October, when the Australian Human Rights Commission put out its press release about the antiracism inquiry that was meant to be the response to antisemitism—just wait for it—they conveniently forgot to mention antisemitism. So the question that, quite frankly, all Australians should be asking themselves is: how did the Australian Human Rights Commission fall so far? Can you imagine any other body entrusted to deal fairly with people's complaints engaging in that type of one-sided advocacy? We would not accept courts that deal with criminal matters publicly arguing for the interests of victims or against the accused. Tribunals that deal with commercial or administrative disputes do not publicly speak for or against the parties. The commissions that handle workplace relations complaints do not publicly make the case for employers or the employees. There is, of course, a reason for this. It is to protect themselves from perceptions of bias. It preserves impartiality and their credibility in resolving a problem. Based on the evidence before us and the actions of the Australian Human Rights Commission, they have lost all credibility when it comes to antisemitism in this country. Again, it is devastatingly sad that the bill that we have before us today is necessary. It is devastatingly sad that antisemitism has infected our Australian universities. It is devastatingly sad that we have a weak Prime Minister who is not even prepared to set the tone in this country and properly condemn antisemitism in Australia. It is quite frankly an indictment on the Australian Human Rights Commission that they are even looking at antisemitism in Australia. This bill sets up a necessary, credible and sensible pathway forward to root out the infection of antisemitism in our universities through an independent, respected and credible judicial inquiry. It behoves us to fight the rampant antisemitism on our campuses, and it behoves us to support the bill. 09:53 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I note in Senator Cash's contribution on the Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 her frequent expression of her sadness about a number of matters. The greatest sadness that could sit on this nation's soul at this time is if these fundamental issues of the dignity of each human person are colonised by one part of the parliament. Any sadness that I have will be exacerbated by determination, particularly by those opposite, to pretend there is only one party that will be the champion of freedom, respect and dignity for every Australian. I hope my sadness doesn't increase because of ill-advised political action by any party of this parliament that is not driven towards peace but rather towards adversarial comment and the damage that ensues in our society. In August 2017, in Charlottesville, Virginia, white supremacists protesting the removal of a statue of the Confederate general Robert E Lee marched openly in the streets with torches, chanting, 'Jews will not replace us,' and raising their hands to perform that horrific Nazi salute with which too many people are familiar. This was a dangerous allusion to the torchlight parades of Nazi Germany. Fire was more than a flare. It signalled violence and destruction. The Nazi regime began by carrying their torches at parades and rallies. Fire then turned to synagogues and Torah scrolls. Ultimately, that fire then turned to the burnt bodies of millions of human souls. In March 2023, in Melbourne, about 30 individuals from the Neo-Nazi National Socialist Network dressed in black and, mostly with their faces covered, performed Nazi salutes and held up offensive materials on Spring Street. The reality is, my fellow Australians, that Nazism and antisemitism did not die after the destruction of the gas chambers. It has continued, and this ancient evil still exists today. And, sadly, it is alive and well in our nation. The history of the mass killing of the Jewish people in the Second World War is why the State of Israel exists today. It was that realisation of a Jewish longing for self-determination, for a homeland, for a place that connected them to their history and their connection to land. That is why I am a Zionist. I believe in the right for the State of Israel to exist alongside a free and democratic state of Palestine. That is the two-state solution. It is one for which we have had unanimous support, but, sadly, for personal political gain, we have seen at the edges people in this very building pulling at the fabric that is necessary to build peace and hope in the Middle East. We are not going to solve the crisis of the Middle East from this chamber or on the streets of Australia. We can with others, in a careful and considered way, push for peace at every opportunity. Sadly, we have seen too much hate already in this country, fanning the flames of division in an unnecessary and unedifying way, taking away from the dignity of this place and taking away from the opportunity for us to be a leading voice, as we are around the world in so many places of conflict. We need to attend to our own housekeeping here and to be clear that we will not stomach any violence towards any Australian of any faith or of no faith at any time. I accept the legitimacy of the State of Israel. It is a vital place in the region for the refuge of the Jewish people. It is not exclusive. Let me state this again: it is not exclusive of a separate democratic Palestinian state, which I continue to believe is necessary for a two-state solution, and I hope that that will be achieved to give peace to the people whose lives are so maligned by the current situation. October 7 stands not only as a travesty of humanity but also as the largest massacre of Jewish people since the Second World War. Hamas slaughtered and tortured countless men and women. Many who were not killed were callously taken hostage, and that brutality and its consequences continue today. It was brutal and it was inhumane, and I say: free the hostages. I am also deeply saddened that this event on October 7 did not mark the end of civilian deaths, with so many innocent Palestinians dying as a result of the emerging conflict driven by the hate filled Hamas. Let me say, colleagues: innocence has no nationality, no creed, no ethnicity, and I mourn every death in conflict, whether Palestinian or Israeli. For Australian Jews, they have witnessed a change from a steady uptick to a significant surge in antisemitism. While it clearly was an issue of immediate significance, October 7 also saw a major change in how Australian Jews, our fellow Australians, viewed their own safety in the world they inhabit here. Immediate reporting from the Executive Council of Australian Jewry showed a 738 per cent uptick in antisemitic incidents. In suburbs in Melbourne frequented by members of the Jewish community, they are walking down the streets in 2024 seeing signs that read: 'Kill Jews. Jews live here.' I am outraged, I am disgusted and I am in disbelief that there are people in our country who would believe that that could ever possibly be something that could be endorsed, condoned or accepted. This is the terrifying threat to an often persecuted people who have considered Australia, until recent times, as a nation of safe harbour. Graffiti in Sydney—lest we consider this just a Melbourne issue—read: 'Bring back Hitler. Finish the job.' This is a shameless call by weak, insipid, dark, hateful characters who have malign intent. A call for the extermination of the Jewish people shows that licence taken from Hamas after October 7 is having a real and, importantly, dangerous impact on our society here. Many might not be aware, but Australia is home to one of the largest populations of Holocaust survivors and their descendants outside Israel, and I'm very pleased that it was an Australian Labor member who absolutely advocated for a place of refuge for the Jewish people. For me it's inconceivable to think about how Australian Jewish people might feel seeing the Jewish day school Mount Scopus Memorial College, in Melbourne, graffitied with 'Jew die'. Make no mistake, this is not political commentary. All Australians have a duty to care, to protect our survivors and to ensure that they never again have to experience the horrors that so many of them have already endured. 'Never again' is the phrase at Yad Vashem. It's a duty that I take on my shoulders with my colleagues in the Labor Party, falling into my deep sense of pursuing social justice and promoting humanity over darkness. In my role as the chair of the Israel parliamentary network, I, alongside Senator David Fawcett, have met many community members who have, since October 7, felt fear, despair and a yearning for peace. Last year I hosted a group of family and friends of the victims of October 7. They flanked Senator Fawcett and me as a bipartisan, indeed a multipartisan, group of parliamentarians listened deeply to their stories of grief and despair. We heard from mother Tali Kizhner, who spoke of her son Segev, 22, murdered by Hamas militants at the now infamous Supernova music festival. I listened as mother Iris Haim spoke of the kidnapping of her son Yotam, 28, from their home in a border community. Yotam very tragically was killed in a case of misidentification. Sister Mika Shani spoke of her brother Amit, 16, being kidnapped from their home, with Mika and her parents only spared due to the Hamas vehicle being too small to take any more of their family. Mika personally phoned me just a few days later to say that Amit had been freed during a brief pause in conflict. I hope that that pause in the conflict and movement to peace is repeated at the earliest possible opportunity and that all the remaining hostages are freed and returned to their families. I was joined in that by members across the chamber—Labor, Liberal, National, Independent—including Zoe Daniel, Allegra Spender, Senator Dean Smith, Terry Young, Andrew Hastie and my fellow Labor colleagues Josh Burns, Mark Dreyfus, Senator Polley and David Smith. Outrage doesn't have a political colour. Outrage is shared across this parliament. And we must continue that outrage in unity. Antisemitism has a collective currency in this place. It is certainly not solely owned by the Liberal and National parties. Earlier this year I also hosted the United States Deputy Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism, Aaron Keyak, for a briefing on the state of international antisemitism and a discussion of what Australia can do to join with like-minded partners to counter this ancient evil. Again on that occasion I was joined by like-minded partners from across the party divide. I was joined by Assistant Minister Watts, Senator Jacqui Lambie, who I know is going to make a contribution very shortly, Mr Rowan Ramsey and Ms Ananda-Rajah. Xenophobia can only be countered through cooperation and consistent effort. That is why I take issue with what is happening here this morning in this particular form. All too obviously this seems to be a Liberal-National attempt at politicisation of this fundamentally vital and important issue. Senator Henderson, at the very best, could be conceived of as attempting to bring the issue of antisemitism to the fore. That is why I am participating. But this device of a private senator's bill is sadly misunderstood by many in the community. If you're really interested in what is being attempted here, have a look at, review and understand what's happened to any of these private senators' bills. That being said, I hope that, as we move forward, there can be an avoidance of the grandstanding and politicking that has so diminished the debate of this particular critical matter for Australians' safety. Private senators' bills are known on both sides of this chamber as an issue-raising endeavour but hardly an instrument to bring change. I say with conscience that I take antisemitism very, very seriously. The Labor Party is intensely focused on its eradication. Indeed we have three Jewish members of our parliament who are Labor people, including a senior member of the cabinet, the Attorney-General. The Liberal Party, the National Party—every party knows who I am. They know how many times I've stood on this. They know my beliefs, including the belief in a two-state solution, and those of all my Labor colleagues, who abhor xenophobia and hate in all its forms. I want to indicate that the government will be supporting the referral of this bill— (Time expired) 10:08 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I rise to speak in support of the Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024. In May university chancellors rejected calls by Jewish Australians to shut down copycat Gaza solidarity encampments because they said the Australian protests hadn't degenerated into violence like the ones in the US had. I think they should look at the definition of violence. I've been told by Jewish Australians working in our universities that their workplace, the universities, does not feel safe. Many have already resigned, and others are considering doing so. The Guardian reported on 10 May that Nazi salutes were used at a student association meeting at the Australian National University. At the Queensland university, a 23-year-old woman broke into a Jewish academic's office and urinated on the floor. At Sydney University, Jewish staff, students and academics have to walk past protesters chanting 'From the river to the sea'. According to the Age newspaper, the pro-Palestinian encampment at Sydney University has been infiltrated by a group that has been declared a terrorist organisation by the UK, Canada and many Muslim countries. This group, Stand For Palestine, works in coalition with other Palestinian groups who are often unaware of their extremist connections. Stand For Palestine was set up by Hizb ut-Tahrir. Twenty years ago, NSW Police counterterrorism had a list of organisations they considered to be terrorist organisations. Guess who was on the list? You betcha: Hizb ut-Tahrir. This group's stated aim is to establish an Islamic caliphate and call on Muslims living in Western countries like this one to 'come out of their illusion of their cosy relationship with the West and embrace the struggle of Islam versus non-believers'. Twenty years ago, our counterterrorism experts were watching this group. Twenty years later, not only is this group still operating but it is infiltrating these protest groups on our streets and in our universities, spreading their extremist filth and whipping up hatred. In just a few months, this front organisation, Stand For Palestine, has gained thousands of followers, has stepped up its presence in our mosques and is radicalising our youth. Hizb ut-Tahrir has been banned in the UK and Canada and is also banned in most Arab countries. When British Home Secretary James Cleverly announced that they would be declared a terrorist organisation, he said that the group was 'an antisemitic organisation that actively promotes and encourages terrorism, including praising and celebrating the appalling 7 October attacks'. Deakin University's extremist expert Josh Roose told the Age that Hizb ut-Tahrir has seized on the violence in Gaza as 'their chance to shine'. So what the hell is the Australian government doing about this? Not only have we not listed them as a declared terrorist organisation but a charity directed by one of their founders has been approved and granted charitable status. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Senator Lambie, the debate is interrupted, and you will be in continuation. National Health Amendment (Supporting Patient Access to Cheaper Medicines and Other Measures) Bill 2024 11

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

Second Reading 11 10:12 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I rise today to speak on the National Health Amendment (Supporting Patient Access to Cheaper Medicines and Other Measures) Bill 2024. This is the enabling legislation to put in place certain healthcare measures that were contained in the 2024-25 budget. Most particularly it includes the $3 billion of new measures as they relate to the Eighth Community Pharmacy Agreement. We saw for the first time earlier this month the Eighth Community Pharmacy Agreement, which was finally agreed between the Minister for Health and Aged Care and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia. It followed intense pressure on the government, including by the coalition over the last year, because we are the party that supports community pharmacists, and we believed that the community pharmacists had been done wrong by this government over actions last year in relation to 60-day dispensing. Last year the government—as is true to form for this government—shoved through a measure in relation to double dispensing without any consultation whatsoever with the sector that was going to be most impacted by it. This lack of consultation and the rushed policy that was put forward as a result of that was placing Australians' health care at risk. Many community pharmacies are small businesses. In fact, just about all community pharmacies are small businesses. What this government was expecting was that around 6,000 small businesses around the country were going to shoulder the costs of the government's policy alone, and we believe that was completely unreasonable. At a time when primary care is in crisis, this government thought it was a good idea to put it at further risk, particularly our frontline primary care: the community pharmacy sector. No-one disputes the benefits of cheaper and easier access to medicine, and the coalition absolutely supports Australians getting access to cheaper medicines, especially while they're enduring this prolonged cost-of-living crisis that has been brought on by the economic mismanagement of this government. Not only did the government fail to consult with pharmacies before implementing their policy but also they have been running around claiming credit for this policy and the cost-of-living savings that Australians were going to benefit from, when it was being entirely funded by the 6,000 small community pharmacists. So, we called on the government to get back to the table with the community pharmacy sector and negotiate a new Community Pharmacy Agreement to resolve the legitimate concerns that were raised at the time about the mucked-up and botched implementation of 60-day dispensing—because cheaper medicines are no use to any community if their pharmacy closes down. The new agreement is clear proof that the government has been forced to admit that their initial implementation to 60-day dispensing could and would have seriously impacted Australians who rely on their community pharmacy. The eighth Community Pharmacy Agreement, the 8CPA, will commence on 1 July 2024, in just a few days time, and will provide increased support to pharmacies, with a funding boost of $3 billion for additional measures and a total of $26.5 billion over the five years of the agreement. In the 2024-25 budget the government provided further details around these measures that were agreed to as part of this agreement. They include a new payment to pharmacies to handle and dispense all medicines, worth over $2 billion, which recognises the cost impacts on pharmacies of the botched introduction of the double-dispensing measure in last year's budget. The measures also include a one-year freeze on the PBS for general co-payment and a five-year freeze on indexation of the PBS concessional co-payment. This will result, basically, in the phasing out of the dollar discount that currently can be offered to patients in certain circumstances. The agreement also acknowledges the coalition's longstanding concerns about access by rural, regional and remote communities to primary care by providing additional funding to the Regional Pharmacy Maintenance Allowance. This additional support hopefully will mitigate our concerns about the viability of community pharmacy, particularly for those in more-remote communities in the bush. The Albanese government's initial plans would have devastated regional communities. As those of us who come from regional Australia know only too well, often the community pharmacist is the only health professional in town, and the loss of a pharmacy in these situations is absolutely catastrophic for that community. But this bill need never have been drafted; this bill never have needed to be in this place. The distress and uncertainty created by the government's incompetence on this issue need never have happened. The government could have simply spoken to community pharmacists and worked through their legitimate concerns. Instead, they just announced and defended. And in the recent round of Senate estimates we learnt that this double-dispensing policy that the government has heralded as delivering cheaper medicines to Australians has in fact delivered very little financial relief. Also, the department was unable to explain how removing the dollar discount, along with freezing the current price of medicines, will make medicines cheaper, despite the claim that the government is running around making. This government needs to tell Australians the truth: how much have Australians actually saved through the measures that are being put forward by the government compared with how much taxpayers have had to fork out to fix the government's mistakes? However, the coalition will support this bill, because we support the community pharmacy sector, because the community pharmacy sector provides critical primary care to Australians at the coalface. But we put on the record that these measures came about only because the government has botched its policy implementation and put Australians' primary care and their health care at risk. That's why I'll be moving a second reading amendment to note that this bill is a direct result of the sustained advocacy of community pharmacy, community and of course the support of the coalition. The bill represents the government's recognition that its initial approach to 60-day dispensing would have caused damage to all Australians who rely on their community pharmacy. It's also important to note that the ink is not even dry on this new Community Pharmacy Agreement but the government is once again undermining our critical community pharmacy sector. They've done so by forcing on community pharmacies another rushed and ill-conceived policy without consultation or support—this time in the implementation of their chaotic vaping policy model, designed through a dirty deal with the Greens. We know community pharmacists do not want to be vape dispensers or disposers or, in the words of the Pharmacy Guild themselves, 'tobacconists and garbologists'. The contempt of this government for stakeholders seems to know no bounds. The first the pharmacists knew that the government planned for them to be the dumping ground for used vapes was when they heard it in the media. The coalition will always stand up for community pharmacists because we stand up for Australians who rely on the primary care that community pharmacists provide. As the Albanese government continues to undermine the important role of pharmacists in our community, community pharmacists in Australia can be absolutely assured the coalition will not undermine your access to something that is so important. On that point I move: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that: (a) the measures contained in this bill are only a result of sustained advocacy from the Pharmacy Guild of Australia and other groups with the support of the coalition; (b) the bill is recognition by the government that its initial approach to 60-day dispensing would have caused damage to all Australians who rely on their local community pharmacist; and (c) the ink is not even dry on the Eighth Community Pharmacy Agreement and the government is already undermining community pharmacies by foisting a rushed and ill-conceived vaping model on community pharmacies without their consultation or support". 10:20 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I speak today on the National Health Amendment (Supporting Patient Access to Cheaper Medicines and Other Measures) Bill 2024. The Greens will be supporting this bill. This bill will legislate the agreement reached between pharmacists and the Australian government in the Eighth Community Pharmacy Agreement. This includes freezing indexation of patient co-payments for PBS medications. For those with low-income healthcare cards, this freeze will remain in place for five years. For most of the population, prices will begin to rise again after only one year. This bill will also introduce a new additional community supply support payment, the ACSS, which will provide financial assistance for this pharmacists who are dispensing 60-day scripts. The cost of healthcare is rising. In WA, less than 10 per cent of GP clinics bulk-bill all of their patients who are adults. The bulk-billing rate in WA has dropped by almost 17 per cent in just one year. WA has lost more bulk-billing GPs than any other state since 2023. Patient costs are now, on average, $41. Imagine needing to see your GP, wanting to see your GP, either because of the relationship that you've built, the more informal clinical setting, or the desire to fulfil what sometimes feels like a personal obligation to do whatever you can not to make the waiting times any longer in the emergency departments, even though your individual illness or condition is not the reason for the longer waiting time. Imagine wanting to do all of that and not being able to because you simply do not have that kind of money lying around because you're struggling to pay rent, pay power bills and buy food. That $41 can be the difference between actually having something for everyone in your family to eat and having to go hungry so that at least your kids can have something in their stomachs when they go to school. The last thing you need when you have paid often over $40 to see a GP is to then go to the pharmacy and see that the cost of your prescription has risen too. This bill will go some way to addressing that but it does not go far enough. The Greens believe that the PBS should have sufficient investment to make approved medicines, drugs and treatment options accessible for everyone. Nobody should be prevented from getting the medicines they need because they don't have the money in their pocket. Nobody should be in a situation where they live in pain or they go into a health crisis or a mental health crisis because they don't have the money in their pocket. Of course it would take a lot of work and a lot of collaboration and a lot of thinking to achieve this goal, but surely it must be the goal. Surely, we don't ever want to be in a situation where somebody isn't able to get there meds and, because of that, has an accident, has to go into hospital, loses their ability to function, loses their life, lives in pain. There are many things in this life and in this world that are beyond the direct ability of a legislature to address, but the price of medicines isn't one of them. On this, we can and should do better. On this, we can and should strive together for a better balance, for a better way forward, for a better system. This bill does not reduce the costs of medicine—and I think this is really important to make clear—it only prevents them from being subject to inflation. While the wages of Australians are not increasing at the rate of inflation, this is not effectively a price cut for average Australians. Every Australian deserves affordable health care. No-one should be forced to choose between taking a medicine they have been prescribed and being able to afford the other necessities of life. It is clear that the government needs to go further to address the cost-of-living crisis and to ensure that everyone can see a doctor and get a prescription, no matter their income. It is also really important to recognise and acknowledge in the course of this debate—and I again want to put on the record that the Greens will be supporting this bill—that pharmacy and the PBS do not exist in a vacuum, either within health policy specifically or within broader Australian government policy. These systems are deeply interconnected, so the success or failure of initiatives like this are also dependent upon the success or failure of other systems and services that are in place. When we look across the nation and across the policy landscape at the broader Australian healthcare and mental healthcare system, what we see is a series of services and programs that are defined by their gaps and by the inequalities that they create and sustain. I want to go to a few of these. Dental care: the Medicare system that we have in Australia, foundationally, is a credit to the nation and it is broadly supported, and resiliently supported, by the Australian community. To get a sense of just how much the Australian community support Medicare, I would advise anybody to pick up the phone and have a chat with Malcolm Turnbull, the former prime minister, and seek his view on how the suggestion of any cut to Medicare served him during the 2019 election. But the system has gaps. We can acknowledge that Medicare fundamentally, foundationally, is a superb policy idea—a representation, if not a manifestation of a nation's sense of mutual duty—and we can also acknowledge that there are flaws. One of the biggest flaws in the Medicare system is that it does not treat teeth and the mouth as part of the body. Just think about that for a moment. Our Medicare system, our universal healthcare system, doesn't treat your teeth and your mouth as part of the body. That just doesn't make sense, particularly not in a context where we now know that the mouth and teeth are truly one of the key gateways to broader health of human beings and of community. Whether you're able to access good dental and oral health has a significant impact on the rest of your physical and mental health. Not only do we now conclusively understand the link between conditions such as heart failure, dementia and others and good oral health; we are also gaining a growing understanding of the link between mental health and dental and oral health. In my time as the Greens health spokesperson, it has continually struck me as very odd that it has taken so long for politicians and policymakers to hear the community's calls and the evidence the community has given to the link between mental health and dental and oral health. There are many things in this chamber that would not be shared experiences between the senators in here and the parties in here, but I suspect one thing that might be a common experience is what it's like to experience dental pain, to experience an abscess or an ulcer or an untreated infection. Many of the people in here have enough money to get that seen to via our overwhelmingly privatised dental system in Australia. But the reality for many, many Australians is that that is just not an option. In fact, when I recently went for a dental check-up, I was literally horrified to see sitting on the desk in reception a pamphlet. The pamphlet said: 'Struggling with dental costs? Why not access super?' Why not access your superannuation—to be able to get your teeth fixed, to be able to get an infection treated, to be able to get some basic restorative work, to be able to get the basic orthodontic care you might need? We are forcing Australians to dig into their retirement savings. And that is a position the government is happy with? This is one of the strangest and most unacceptable gaps in Australian health policy, because we all have teeth. And we all have mouths; as much as sometimes I wish, at times, people in this place maybe didn't have them or maybe opened them less than they otherwise do. We all do have mouths and teeth. Why do we allow this absence to continue? And if you think about the pain that untreated dental care can often bring into your life, and the stress and the fear. It's not a hard thing for an infection to jump from your mouth to another part of your body. For anybody wondering, it can result in really serious flow-on health effects and really serious infections of the broader body. So is it any wonder that there is such a link between untreated oral and dental health and mental health outcomes? Is it any wonder that, when people have gone for so long without the ability to access preventive dental care and eventually manage to get teeth removed but are unable to receive access to or afford dentures or prosthetics, there is such a depth of shame that they live with because of the way that our society places such an emphasis on smiling and the quality of your teeth and your oral healthcare and connects them with a sense of morality and values based decisions? The connection that is drawn is that, if you have bad teeth, you are a bad person, and that's just wrong. That's so wrong, to say nothing of the fact that so many people fleeing family and domestic violence, as a result of the horrendous things they are subjected to, then have to live with the mark of that experience on their faces and in their mouths and are not able to access the restorative care they need. It's just wrong. We need to get mental health and dental health fully covered under Medicare. 10:35 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I also rise to speak on the National Health Amendment (Supporting Patient Access to Cheaper Medicines and Other Measures) Bill 2024. I note, on behalf of the Australian Greens, the amazing work that my colleague from Western Australia, Senator Steele-John, has done as our health portfolio spokesperson, and I echo his sentiments, particularly on the significant health gaps that I see existing as the First Nations spokesperson for the Greens. I reiterate also that we will be supporting this bill today. Anything that keeps the price of medicines under control is a really important part of the tenor of our community. It is an important time, in a cost-of-living crisis, for us to have cheaper medicines. As Senator Steele-John already outlined, we can and should be more ambitious in relation to what we do through the PBS and what we can do to make sure that people are not left in pain and people have access to the medicines that they require in their time of need. Importantly, as Senator Steele-John already said, this bill does not actually reduce the price of medicines; it just stops it from being subject to inflation. What it does is just to keep the price from rising, just for a short time—five years, I think it was—and then it continues to rise. For most people who don't have a low-income health card—and there are many of those in First Nations communities—the five-year freeze for healthcare cardholders is welcomed, but at the end of the day there is that big-picture view, and Senator Steele-John, in his statement to the chamber today, articulated that so well. Dental care should be put into Medicare. It should be free for everybody. For First Nations people—who have such a large body of research that talks about the links between lack of good oral health care or dental care, particularly in early childhood, and our chronic diseases and, as Senator Steele-John already said, our mental health—this is critical. In places like the Northern Territory, we are seeing children going into emergency departments to have their teeth removed. Their teeth are rotting inside their jaws and can't be removed by dentists, and they're going into emergency departments. Having cheaper medicines isn't going to make that better. Having early access to free dental is what is going to make a difference. For many people who live in rural and remote communities—and people who might not necessarily be on a low income but are caring for large families—the cost of medicines can be absolutely crippling, as Senator Steele-John articulated very well. In this country, it is the choice between putting food on the table, having to pay your rent, putting fuel in your car to get your kids to school and having to pay the cost of medicines. I echo the comments that Senator Steele-John made that the average cost of $41 to see a GP in Western Australia is absolutely unacceptable. There's been a 17 per cent drop in bulk-billing, just in one year in Western Australia. We're often called the 'grateful state' because of the mining boom we have in Western Australia—and I know people like Senator O'Sullivan would agree that we are very fortunate—but it seems different when you're looking down the barrel of having to fork out to get access to a GP. Never mind the money that it costs you, it's also about finding one that's open or that isn't just open nine to five. It's about finding one that has an appointment available so that you are not left in pain. As the mother of two children, I can tell you that nursing my child on my lap while she is in pain is one of the most difficult things to do. Access to cheaper medicines is just one part of this frame. We can and should do better. I am imploring this government to do that, to be ambitious and to do the things that are required after a decade of sitting here and listening to the lack of focus on our healthcare system. It is the responsibility of all of us here in this chamber, the lawmakers of the nation, to think about what it is that we do have in common—that is, health care. I know several senators in this place needed dental care during our break last year, as did I. We had to access medicines because we were in pain. I spent four hours in the dental chair, and it cost me a lot of money. It was only after I came to the Senate that I was able to afford to do that. I speak to Australians who are in pain because they have an abscess or because they've lost a tooth. They may have to get a temporary plate made that they then have to wear for the next five years and that causes all sorts of other problems, not to mention the intrinsic link to mental health. This is a serious problem we could solve in this place. We have the power in this place to close those gaps in health care for our Australian constituents. This is what we should be doing: we should be putting dental and mental health into Medicare, into our Australian system that is about free health care for our nation, because at the heart of that is how we see wellness for our community. When we evaluate the Closing the Gap targets for our nation and our people, in the wellbeing research and evaluation that we do, we should be thinking not just about cheaper medicines, but also about all of the other significant health gaps. I have had wonderful conversations with Senator McCarthy—she is here today—in relation to that, and I acknowledge her work in this area. It is important that we work together across the aisle to ensure that we can close those gaps, as we should. Getting dental and mental health into Medicare should be our priority, and I implore senators to think about, as their legacy in this place, supporting this Greens policy, led by my wonderful Western Australian colleague, Senator Steele-John, and others here on the crossbench. Think about its importance for yourself, for your family, for your children and for future generations of Australians. 10:45 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania From a political party that quite rightly celebrates the creation of Medicare as one of its most consequential actions in government for many decades, this bill and other reforms in the health sector are something that Australians would be well entitled to view as fiddling at the margins. If we really wanted to value Medicare in this country, we would be ensuring that visits to the dentist were covered by Medicare. If we really wanted to value Medicare in this country, we would be ensuring that mental health supports were covered by Medicare. The last time I looked, our brains, our nervous systems, our teeth and the inside of our mouths were actually part of our bodies. It's ridiculous that an allegedly universal healthcare system like Medicare, which is quite rightly seen as a significant achievement by Labor and well worth celebrating, doesn't cover dental and mental health. The other great challenge facing Australians today is visits to GPs. We have a GP workforce crisis. I know in my home state of Tasmania there are some incredibly worrying projections about the number of GPs that we will have in Tasmania in the not-too-distant future, with a significant decline. There are regional communities in Tasmania now that are losing their only GP. That means that local health services are in decline, meaning people have to drive further, and where there is urgency in a situation it takes them longer to get to a GP. Often, when you want to make a booking with your GP, you're faced with a significant delay—many days or, in some cases, many weeks—because the demand for GPs is so high. There are simply not enough GPs to meet that demand and enable people to see a doctor that is close to them within a reasonable timeframe. Then, when you get to see a GP, there's the gap payment. Some GPs bulk-bill at high rates; others bulk-bill at low rates or don't bulk-bill at all, and GPs have different ways of making the decision on whether or not to bulk-bill. I do acknowledge that GPs are part of a business. They have to either run their own business or be part of a business that someone else is running, and there are commercial imperatives there. I'm not blaming GPs for this, but what the Greens do say—and this is just a simple statement of fact—is that the average gap payment has continued to grow over the years because the Medicare rebate is not keeping pace with the cost of doing business. Again, for a party that prides itself on Medicare, which at its heart was designed to enable free medical support for all Australians as a universal system, as it should be, what we are finding now is that, because the GP rebate and the government rebate for a range of GP services is nowhere near keeping pace with health inflation and the increased cost pressures that's placing on GPs, the gap continues to grow. That is actually pricing people out of being able to visit a GP. For millions of Australians, wherever they look right now, they are getting smashed by what a lot of people describe as a cost-of-living crisis but is actually becoming a cost-of-existence crisis. Whether it's the supermarket checkout, rent payments, mortgage payments, energy bills, transport costs or healthcare costs like going to a GP, people just can't make ends meet. Wages have been flatlining for many, many years in this country. Real wages have been going backwards for many, many years in this country. They are just starting to fall into the same ballpark as inflation. Whether that continues with the rise in inflation revealed in the CPI figures released yesterday remains to be seen. But people are getting smashed in a cost-of-existing crisis. Health costs are a significant part of that. A significant part of health costs is people going to a GP. They are the first port of call. If you develop a health issue, the first thing you do is pick up the phone or log onto a website and book yourself a visit at your local GP. Far too many people now are being priced out of that opportunity. For far too many people now, their local GP has closed or reduced their opening hours and they have to travel further and pay more just for a simple GP visit which is the first port of call for millions of Australians when they want to take initial health advice about a health condition that they have. We have a government that trumpeted, quite rightly, a recent anniversary for Medicare. I've got no problem with the Labor Party celebrating Medicare; it's worth celebrating, fantastic health system that it is. But, over time, it has become less than it was designed to be and less than it was created to be. Over time, we are seeing more and more Australians priced out of accessing essential health services. GP visits are essential health services. We've got to do something about this slow erosion of the principles of Medicare and universal free health care. We have to do something about the fact that more and more Australians who are getting smashed with costs right across the spectrum—rents, interest rates impacting on their mortgages, transport costs, power bills, bank charges, price gouging by the big supermarket corporations and now an ever steady increase in the gap payments for visiting GPs. So I say to the government: while the Greens are supporting this legislation, this should be seen as a very preliminary step in what needs to be done to make the provision of essential health care more available and more affordable for millions of Australians—in fact, for all Australians. Medicare needs surgery. Medicare itself needs care. Medicare needs expanding and extending to make sure that dental and mental health supports are included within it, because our teeth, the inside of our mouths, our brains and our nervous systems are all interconnected inside our body with everything else that is inside our body. A true universal provision of free health care would include dental and mental health, and it would include a framework whereby GP visits were genuinely free and everyone in this country had a universal right to a free GP visit. End the gap payments. This is doable. This is affordable. These things are political choices. When you're spending tens of billions of dollars in every budget subsidising the burning of fossil fuels in the middle of a climate crisis, and when you are spending tens of billions of dollars in every budget subsidising property speculators and investors, many of whom own five, 10, 20, 50 or in some cases many hundreds of investment properties—when you've decided you can spend tens of billions of dollars every year looking after the big fossil fuel companies, bolstering the super profits they are making, and in subsidising property speculators and investors—you can actually afford to end gap payments and make GP visits genuinely free. That can be done, and it's a choice that the Labor Party is making not to do that. They would prefer to subsidise the big fossil fuel corporations, cooking the planet at the same time. They would prefer to offer taxpayer subsidies, worth tens of billions of dollars a year in negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions, to property speculators who own multiple investment properties. They would prefer to do those things than to act to bring dental and mental health into Medicare and make GP visits genuinely free. That's where we find ourselves, colleagues. We find ourselves, as we so often do in this chamber, debating political choices. We should be debating political choices in this place—of course we should—but I know in my home state of Tasmania that we are seeing fewer and fewer GPs, and the projections are frightening. We are seeing regional town after regional town lose GPs and, in some cases, lose their only GP. We need radical surgery on Medicare. We need to put dental and mental health into Medicare. We need radical supports so that Australians can actually access their GP for free, as was the principle behind Medicare in the first place. The way we do that is by ending the gap payments and making sure, therefore, that people can have a free visit to the GP. If we could just do those simple things—put dental and mental health into Medicare and make GP visits free—it would provide massive relief to people who are being absolutely smashed by rents that are going through the roof, by soaring interest rates with the prospect of more yet to come, by rising energy bills, by rising transport costs and by being price gouged by supermarket corporations and banking corporations. We could provide genuine relief to people in the health sector. And that wouldn't only be a lightening of a massive financial burden on many Australians; it would be a massive lightening of a psychological burden on people. People would love to know that, if they got sick, they could get in to see a GP at a place close to them, it wouldn't cost them anything to do it and that they could see that GP within a reasonable timeframe. Those are the things that we should be aspiring to as a country, and doing those things would be a massive step forward for people who are getting smashed by a cost-of-existence crisis. 11:00 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise to contribute to this debate today. It is a really important issue. People are struggling with the cost of living, they are struggling with everything in their household budgets going up, and sadly we have even heard over the last 48 hours that it is more than likely that many people are going to cop another rate rise on their mortgages, at a time when people are already out their wits end. A cost-of-living crisis is putting a wrecking ball through family budgets. It costs more to go to the supermarket each week. It costs more to make sure the lunchboxes are full. It costs more to make sure the kids have school uniforms and new jumpers for winter. It costs more to pay for the home insurance. It costs more to pay for private health insurance. It costs more to go to the doctor and it is costing a whole lot more if you need to get dental or mental healthcare. So, while this bill does help some in the community with the freezing of the indexation of costs, when it comes to medicines, it is already pretty bloody expensive to even get the prescription in the first place. We have got this proud history and a narrative we tell ourselves in Australia about universal health care: 'We are not like America.' But, when you look at each of the financial barriers and the practical barriers to getting good-quality, affordable healthcare in this country, there is another story for many people. If you can even get an appointment with your local GP on the day that you are sick, it is going to cost you anywhere from $40 to $100. That is with Medicare. Fewer and fewer doctors' practices around the country bulk-bill. It is very, very hard to get a bulk-billed spot these days. So, if you don't have the cash flow to pay that upfront fee, the $60, $80, $100—sometimes even more—just to get in to see the doctor, you are not going. So you can't even get in to the doctor to get the prescription and then wonder how you're going to afford the prescription. You walk into the supermarket these days and you see ads for Afterpay on the supermarket shelves—packet of pasta here, fresh vegetables there—'Put it on Afterpay'. The reason Afterpay is advertising in our supermarkets and on supermarket shelves is because people don't have cash in their bank accounts. They don't have enough money to pay for the essentials, so they're having to make decisions day in, day out about what they pay for. Do they do the full supermarket shop this week, make sure the school lunches are all sorted and make sure everybody's got good tucker for when they come home from school and work? Or do they think that that sniffle that little Freddie has is about to turn into the flu and they actually might need to go to the doctor, so perhaps they won't do the full supermarket shop this week? Perhaps they'll wait and see whether that sniffle runs through the whole family and everyone has to go and get a prescription for antibiotics or other medicine. These are the real-life choices that families are having to make every day and every week. People are struggling. As we know, it is always those who are already on the margins and already struggling, the lowest-paid workers in this country, who every single day are forced to make these decisions. What happens if you get sick anyway and you work a casual job? You don't get paid for your days off. You don't get paid sick leave. Your income is going to go down anyway, so how on earth are you going to pay for the doctor and that prescription when you are going to have to take time off work either to go the doctor or because you are so sick? So, then, people are making choices about whether they are even going to go to work. It's crazy to me that in 2024 we don't have universal sick leave for every worker in this country. In my home state of South Australia in the last month we have had code yellows on and off in our public hospital system. Do you know what that means? It means that elective surgery gets pushed back because the hospitals are struggling with the number of emergency patients. The reason there are so many emergency patients is that everybody is sick with the flu and COVID. During the pandemic, during the COVID period, health officials advised governments that one of the best things we could do to stop the spread of COVID was encourage people to stay at home and, in order to encourage people to stay at home, they could access sick pay, pandemic pay. They didn't lose out financially because they had to stay at home to stop the spread of disease. Fast forward a couple of years and we are now in a situation where the lowest paid workers in this country are still having to go to work sick because there is no paid sick leave. So if you took the day off work, or the morning or the afternoon, to go to the doctor, you'll fork out your $80, you'll get your prescription and it'll cost you another $20. You'll maybe get some more Panadol or Nurofen. If the doctor has said to you, 'You're really sick and should not go back to work; I'll give you a sick certificate,' good luck with that if you are casual. This is what is wrong with the system. We pretend that everybody has access to good-quality health care in this country, but they don't. The barriers are too high. The costs are too high. The supports for people to be able to take care of their health and be preventive are simply not there. We know that preventive health isn't taken seriously in this country because, if it were, you'd be able to pay for your dental health on your Medicare card. One of the single easiest, simplest ways of helping people stay healthy and not fall into chronic disease is ensuring that people's mouths are kept healthy and that their teeth are able to be cared for. It costs an average of $215 to go to the dentist and get a check-up, and none of that can be put on Medicare. Some dentists charge more just for a clean, a check-up and a scale. If we are serious about ensuring Australians are kept healthy and can be encouraged to keep themselves healthy to reduce the burden on the health budget of chronic illness, this government has got to get serious about funding dental care for everyone and allow people to go to the dentist, put it on their Medicare card and ensure they can keep their mouths healthy. It is ridiculous that, in a wealthy country like Australia, if you break your elbow, you can go to the emergency department and get your elbow looked at, put in plaster and x-rayed, but if you break your tooth, it will cost you hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars. If we're serious about looking after the health of Australians, we have to get serious about making doctors accessible, making prescriptions affordable, and ensuring that mental health or dental care can be paid for by the healthcare system or Medicare as well. We know that the cost of health care is rising. Two-thirds of Australians—67 per cent—avoid going to the dentist because it's too expensive. Everyone in this place might think: 'Why don't people just pay private health insurance and get extras cover? You can get to the dentist, have a clean and look after your teeth.' But, of course, you have to have the money to pay for the huge hikes in private health insurance to do that, and people just don't have that kind of cash in a cost-of-living crisis, particularly our lowest income families and lowest paid workers. Only last year, in 2023, the Australian Bureau of Statistics found that 19.3 per cent of patients could not afford to see a healthcare professional for their mental health. That's up 16 per cent from the year before. Not only are we not helping people care for their teeth to keep the rest of their bodies healthy; we're forcing people to neglect their mental health. We know that the flow-on effects of that on the broader health system are catastrophic. The number of patients in our public hospitals is crippling our emergency departments because mental health has hit a crisis point. It's crippling the bed numbers in our hospitals. You're a Labor government. You care about health care. It's in your blood. You have to start funding it properly. You have to start funding it so that people can prevent serious illness. We need to find preventive health so the community can be kept healthy and reduce the burden on the rest of the health budget. You shouldn't have to go to the emergency department at the hospital just to get a prescription because you couldn't get in to see a doctor. You shouldn't have to take your kids to the emergency room just because they have a cold and you're worried about it spreading or because you need a doctor's certificate to prove to your boss that you're sick. And when are we going to start supporting parents in this country to take time off work because their kids are sick, without losing hours? If you want to stop the spread of COVID, the flu and other diseases, people have to be able to afford to stay at home. It worked during the pandemic—we know it did—why on earth haven't we been able to see that follow through to 2024? (Time Expired) NOTICES 18 NOTICES Presentation 18 Withdrawal 18 11:15 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Pursuant to notice given at the last day of sitting, on behalf of the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1 for three sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Greenhouse Gas Injection and Storage) Regulations 2023 made under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006; and business of the Senate notice of motion No. 2 for 10 sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Act 2023 made under the Migration Act 1958. BUSINESS 19 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 19 11:16 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted for myself from 24 and 25 June 2024 for personal reasons. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 19 COMMITTEES Selection of Bills Committee 19 Report 19 11:17 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I present Report No. 6 of 2024 of the Selection of Bills Committee. I seek leave to have the report incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The report read as follows—Selection of Bills Committee Report no. 6 of 2024 27 June 2024 Members o f t he Committee Senator Anne Urquhart (Government Whip, Chair) Senator Wendy Askew (Opposition Whip) Senator Ross Cadell (The Nationals Whip) Senator Pauline Hanson (Pauline Hanson's One Nation Whip) Senator Nick McKim (Australian Greens Whip) Senator Ralph Babet Senator the Hon. Anthony Chisholm Senator the Hon. Katy Gallagher Senator Maria Kovacic Senator Matt O'Sullivan Senator David Pocock Senator Lidia Thorpe Senator David Van Secretary: Tim Bryant 02 6277 3020 1. The committee met in private session on Wednesday, 26 June 2024 at 7.12 pm 2. The committee recommends that— (a) the provisions of the Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 8 August 2024 (see appendix 1 for a statement of reasons for referral); and (b) the provisions of the Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024, and the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024, and the Nature Positive (Environment Law Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024 be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee but was unable to reach agreement on a reporting date (see appendix 2 for a statement of reasons for referral). 3. The committee recommends that the following bills not be referred to committees: Excise and Customs Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2024 Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024 Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Assignment of Medicare Benefits) Bill 2024 Payment Times Reporting Amendment Bill 2024 Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (More Support in the Safety Net) Bill 2024 4. The committee deferred consideration of the following bills to its next meeting: Australian Capital Territory Dangerous Drugs Bill 2023 Broadcasting Services Amendment (Ban on Gambling Advertisements During Live Sport) Bill 2023 Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 (No. 2) Communications Legislation Amendment (Regional Broadcasting Continuity) Bill 2024 Competition and Consumer Amendment (Continuing ACCC Monitoring of Domestic Airline Competition) Bill 2023 COVID-19 Response Commission of Inquiry Bill 2024 Creative Australia Amendment (Implementation of Revive) Bill 2024 Criminal Code Amendment (Inciting Illegal Disruptive Activities) Bill 2023 Customs Amendment (Strengthening and Modernising Licensing and Other Measures) Bill 2024 Customs Licensing Charges Amendment Bill 2024 Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024 Electoral Legislation Amendment (Fair and Transparent Elections) Bill 2024 (No. 2) Electoral Legislation Amendment (Lowering the Voting Age) Bill 2023 [No. 2] Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Protecting Environmental Heritage) Bill 2024 Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Regional Forest Agreements) Bill 2020 Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2024 Freeze on Rent and Rate Increases Bill 2023 National Housing and Homelessness Plan Bill 2024 (No. 2) Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024 Treasury Laws Amendment (Extending the FBT Exemption for Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles) Bill 2024 5. The committee considered the following bill but was unable to reach agreement: Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 (Anne Urquhart) Chair 27 June 2024 Appendix 1 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Private Sexual Material) Bill 2024 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To ensure there is a committee enquiry into this important matter. Possible submissions or evidence from: Individuals, stakeholders, and other parties. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): July Possible reporting date: 8 August 2024 (signed) Wendy Askew SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Private Sexual Material) Bill 2024 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: Online safety Public interest, harm prevention Regulatory reform Possible submissions or evidence from: Public advocacy organisations Privacy groups Parents, Principals, victims Media and technology orgs Committee to which bill is to be referred: Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): July 2024 Possible reporting date: 8 August 2024 (signed) A. E. Urquhart Appendix 2 SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024 Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024 Nature Positive (Environment Law Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024 Reasons for referral/principal issues for consideration: To enquire into the Governments proposed laws. Possible submissions or evidence from: Interested parties, agricultural stakeholders, and other individuals. Committee to which bill is to be referred: Environment and Communications Legislation Committee Possible hearing date(s): July Possible reporting date: 8 August 2024 (signed) Wendy Askew SELECTION OF BILLS COMMITTEE Proposal to refer a bill to a committee Name of bill: Nature Positive Bills (EPA, EIA and transitional) Reasons for referra1/principal issues for consideration: Allow time to consider details of proposed legislation Possible submissions or evidence from: Environment sector, experts, scientists, business Committee to which bill is to be referred: Environment & Communications Possible hearing date(s): August Possible reporting date: 3 September (signed) Nick McKim Senator URQUHART 231199 I move: That the report be adopted. 11:17 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: At the end of the motion, add: ", and: (a) the provisions of the Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024 and related bills be referred immediately to the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 8 August 2024; and (b) the provisions of the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 not be referred to a committee. 11:17 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Can I ask that the amendment just moved by the minister be split and voted on separately? The PRESIDENT 112096 Yes. 11:18 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I'm also going to ask that those are put separately, because the Greens intend to vote differently on them, and I move the following amendment: At the end of the motion, add: "and, in respect of the provisions of the Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024, the Nature Positive (Environment Protection Australia) Bill 2024, and the Nature Positive (Environment Law Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024, the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee report by 3 September 2024". And I want to speak to that briefly. I just want to be clear about how broken our environment laws are in Australia. Our environment laws are misnamed; they are actually development laws, laws that enable the destruction of our environment. They do not do what most people think they should in this country, which is protect our environment from destruction. There are so many flaws in Australia's environment laws. But one, if not the biggest, flaw is that logging is exempt from our environment laws if it is conducted under a regional forest agreement. It's time to end native forest logging in Australia. It's also time to end the carve-out from the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act that the mendicant native forest logging industry in this country enjoys. To that end I want to tell the Senate about a recent trip I had, hosted by the legends at the Bob Brown Foundation, and the brave Australians who are defending this most beautiful, spectacular piece of forest right in the heart of Takayna, the Tarkine, at the junction of the Arthur and the Frankland rivers, where right now the loggers are logging into the night under floodlights to try and get that coupe completely destroyed before the end of the month when they will have to stop logging it because it is wedge-tailed eagle habitat and they're not allowed to log it into July. That's why they're logging into the night right now under floodlights and that is why heroic forest defenders supported by the legends at the Bob Brown Foundation are now into their 38th day of direct action. They are brave Australians, who stand on the right side of history and who stand to protect nature, the carbon in those forests, the beautiful myriad creatures that call those forests home, the significant Aboriginal cultural heritage of that area, the carbon in the soils, the carbon in the trees, the carbon in the deadwood and the senescent trees that provide habitat for so many beautiful creatures, including the endangered masked owl. Those brave forest defenders are there on the ground right now, and I want to give a massive shout-out to them. I want to give a massive shout-out to the heroes and legends at the Bob Brown Foundation. Coupe FR002A is being logged by the Tasmanian Liberal government with the support of a federal Labor government using public subsidies handed out to a mendicant native forest logging industry that would be finished overnight if you just pulled the public subsidies out of it. That would be the end of the native forest logging industry because it can't even turn a profit without tens of millions of dollars a year in Tasmania alone going into public subsidies in that industry. We need an adequate inquiry into the so-called nature positive cognate package of bills, which I remind folks constitutes a huge and horrendous breach of trust from the environment minister, Ms Plibersek, and in fact every single Labor member in this place and the other place, who committed to the Australian people before the last election that we would get the significant overhaul of our environment laws that so many millions of Australians want to see. It's a broken promise. Here we find ourselves with a massive broken promise. Why did they break that promise? Because this is the Labor Party and they don't care about nature. They just care about their political donors in the fossil fuel industries. They just care about developers turning a profit. And once again it is nature who loses out. Well, the Greens won't let nature lose out. We'll always fight for it. 11:23 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise to speak to the amendment that has been moved to the government's amendment. It is absolutely essential that we have a fulsome and fair dinkum inquiry into these government bills because, as Senator McKim has just so articulately described, it is a broken promise from this government. The government told the Australian people that they would strengthen and fix Australia's environment laws and they haven't. They've dumped the promise to do that, and all we've got now is a piece of legislation that is nothing more than a name change and a desk reshuffle. That's what is on the table. There is no point in having someone else inside the environment department whose job it is to simply implement the broken laws of that department and of that minister. It is as clear as day to anybody watching that Australia's environment laws are broken. They are failing to protect nature, they are failing to stop the destruction of habitat, they are failing to stop the extinction of our wildlife and they are allowing the Minister for the Environment and Water to approve polluting coal and gas projects. What does the minister say about this? 'My hands are tied. My hands are tied.' Oh, give us a break! Do something to protect the environment by acting to protect the environment and stop these polluting projects from going ahead. The current laws allow the destruction of our native forests. We're in 2024, in an environment and climate change crisis, and the federal environment minister can't protect native forests in this country. You know there are a lot of things that need to be fixed with our environment laws, yet what we've got on the table from this government does nothing to correct the situation. In fact, it might even be worse because what it will do is fast-track the approval of destruction. Rather than putting in place rules that give the minister the power to protect, it's going to give bureaucrats the power to fast-track destruction, making the situation even worse. The Greens are prepared to talk to the government about how we can help fix the environment laws. There are two really simple things they need to do: stop approving the destruction of our native forests, and stop approving new coal and gas mines that continue to destroy habitat and make the climate crisis even worse. When you ask average, everyday Australians about our environment laws and you tell them that they do not even consider the impact on climate change of projects and mines, people are shocked. They think this is crazy. What is the point of environment laws if they don't protect the environment? I would put this to you, President: what is the point of having an environment minister if the environment minister won't protect the environment? Of course, it is no surprise that today we have the colluding of the Labor Party and the Liberal Party on these bills. That is no surprise at all because—I tell you what?—the big mining industries, the big polluters, the gas lobby and the coal lobby desperately want these rules passed. It's good for them and bad for nature. So what have they done? They've picked up the phone to their mates in the Labor Party and they've picked up the phone to their mates in the Liberal Party and they've said, 'Can you guys just work this out? Get it done. Don't let the Greens have a say over this, because someone might stand up for the environment.' Is it any surprise that this collusion between the coalition and the Labor Party to do the bidding of the big miners has come only days after the minister for the environment approved a new gas mine and a whole lot of wells for Gina Rinehart. (Time expired) 11:28 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Back over here in reality, I think it's important to put a few facts on the record about what we've just heard—eloquently, I might add—from our friends in the Australian Greens. I think Senator McKim has missed his calling, frankly. He'd be a great fiction writer in a life outside of this parliament—loggers in the night, collusion between major political parties. If you were to believe what you just heard, you could walk outside this chamber and find smouldering stumps and the dead carcasses of animals littering everything everywhere, but the reality is that that is not the case. Nothing of what we've just heard is the case. I might just put on record that the coalition thinks the nature positive bills that somehow form the substance of that—I don't know how you'd describe what was just provided to the chamber—are a dog. The bills are a dog. Yet—do you know what?—we're trying to do our part, as part of this democratic process, to make the bills better. I have a feeling we're going to struggle to get there, because really, as Senator Hanson-Young rightly called out, all this is doing is providing a very expensive legislated way of giving a new logo to the same people—although there are 2,300 more of them, would you believe. The Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water has had its numbers swell by a further 2,300, with not one of those people out there saving koalas from mad property developers; they're here in Canberra propping up the Public Service's contribution to the economy. Those people are not going to be doing anything more. I might remind the chamber that it was this government that promised we'd have new environmental laws in the parliament by the end of last year—2023. We're well into 2024 and we have nothing before us in the way of new laws. We do, though, have a law to set up a new bureaucracy which will do diddly squat to protect the environment, and it will do nothing to protect economic activity and jobs. Again, back over here in reality we're worried about this thing called the cost-of-living crisis. Not one of the previous speakers touched on that. And we need to give credence to the problems being faced by Australian households and businesses. But again, over here, the people who don't represent people in our regions, the people who don't care about jobs in the country—in the mines, on salmon farms, in forests—don't care: lock it up, shut it down, and it doesn't make a damned difference to them and the people who support them. But I'll tell you what, it rips the guts out of our economy. Balance is key. No-one wants to destroy the environment. But if you listen to the fictitious contributions made by the Australian Greens, it's as though, for giggles on the weekend, coalition and Labor senators fire up their chainsaws and go around forests cutting down trees. We don't! We want to protect the environment as well, but we want to do it in a balanced way that protects the economy. We know mining is essential, because without it you can't build towers for wind turbines, you can't extract the critical minerals for your photovoltaic panels for your solar farms and you can't erect massive power lines that go through beautiful forests; you can't do any of that stuff. But hey, look, we could rip it out of Third World countries, developing countries. That's what these people do. On forestry, I might add that we do forestry better here than anywhere else in the world does, if you forget the ridiculous contribution fuelled by something that I don't know is legal. The Australian Greens have failed to point out where in the world forestry is done better than here, apart from countries that don't cut down a single tree. The Greens' alternative, of course, is that instead of using the native timbers that we use for beautiful things like this Senate chamber it would be better to rip off the Congo Basin. In their mind, if you can't see it, it doesn't matter. But the by-product of their policy approach is that Australian jobs go out the door, as do regional communities that, frankly, responsible parties of government care about—some more than others, I might say, with the exception of a few. We would never let that happen. So, with the froth and bubble, the hyperbole that you hear down there—none of it based on fact—we want to have an inquiry into this bill, because, as I said, as it stands today it is a dog. It is a rebranding of a bureaucracy, with a lot more bureaucrats. Hopefully we can make things better, but that sow's ear does not look like it's going to turn into a silk purse anytime soon. 11:33 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise to contribute on this debate on whether or not we will scrutinise a proposal that will barely do anything to fix the environment and whether we will scrutinise that properly or, as the two large parties would prefer, it is a perfunctory inquiry into a bill that appears very ineffective. I was an environmental lawyer before I came to this place. I have a deep interest in how we manage our precious natural assets. And all the indicators are going downhill. Despite some of the lovely promises by this government when they were seeking to form government, we have seen so very little action, and we have seen such decline in biodiversity. We have seen extinction rates continue to go up, despite, again, the lovely words that promised we wouldn't have any more extinctions. We've seen critical habitat continue to be felled. We've seen coal and gas approvals continue to be dished out like confetti—by this government, who said they were going to be different from the last mob yet continue to approve the fossil fuel projects that come to the minister's desk. One wonders whether the donations that are made by the coal and gas companies have some influence over those decisions; certainly the weakness of our environmental laws do. Our environmental laws don't even require the climate impacts of coalmines and gas to be directly considered when the minister is deciding whether to approve those projects. It is ludicrous. These laws, which were written by former Prime Minister John Howard in the nineties, are not serving the needs of our current natural biodiversity and climate challenges. They are out of date. They need to be modernised—and that's what I thought this government promised they would do. Well, where are these reforms? We've got before us, with this package of bills, a proposal to change the chairs on the Titanic. It is a proposal to change the name tag of the existing departmental compliance group and give them more power. These are the same people, administering the same laws, who are presiding over the continued destruction of nature. So yes, we need an inquiry into this, because we want laws that work. We want laws that will protect nature. We want laws that will encourage the minister to say, 'No; I'm not going to approve new coal or new gas.' That is surely the function of our environmental laws. Yet we have this flaccid proposal from the government to simply change the name tag of the compliance branch in the department. I'm sure they're great people, but there are not enough of them, and unfortunately they have been quite ineffective to date. Everybody knows that if you breach your environmental permit, the conditions of your development approval, you don't really get into strife. I'm afraid that changing the name tag is going to do absolutely nothing to address that. What we need in our environmental laws is strong enforcement, but we need strong enforcement of laws that actually work. We need a climate trigger in our environmental laws. We need the minister to be able to say, 'I've considered the climate impacts of this new coalmine, of those new gas wells, and on the basis of the climate I am saying no.' That is not what we have at the minute, and it is so clear that that is why the confetti of approvals for new coal and new gas keep rolling out of the minister's door. Just 48 hours ago in my home state of Queensland, on some of our best food-producing land, out west of where I live, in Wandoan, approval was given by this government for more coalseam gas wells atop the Great Artesian Basin, atop some of our best food-producing land, out to 2080. On what planet should we still be using gas in 2080? Well, there's not going to be much left of this planet if that's the sort of approach this government is taking—and they're allowed to take that approach because our environmental laws say it is fine; there is no barrier to the minister's ticking off on that wanton pollution, because the laws are broken. We need a climate trigger. We need native forest logging stopped—again, through our federal laws, not reliant upon the goodwill of some states who have, thankfully, been progressing this. We need environmental laws that actually work to protect the environment, and we need a minister who's prepared to act in the interests of the environment and do their job. Instead, we have a package of bills that won't do a thing. It will simply change the name tag on the door of an existing ineffective regime that sees biodiversity continue to be trashed and the climate continue to worsen. We expected better from this government, and we stand at the ready to fix these environmental laws. Will you please come to the party, and let's do that together. 11:39 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I'd like to foreshadow that I have a motion around the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 and making sure we can send that to an inquiry following the Selection of Bills Committee's report so that the thousands and thousands of primary producers, small business owners, GPs and schoolchildren in Western Australia can have their voices heard. After the sham of an inquiry conducted by the House of Representatives, we know that Labor isn't interested in hearing about the impact that its bill will have, not just on our global trading reputation, as a world leader in animal welfare standards and a world leader in making culturally appropriate protein available in the Middle East, but also on our local communities right through Western Australia. The coalition has made very clear that, if we are given the great privilege of forming government after the next election, we will overturn this outrageous ban. We will reinstate confidence in not just the live sheep trade but the cattle trade, which is also feeling that this government cannot be trusted. Whether you're in the forestry industry, as we heard earlier, or whether you're in the primary production industries—sheep, cattle, horticulture, dairy—you are in this government's gun, absolutely; make no mistake about it. And it's not just the primary producers. We want to make sure that the whole supply chain have an opportunity to have their say. Primary producers cannot believe that they don't have the social licence to produce clean, green food for the world, that somehow what they do is under attack. This government thinks a paltry $107 million package is going to be enough for intergenerational farming families and production systems which rely on this trade—you can't just send the type of sheep that are bred for this trade into some other market. It actually doesn't work that way, and it shows just how out of touch this agriculture minister is with the production systems, particularly in the west. Those opposite think they can just throw 107 million bucks at primary producers. 'It's not compensation,' the minister said in estimates. No, it's not, because you can never compensate people for taking away their livelihood. Labor governments have form on this stuff. Remember what they did to the live cattle trade when they were last in power. They shut it down—a billion-dollar industry. So don't think that because you keep your head down and keep quiet they're not going to come for you. This is all about a political deal done for inner-city seats in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne, and they're prepared to sacrifice the primary producers and Western Australian regional communities to get that done. Such is the level of disrespect shown by this government—it's great to see the agriculture minister actually in the chamber for this contribution—that it put more money into producing Mad Max, the movie, than it has put on the table for the primary producers in Western Australia that it's going to put out of business. It's not just the Western Australian farmers that are not going to take this silently. The Keep the Sheep campaign has been loud and proud. You can go online and sign the petition. They've already raised over $350,000, and they are not going to spend it in safe coalition seats at the next election. They are going to put it up against marginal seat holders and teals who will not support primary producers—the very people that produce food for the country—and they're not afraid to get political. People say, 'Don't be so political.' This is politics. The only reason these farmers are going to be out of business is that Anthony Albanese, who can thank the west for his prime ministership, has shown who he really is. He's an east coast Prime Minister, an inner-city, left-wing, Labor man, as this policy absolutely shows. We think that these communities deserve a voice. They need a Senate inquiry that will be reporting in September so that those who weren't able to be heard through the House of Representatives inquiry can be. The coalition will never stop fighting for them. 11:44 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I, too, rise to make a contribution on the amendment foreshadowed by Senator McKenzie. My contribution will be a plea to those on the crossbench. This is not an abstract issue. This is not an issue of simple political games. This affects people and their livelihoods. If you don't believe me, just look at the thousands of farmers and supporters of the sheep industry who turned out in WA. These are not dumb or cruel people. These are not people who are fighting for their lives and livelihoods for the fun of it. This is not a simple issue where you can just, at the stroke of a pen, wipe out a significant part of an industry and expect there to be no consequences. This has real consequences for real people. If you read any of the expert testimony that's been provided, you would realise this is about things like flock structure, which takes eight to 12 years to restructure; seasonal feed availability in WA; and competition in the marketplace. This will have a devastating impact on regional Western Australia, and all Senator McKenzie's foreshadowed motion is asking for is a proper hearing, because they have not had a proper hearing. The House of Representatives inquiry was truncated. A handful of farmers got to speak. Most of the submissions weren't even read, because there were so many. This was not a proper inquiry. The job of the so-called expert panel that the minister put together did not include looking at whether this was good policy; the panel only looked at how, given that there was going to be a ban, it should be done. Every regional community that expert panel went to said: 'No, there shouldn't be a ban. There can't be a ban. This will destroy our lives and livelihoods. This will destroy generational farming and the sheep industry in Western Australia.' You cannot ignore these voices. So my plea to you is to reconsider. All we're asking for here is an inquiry. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher has moved an amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report. The amendment has been split into parts (a) and (b), and senators have requested that the voting be split across (a) and (b). We are currently dealing with an amendment moved by Senator McKim to part (a) of Senator Gallagher's amendment. So the question is that Senator McKim's amendment be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [11:52]
(The President—Senator Lines)

13 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, D. W. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 31 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McDonald, S. E. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

11:56 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that part (a) of the amendment that Senator Gallagher's moved to the motion on the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [11:56]
(The President—Senator Lines)

36 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McDonald, S. E. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 10 NOES 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. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

11:58 The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm now going to deal with part (b) of Senator Gallagher's amendment. Senator McKenzie has foreshadowed an amendment, which she's invited to move. 11:58 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I move: At the end of the motion, add: "and, in respect of Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024, the provisions of the bill be referred immediately to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 25 November 2024". The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator McKenzie to part (b) of Senator Gallagher's amendment be agreed to.

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

31 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Van, D. A. 33 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. 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.

12:05 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that part (b) of Senator Gallagher's amendment be agreed to. Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the motion that the report be adopted, as moved by Senator Urquhart and amended by the amendment moved by Senator Gallagher, be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells having been rung— 12:08 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania There seems to be some confusion. I'm not sure what the opposition have done. I don't understand what they've done. So we ask for that question to be put again. Senator Ruston 243273 I ask that the division be cancelled, please. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Ruston. Senator Ruston has asked for the division to be cancelled, so I am going to call it that the motion that the Selection of Bills Committee report be adopted, as amended, has been agreed to. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I remind senators that I did call it that the motion that the report be adopted was agreed to, and a division was called. The division has now been cancelled, so we've reverted back to the original decision, which was that the motion that the committee report be adopted, as amended, was agreed to. BUSINESS 28 BUSINESS Rearrangement 28 12:09 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That: (a) the following government business orders of the day be considered from 12.15 pm: No. 4 COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 No. 5 Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024 Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024, and No. 6 Excise and Customs Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2024; (b) government business then be called on and considered till not later than 1.30 pm; and (c) general business notice of motion no. 540 standing in the name of Senator Shoebridge, relating to whistleblower laws, be considered during general business today. Question agreed to. NOTICES 28 NOTICES Postponement 28 COMMITTEES 28 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 28 12:09 The PRESIDENT 112096 If there is no objection, the business is postponed. CONDOLENCES 29 CONDOLENCES Solomon, Dr Robert John AM 29 12:10 The PRESIDENT 112096 It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death on 14 July 2024 of Dr Robert John Solomon AM, a former member of the House of Representatives for the division of Denison, Tasmania, from 1974 to 1977. BUSINESS 29 BUSINESS Consideration Of Legislation 29 12:10 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move: That— (a) following the introduction and first reading of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024, the bill be divided into two bills and amended in accordance with the amendments on sheet 2683, to create two bills as follows: (i) Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024—containing Schedules 2 to 7, and (ii) Treasury Laws Amendment (Build to Rent) Bill 2024—containing Schedule 1; (b) the bills be printed; (c) the Treasury Laws Amendment (Build to Rent) Bill 2024 be referred to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 4 September 2024; (d) the following reporting dates apply to the Economics Legislation Committee's inquiries into the: (i) Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024, as amended—2 August 2024, (ii) Treasury Laws Amendment (Build to Rent) Bill 2024—4 September 2024, and (iii) Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024—4 September 2024; and (e) further consideration of each bill be an order of the day for the corresponding date listed in paragraph (d). The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion as moved by Senator McKim be agreed with.

The Senate divided. [12:15]
(The President—Senator Lines)

40 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. (Teller) Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hodgins-May, S. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 20 NOES Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Polley, H. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

Days and Hours of Meeting 30 12:17 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory by leave—Thank you very much, colleagues. It's an important day, so I move: That on Monday, 1 July 2024, the Senate meet at 11.30 am. Question agreed to. Consideration of Legislation 30 12:18 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory by leave—I 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. Question agreed to. BILLS 30 BILLS COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 30

COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2023

Second Reading 30 12:19 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland The COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 seeks to amend several Commonwealth acts to update references to the Council of Australian Governments, COAG, and ministerial councils to reflect the cessation of COAG in 2020. The Morrison government's creation of the National Cabinet and the National Federation Reform Council to replace COAG in 2020 marked a core part of the nation's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Morrison government's establishment of the National Cabinet will go down in history as an important and successful vehicle to tackle future threats facing the Australian people. The COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 extracts schedules 1 and 2 of the coalition's COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 but includes additional updates that aim to make the legislation fit for purpose by updating other bills that have been passed since the introduction of the coalition's bill. In 2023, this bill was referred to the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee for inquiry to ensure that this bill had no unintended consequences and that no items of legislation had been missed. On 14 March 2024, the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee published the report of their inquiry into the COAG Legislation Amendment Bill 2023, recommending that this bill be passed. As such, the coalition will provide passage for this bill to update legislation to reflect the cessation of the Council of Australian Governments and the continuation of the National Cabinet. 12:20 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I thank the Senate and the Senate finance and public administration committees, which have been involved in the development and consideration of the COAG Legislation Amendment Bill since the Conran review in 2020. I commend the bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 30 12:21 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024, Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024 31

Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024

Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024

Second Reading 31 12:22 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland The Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024 increase the excise and customs duties for all tobacco products by five per cent per year for three years starting from 1 September 2023. The five per cent increase is in addition to the current biannual indexation based on the average weekly ordinary time earnings. The amendments to the Excise Tariff Act incorporate the excise tariff proposal that applied an additional five per cent increase per year from 1 September 2023 to 1 September 2025 to tobacco excise duty rates and aligned the per-stick and per-kilogram excise duty rates. The amendments to the Customs Tariff Act incorporate the customs tariff proposal that applied an additional five per cent increase per year on and from 1 September 2023 until 1 September 2025 to tobacco customs duties rates and aligned per-stick and per-kilogram customs duty rates. Increasing duties on tobacco also increases the end cost of tobacco products. While these price increases typically reduce overall rates of smoking, they can also push customers to seek out black- or grey-market substitutes at lower prices. This increasingly punishes small businesses who do the right thing and don't sell illegal products. I commit the bills to the Senate. 12:23 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia The Greens will be supporting both the Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024, and we will continue to support wider efforts to reduce the harmful impact of tobacco. The current smoking situation in Australia is the best it has ever been, but there is still a way to go to further reduce smoking rates. Since 1991, smoking rates in Australia have gone down from 24 per cent to 8.3 per cent. The percentage of Australians who have never tried tobacco has risen from 49 per cent to 65 per cent. Tobacco use is still a significant burden, however, on our health system, with 44 per cent of cancer cases being linked to tobacco usage. Australia has long been a world leader in tobacco control. Back in 2012, Australia was the first country in the world to implement plain packaging, a bold step that has become the norm—a significant public health achievement. In our collective efforts in ensuring our community is not exposed to the harms of tobacco, we must continue to make efforts to adapt our policy settings in pursuit of this goal. This bill will achieve a further reduction in smoking rates in line with the National Tobacco Strategy. It is important to recognise that this bill on its own does not go far enough to tackle smoking rates, especially among young people. The rise of vaping amongst young people has resulted in a resurgence of tobacco usage, with research showing that young people who vape are more likely to also take up smoking. This is a significant risk to the public health gains that have been made in the last decades. I was proud to watch the Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill pass through this place this week. As a parliament, we have secured a huge step forward for tackling vaping amongst young people. Vaping and smoking go hand in hand, and we must ensure that, alongside these laws that reduce supply, adequate support is also given to those affected by these laws. The Greens would like to see the government invest in more public health education campaigns to ensure that the health effects of smoking continue to be well understood. We cannot take the gains we have made in the previous decades for granted. The government should also increase the funding provided to quit supports, especially for young people and other vulnerable populations. Fundamentally, it is the Greens' view that the government should not bank the income of this bill and save it for a rainy day. It is paramount that this funding is invested in supports for our community. While we're at it, it'd be great to get some more money for research, education, evaluation and other forms of healthcare cost-of-living relief by—and I make these suggestions quite often in this place—ending the currently supported tax cuts for billionaires and those corporations that receive subsidies from this government while burning down the planet. The Greens want the federal government, along with the states and territories, to invest these funds in public health care. I reaffirm that the Australian Greens will support this bill in the Senate. 12:28 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024 argue that a further tax increase of 15 per cent will encourage Australians to give up smoking. The measure is estimated to increase tax receipts by $3.3 billion for the 2023-24 budget, with $290 million in GST to states and territories. Firstly, as criminologists warn, tobacco tax increases will further grow the black market, pushing people that either cannot afford or are not willing to pay a higher price for their cigarettes to the black market. We're already seeing an underworld war over illegal vaping and tobacco sales, and shady operators have been reported knocking on the doors of now illegal vape shops, offering to take over their lease. Between the two related measures, the government has presented organised crime with hundreds of shops fitted out and ready to go into the illegal vape and tobacco trade. Australia is already losing a considerable amount of tax revenue due to tobacco sales on the black market—tax office estimates are $2.3 billion. This legislation will shift more revenue away from the government, towards organised crime. In 2022 alone, 2.6 million kilograms of tobacco were sold on the black market. That was 2.2 million kilograms more than the previous year, indicating the growing influence of organised crime. It's clear; illegal tobacco consumption is estimated to make up 23.5 per cent of all tobacco sales in Australia. That's almost one quarter driven to the black market—that is, government driving it to the black market. Ten of 15 tobacconists, approached by the Daily Telegraph,sold illegal cigarettes for about $25 less than the legally taxed counterpart—and, they sold single cigarettes, which is an offence. The government's actions endanger small business safety. Over the past six months, Victoria has experienced 40 firebombings to stores that illegally sold tobacco and vapes. In Ballarat, two tobacconists suffered a ram raid, and a drive-by shooting, which left a man dead, was linked to illegal tobacco products. The government says that the 2023-24 budget included $188½ million to fund the Australian Border Force to deliver a new illicit tobacco compliance model. It's unlikely they'll be able to properly crack down, given they're already overstretched in tackling the illegal drug market. I must ask: how did Border Force fail to intercept 2.6 million kilograms of tobacco? Clearly this government has a problem enforcing the laws it already has. Now it wants to make matters worse. The vaping ban has already moved 87 per cent of vape users across to illegal vapes. While yesterday's brief moment of partial sanity will help that figure, it must surely be clear now that more taxation and prohibitions are futile and counterproductive. Here's a better idea: the government should spend less, tax less, and let everyday Australians and businesses get on with their lives. 12:32 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania Firstly, I would like to thank senators who've made a contribution to this debate. Together the Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024 and Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2024 apply to all tobacco goods subject to excise duty and excise equivalent tobacco goods subject to customs duty and will increase the excise in customs duty on tobacco goods by five per cent each year for three years. These bills also align the excise and customs duty rate for tobacco goods subject to the per kilogram rate, with a duty rate applying to the average per stick tobacco content of cigarettes. This alignment will be implemented progressively over four years, from 1 September 2023, ensuring all tobacco products generally have equivalent tax treatment regardless of their form. These changes support the National Tobacco Strategy, in line with the government's aim of continuing to reduce tobacco consumption. I commend these bills to the Senate. Question agreed to. Third Reading 32 12:33 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 No amendments to the bills have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading. 12:33 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania (): I move: That these bills be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bills read a third time. Excise and Customs Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2024 32

Excise and Customs Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2024

Second Reading 32 12:34 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory I rise to speak to in support of the Excise and Customs Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2024. This bill represents a critical step in implementing the final elements of the former Morrison government's deregulation agenda as laid out in the March 2022 budget. Despite being delayed by the current Labor government, which postponed its implementation until 1 July 2024, this legislation is essential for reducing red tape and fostering economic group growth. The Excise and Customs Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2024 will benefit businesses across Australia by simplifying regulatory requirements and reducing costs. This bill is a step in the right direction, but it is only before this parliament because deregulation was a priority for the former coalition government. We need to see more economic reform—not less. Only a Liberal government can deliver this. We need a back-to-basics economic plan that gets Australia back on track. A coalition government will deliver a stronger economy, alleviate pressure on the housing market, support small businesses, deliver more affordable and reliable energy, and increase workforce participation. This will reduce the cost of doing business, improve customer confidence and enhance economic growth. The coalition proudly supports this bill which implements good coalition policy that will allow businesses to thrive and contribute to our economy's growth. 12:36 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I would like to thank the senator for her contribution. This bill contains measures that will deliver significant deregulation benefits for businesses that engage in the manufacture, importation and distribution of fuel and alcohol. Excess regulation and administrative costs for these businesses will be reduced by these measures through making changes to licensing and fuel arrangements. I commend this bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 33 12:36 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 No amendments to the bill have been circulated. Does any senator require a committee stage? If not, I shall call the minister to move the third reading. 12:36 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. MOTIONS 33 MOTIONS Live Animal Exports: Sheep 33 12:38 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I seek leave to move a motion relating to the referral of the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, as circulated in the chamber. Leave not granted. 12:38 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Pursuant to the contingent notice standing in my name as the Leader of the National Party in the Senate, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the referral of the Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee. Here we are again in this chamber that is supposed to provide an opportunity for the people of Australia—across the length and breadth of our wide, brown land—to come before our committees. Whether they agree with the substantive issue or not, they can put their case. The standing committee can hear from community groups and stakeholders and generate a report that will be put before the Senate. The Senate then makes a decision on whether or not to support any given legislation. Here we have the decision of the government to shut the live sheep trade in WA, to put out of work transport and truck drivers, and to put at risk the economic underpinning of regional communities, from one end of Western Australia to the other. That's not to mention the blood, sweat and many, many tears over many, many generations of our primary producers in Western Australia, who are proudly supporting particularly Middle Eastern markets with live sheep so that those predominantly Muslim communities can select their beast and make sure that their families have high-level, clean, green Australian protein on their table each and every night. The Labor Party has made this decision in order to win seats in mainland capitals on the east coast—in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. They've done preference deals and they've also done it to shore themselves up from quite a resurgent Greens party in those seats with an alternative view. So make no mistake, this is a highly political decision, but it has very real-life human consequences for the mums, the dads, the kids, the farmers, the truckies, the processors, the exporters, the doctors, the teachers and the men and women who reside in these communities up and down regional WA. This Prime Minister promised he'd have WA's back. But do you know what? No sooner had he got the keys to the Lodge than he turned his back on Western Australia. If I know anything about Western Australia, as an east coast Nat, I know that there is no capital city in this country that is more connected to where the wealth is generated than Perth. Suburbs of Perth understand that it is the mining industry, the agriculture industry and the fishing and forestry industries that underpin their wealth and the wealth of our nation. That connection has been lost in other capital cities. But the Perth suburbs know that this is bad for WA. They know that this is bad for their friends, their family and their future. That's why the call-in board lights up at 6PR and on ABC Perth when this topic is mentioned. People are not going to take it lying down. They have absolutely had enough and they're going to fight to the death to overturn this. It's why tens of thousands of Australians have signed keep the Keep the Sheep petition and it's why so many thousands of people have donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to get rid of Anthony Albanese's east coast Labor and actually overturn this ban, like the National Party and the coalition have promised to do should we have the great privilege to be returned to government. I want to give a shout-out to the men and women who are the front line of this fight: Paul Brown; John Hassell; the pastoralists and graziers; Tony Seabrook; Mia Davies, the local MP there in the Central Wheatbelt; Shane Love, the Leader of the Opposition in WA; and his many colleagues in the Liberal and the National parties in WA, who are not going to take this lying down and who are going to stand up and fight every inch of the way, just like we are here in the Australian Senate this week. You haven't seen anything yet. It is our desire and strong belief that, irrespective of where you stand on this substantive issue, the Senate is the place for the people to bring their concerns to be heard. We need something better than the sham of a process held in the House of Representatives, where the submissions that people had taken the time to write in haven't even been uploaded onto the committee website. This is people's livelihoods, and you have that level of respect. Give us a real Senate inquiry, make sure people can be heard and then make your callous decision to shut them down. 12:43 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland I too rise to speak about this travesty of a democratic process. It is in the Senate that we have the appropriate place to review the decisions of government. It is in the Senate that we have a properly organised process to hear from both sides of the debate. We had a promise. This is another broken promise from Labor, because the agriculture minister, Murray Watt, promised a Senate committee inquiry. Instead, the House made some very tokenistic inquiry. It was very dissatisfying for all of those concerned. The sense of despair and betrayal on the part of the people of Western Australia who are involved in the sheep industry is shocking. But it's not just those people; sheep growers right across Australia are now affected. They're affected with poor prices, they're affected with an understanding that the business of those people who grow sheep in Western Australia has been fundamentally damaged. There is some proposal that you would be able to convert those sheep, through manufacturing, into processed boxed meat. It demonstrates such a deep lack of understanding on the part of both the minister and the departmental advisers if they think that there's some equivalence between the live export trade and boxed meat. It just isn't equivalent, and that's why we now have Australian beef producers also terrified. Before the last federal election, the then Labor shadow ag minister, Julie Collins, and today's Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, made a commitment to those sheep growers that there would be no shutdown of the live sheep industry. Instead, they have completely reversed that in a deal with the Animal Justice Party for a by-election in Victoria. I appreciate that politics happens, but you can appreciate that all of the beef producers who have been promised that there will absolutely not be a shutdown of the live beef trade now don't believe that. They absolutely don't believe that, and they are now wondering. They haven't got compensation for the last time this Labor cabinet shut down the live beef trade. They're begging for an appropriate settlement, and now they're facing the very real prospect that beef is going to be shut down as well and that the cattle industry will be shut down. Last time that happened, it wasn't just northern Australian producers, northern Australian truck drivers, northern Australian vets, stock and station agents and the small businesses in the communities that were adversely affected so terribly; it was also the beef producers right across Australia when the market collapsed. I don't know if people understand what it is like for somebody who's in the farming industry and who battles climate conditions, market conditions, workforce shortages and all the things that you have very real challenges from when their own government attacks them by ripping away such an important market. You never ever make that money back. If it takes several years for you to grow that animal to provide great, high-nutrition, sustainably grown food and, at the penultimate point when you hope to sell, that market has been collapsed, there is no recovery from that. It takes years to get back on the same financial footing. The Senate is the place to do a proper inquiry into this review. What we are begging for is that Senate ensure that Western Australian farmers, all of the affected businesses—the trucks and the vets and the businesses in small communities—and the children of those people who hope to stay in that industry and who will now struggle to have the balance that their business enterprises need to make them work have a fair hearing, that sheep producers in other parts of Australia have a fair hearing and that farmers and farming right across the country have a sense that the Australian parliament actually is prepared to give them a fair go. This is incredibly important, because it is only when there is faith and trust in our democratic processes that this whole place works. This was a broken promise to the farmers of Western Australia and the farmers of northern Australia, and the rest of the country is now terrified. If we don't step in and hold a Senate inquiry, then this is a sellout of all of them. 12:49 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That the question be put. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the closure motion moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:53]
(The President—Senator Lines)

35 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. 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. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 30 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. 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. Van, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

12:57 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the suspension motion moved by Senator McKenzie be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:58]
(The President—Senator Lines)

30 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. 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. Van, D. A. 35 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. 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. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

BILLS 36 BILLS National Health Amendment (Supporting Patient Access to Cheaper Medicines and Other Measures) Bill 2024 36

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

Second Reading 36 13:00 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I rise to speak on the National Health Amendment (Supporting Patient Access to Cheaper Medicines and Other Measures) Bill 2024. The Greens will be supporting this bill. This bill does a few things, one of which is to freeze the indexation of patient co-payments for PBS medications. It does that for five years for people who are on income healthcare cards, and it does it for one year after the rest of the community. It also provides assistance to pharmacists who are dispensing 60-day scripts. I note, as my Greens colleagues have, that the cost of health care is rising, and this is just one step the government should be taking to reduce the cost of health care for people in this country. So we strongly urge the government to, in addition to this measure, take action on things like putting mental health and dental care into Medicare and moving to a position where people can, no matter their income, access the pharmaceuticals that they need. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the second reading amendment as moved by Senator Ruston be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [13:07]
(The President—Senator Lines)

28 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. 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. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 35 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. 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. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

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

Third Reading 37 13:10 The PRESIDENT 112096 (): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole. 13:10 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 37

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

Second Reading 37 13:12 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia I move an amendment to Senator McKim's amendment to the opposition's second reading amendment: Omit "5 August 2024", substitute "3 July 2024". 13:12 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise to contribute to this important debate in relation to the future of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. I would like to endorse all of the comments made by my Greens parliamentary colleagues. Senator McKim has moved an amendment to the second reading motion which would refer the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024, and the amendments to the bill circulated by the government, to a further inquiry. This is absolutely essential because this is an important piece of legislation and yet the government has dumped on the table a whole list of new amendments which the previous, very short running inquiry was not able to consider. We need to know what the impacts on our own home states of these amendments are going to be. That is why we also want to ensure that an inquiry will consider the responses and the positions of each of the states and territories around the country. That is absolutely fundamental. In my home state of South Australia, the state government will be looking at this and wondering where they fit in. South Australians want to know where they fit in. In fact, Australians right around the country want to know, if the government is going to put a big wrecking ball through the NDIS, what is going to be left for them. Who is going to pick up the pieces? What does this actually mean for the future? This is an important scheme. It's a scheme that gives dignity to millions of Australians because they either live with a disability or have a loved one who is living with a disability. They need to be supported. They shouldn't have to beg and scrape and cry out for the support they need. It is absolutely important that we get this right. The committee that previously examined this piece of legislation actually wanted to conduct further investigation. But, of course, because the government controls legislative committees in this current system, the government didn't want to have a further enquiry so they shut it down, and now they are trying to ram this bill through today. I urge the government to allow the committee process, the Senate process, to do its job properly. Over the winter break, we will ensure that we look carefully at this legislation. We will call the right witnesses from states and territories, we will look at the implications and impacts of the government amendments, and we will consider whether this is fit for purpose and whether this is the right way to go. At the moment, what we know is that this legislation has been rushed and that it does not have the support of even states and territories at this point in time. That does not bode well for vulnerable Australians who are living with a disability or who have a loved one who has a disability. They are going to be left in the lurch. So we can't support the government's amendment to their referral date. Next Wednesday is a joke, frankly. We need to make sure we have the winter break. We call it a 'break' but, actually, our senators—particularly Senator Steele-John—will be working his backside off on this issue, because it is important. He won't be having a break over winter. He will be working hard to get into the detail of this legislation. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 I can assure you that goes for all senators in this building. Thank you, Senator Hanson-Young. Senator Ruston. 13:16 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I too stand to make my contribution to the debate on the motion relating to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024. The coalition have always been of the view that we support sensible measures in this bill, measures the coalition actually sought to implement when we were in government; at the time, Labor campaigned against it. These sensible measures were put forward by a senator in this place, Senator Reynolds, because we believe that we need to protect and preserve the scheme's integrity and ensure the sustainability of the system to allow it to continue to improve the lives of some of Australia's most vulnerable. I think there wouldn't be anybody in Australia who would not see that as a worthy outcome. However, insufficient time has been provided for proper consultation on this bill with the sector and the wider community who have already expressed significant and wide-ranging misgivings about the contents of this piece of legislation. It is the purpose and duty of the Senate to take this opportunity and have a more thorough investigation of a very significant bill, a bill that will have a very significant impact on the lives of many Australians who live with disability. So we do not support this bill being pushed through this place without adequate consultation. And I have to say that this government is building up a bit of a track record on this. We are seeing legislation shoved through this place and policy announced before the necessary stakeholders have been consulted. This is just another one example of that. We've had 2½ days of hearings on a massive bill that has massive consequences. The lack of detail provided by the government for this bill means that those significant concerns have not been able to be considered. Given there is a huge and broad consensus about the need for greater consideration, the coalition will reiterate its willingness to work with the government and others in this place, including the Greens and the crossbench. It is really disappointing that the government has sought to reject a very reasonable request for an extension of the reporting date and for a meaningful hearing with the National Disability Insurance Agency, the very organisation that oversees the implementation of this extraordinary—and first in the world—insurance scheme to look after and support Australians with a disability. It seems to me to be—well, it is—an absolute disgrace. That the Labor Party will not allow proper time for further scrutiny of this bill reflects really badly on them, because 660,000 Australians actually rely on the NDIS. They are 660,000 of Australia's most vulnerable people, who will be impacted by the changes that are being proposed by this bill, and this government doesn't think a few more weeks is necessary for us to make sure that we thoroughly consider this bill. We are absolutely, and always have been, fully committed to the NDIS. We know that Labor underinvested in the NDIS when it was first established and are failing to invest in unmet needs of people with disability. In opposition, Labor stood on the way of the coalition when we made attempts to put the scheme on a sustainable footing. Bill Shorten even accused the coalition of 'pearl-clutching kabuki theatre', claiming that the NDIS was 'tracking just as predicted' and that the coalition was 'hyping fictional cost blowouts'. I have to say that it is really quite distressing for us to be in the position we are in here today of having to force the government to actually allow proper consideration of its own bill. I condemn the government for this action and commend the referral of the bill. 13:21 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I just want to make a brief contribution it to the bill before us today, the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024. For the past three days this week we've heard all the different ways in which those opposite want to stop the NDIS getting back on track. The bill that we're debating here in the Senate is one of the most important bills currently before us. The legislation that it underpins is also some of the most comprehensively consulted on in the Commonwealth's history. The bill will ensure that the NDIS is here for many future generations and for all Australians who need it most. What those opposite have suggested this week is nothing more than time-wasting politicisation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. It's also amazing to see the contributions by some in this place when it comes to taxpayers' money being wasted. The unholy alliance that is now developing between the Liberals and the Greens senators will cost Australians almost $1.1 billion in paying for an unnecessary two-month delay to vital NDIS legislation. At the same time as this costly delay, the Liberals and the Greens members of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee have also made plans to visit Brazil and the Americas. The only way in which I can describe this is that it's a two-week junket, to be frank. It is just amazing to see the attitudes of senators in this place— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 I'm sorry, Senator Ciccone. Do you have a point of order, Senator Scarr. Senator Scarr 282997 I'm quite aggrieved. That's a slur, a personal reflection, on a number of senators who can be immediately identified as members of that committee, and I think it is unparliamentary to comment upon the overseas visits and delegations of committees of the Senate. I think it really is unparliamentary and it should be withdrawn. Senator Ayres 16913 If you require a submission from me on the point of order, I would just make the point that at no point did Senator Ciccone name individual senators. It is entirely appropriate for a senator to contrast the approaches of parties in this place and the different priorities in terms of travel overseas, alternative approaches to the machinery of the Senate and consideration of Senate business over the delivery of important reforms for disabled Australians. In my view, my submission is that Senator Ciccone's comments were entirely appropriate and within standing orders. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 On the same point of order, Senator Henderson? Senator Henderson ZN4 Just on the point of order, it is clear that Senator Ciccone, by naming the committee, has identified the members of the committee. It's a proper foundation of law, including defamation law, that when a group of identifiable peoples are named then it is right and proper that, as a courtesy to the Senate, this should be withdrawn. It is inappropriate. It is unparliamentary. I think it would be appropriate that this be withdrawn. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Order! Just hold your horses. Just hang on. I'm really keen to rule on the original point of order. Senator Ruston, do you have a point of order again? Senator Ruston 243273 I would seek that Senator Ayres withdraw his previous comment. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 I will help you out, actually. Let's go to you, Senator Ayres. I didn't hear what you were saying— Senator Ayres 16913 As I had already indicated prior to Senator Ruston's entirely proper injunction against what it is that I said, I cheerfully withdrew then and I withdraw again. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Thank you very much. Now that we're all back in love, that's fine. I'm going to get back to the original point of order. On the original point of order, Senator Ciccone may wish to clarify a little bit more, but I will give Senator Ciccone the opportunity to carry on and see where he wants to go from here. Senator CICCONE 281503 I like to listen to you and I'm happy to withdraw, but it still does not take away from this place that there is an unnecessary delay in this legislation that is currently before the Senate. That is the point that this government is simply trying to make. After publicly calling on the Albanese government to take action to safeguard the future sustainability of the NDIS and get the scheme back on track, what are we seeing now? The Liberals have joined forces with the Greens to delay the legislation and go on a study tour. I think that is a fair assessment of what is happening here. The Liberal amendment earlier called for a two-month delay— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 A point of order, Senator Hughes? Senator Hughes 273828 He is misleading the Senate, because the committee delegation that is going that is led by Senator Pratt is actually the references committee, and the legislation committee— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 There is no point of order. Resume your seat. Senator Ciccone, you have the call. Senator Hughes 273828 No, he's referring to the wrong committee. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 I have instructed the senator to resume her seat. Her microphone is turned off. Senator CICCONE 281503 Thank you very much for the protection, Acting Deputy President. As I was saying, the Liberal amendment earlier called for a two-month delay so that the government's bill can go back to the Senate committee for more consultation. The Liberal-Greens Senate alliance will have a $1.1 billion financial cost to the scheme. That's right—a $1.1 billion financial cost to the scheme. But, most importantly, it will also have a human cost, allowing people with disability across Australia to continue to be exploited by dodgy providers and criminals. The delay will stop the government from using its NDIS legislation to close loopholes in the operation of the scheme. What we know is that the delays will cost Australians $663 every single minute, $1 million every single hour, $24 million every single day and $160 million every single week. It could have been passed; we have wasted $70 million already. A two-month delay on the passage of the NDIS bill means a $1.06 billion increase to NDIS expenditure over the forward estimates. Senator CICCONE 281503 All the interjections that we are hearing is because those opposite and the Australian Greens are embarrassed about their conduct in this place. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Order! I will just remind especially my left-hand side here that interjections are disorderly. I allow a little bit of free rein, but, quite frankly, my left ear can't stand much more of the tones coming out of one particular senator on that side. I would ask that you give the opportunity for the speaker to be heard in silence. I will just clean that ear out! Senator CICCONE 281503 With the 15 seconds that I have left—this is a real cost to the lives of people with a disability. This is money that could help people with disability thrive and be supported by our world-leading scheme. The numbers don't lie. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Order, Senator Ciccone. It saddens me to tell you that the time for debate has expired. We shall now move to two-minute statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 41 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Cost Of Living 41 13:30 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I rise today to give voice to the concerns of community support providers whom I met at a roundtable hosted by Tim Wilson, the former member for Goldstein and now Liberal candidate for Goldstein. We, together, met with representatives from Bayside Community Emergency Relief, the Hampton and Highett Community Centres, the Committee Information and Support Glen Eira, the City of Bayside Council and the City of Glen Eira Council. I want to thank these organisations not only for taking the time to meet with Tim and me but for the invaluable work that they do in their communities. Our not-for-profit sector is really doing it tough. Rising rents, mortgages, supermarket prices, energy bills and accumulating daily expenses mean that those who are already experiencing financial pressure are struggling even more. One organisation told Tim and me that their emergency relief has more than doubled in recent times because families are struggling to make ends meet. While it's potentially very easy in this place to talk of economics in terms of dollars and cents, the significant human impact is perhaps the most confronting. The Committee on the Cost of Living, which I chair, hears from community groups like this, who witness on a daily basis when people are under financial pressure and the human toll it takes. Charitable organisations are doing everything they possibly can to keep up with the demand in their local communities, all while trying to keep up with their own cost pressures. The Albanese government has failed to remove those pressures that are impeding these organisations from helping their communities, and this last inflation data proves that Labor is entirely out of touch with economic reality. The people of Goldstein and indeed the people of Australia can't afford another three years of Labor. That's why they need Tim Wilson back— (Time expired) Budget 41 13:32 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland The Albanese Labor government does understand the pressures that Australians are feeling right now due to cost-of-living pressures, and that's exactly why we are helping all Australians with the cost of living. From 1 July—in just four days time—we are delivering a tax cut for every single Australian taxpayer, not just some. On top of this tax relief for every single Australian taxpayer on 1 July from the Albanese Labor government, we're also delivering $300 of energy bill relief for every single Australian household and $325 for every single small business. For Queenslanders, that will mean that, combined with the efforts of the Miles government, we will be delivering $1,300 off their energy bills. On top of this, on 1 July—in just four days time—we'll be freezing the cost of more PBS medicines for every single Australian, we'll see a third consecutive pay rise for 2.6 million workers come into effect, and we'll be funding more homes in every single part of the country. All of this cost-of-living relief for families across Australia is on top of our delivery of cheaper child care, fee-free TAFE and the biggest investment ever in the expansion of bulk-billing. We know that there are cost-of-living pressures that families are facing. This is part of a longer-term economic plan—helping Australians right now, working to bring down inflation, and making a plan for the future—to ensure that we have a future made in Australia. In four days time, on 1 July, every single Australian taxpayer will get a tax cut. (Time expired) Gaza 41 13:34 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales We are all in parliament to use the collective power the public entrusts in us to create a better world. When we fail to use that power or we use it contrary to the public interest, we betray that trust. The world's been watching in horror as the unfolding genocide in Gaza continues. As we speak here, there are thousands of children trapped under rubble and 10 children a day are becoming amputees in Gaza. In the face of this horror, the Albanese Labor government has not just remained silent; it has tried to silence others. With all the power and influence of government, Labor has decided to weld it not in favour of peace, international law or human rights but to demonise protesters and suppress calls for ending the two-way arms trade with the State of Israel. This has seen the extraordinary statement from Foreign Minister Wong that Australia only exports non-lethal parts for fighter jets Israel uses in the bombing. The mechanism that allows the fighter jet to drop its bombs? Non-lethal, apparently. The weapons adapters made in Queensland? Non-lethal. The joint strike missile integration, headed up by BAE Australia? Apparently non-lethal. Only a few days ago, the UN called on companies like BAA and Lockheed Martin and the governments that support them to stop providing weapons to Israel. This is the same Lockheed Martin, of course, that has said that every F-35 fighter jet built contains some Australian parts and components. It is the same BAE that the Albanese government was applauding and shaking hands with only last week. This government has pumped millions of dollars of public funds into companies profiting off the genocide in Gaza. You cannot plead ignorance. The Albanese Labor government is complicit. There's a choice here about how to exercise the power of government, and it's a choice that this government has failed. It is this government that's fuelling conflict. It is this government that's stifling change and ignoring calls from the public. It's this government that's attacking social cohesion. (Time expired) Beaker Street Festival 42 13:36 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania I rise today to invite you to a place where science meets art, where you will find out if Dr Karl really can answer any scientific question and where you can see the tallest flowering forest in the world. This is just a small sampling of the events that make up the Beaker Street Festival, an exciting, week-long celebration size that will keep Tasmanian and the state's visitors' minds ticking over during winter. Now in its eighth year, Beaker Street Festival was started by evolutionary biologist Dr Margo Adler. She wanted to banish boring science and welcome everyone in so they could see how incredible science really is. Dr Adler is passionate about science and making it accessible to everyone, which I can say truthfully as she has also been mentoring me in all things science as part of the Science and Technology Australia STEM Ambassadors Program for the past year. When I met Margo, I not help but be caught up in her enthusiasm for how science can bring us together. After all, we breathe the same air and gaze up at the same moon, so it makes sense that there would be many ways that people from all walks of life can share conversations and experiences at the festival while learning more about how everything works. The 2024 Beaker Street Festival theme is 'big things', with events between 6 and 13 August in Hobart, the east coast, Coal River Valley, Kingston Beach, Mount Wellington, Mount Field National Park, Westbury, Mona and many places in between. Visitors will see glowing flora and fauna, look out for auroral activity, explore abandoned railway tunnels for mushrooms, drink Antarctic cocktails and have enthusiastic and engaging conversations about what is happening in science right now. You can find out more at beakerstreet.com.au, and why not plan a trip to Tasmania for the festival in August? Cost of Living 42 13:38 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales We know that there are people doing it tough now with the cost-of-living pressures, and those challenges have been with us for way too long over many years. Contrary to the Liberals and Nationals, who have voted against cost-of-living relief at every opportunity, on 1 July more of Labor's cost-of-living plans will come into effect. Firstly, every single Australian will benefit from Labor's tax cuts. The Deputy Leader of the Liberals, Sussan Ley, said she wants to scrap them. Secondly, 2.6 million low-paid workers will get their third consecutive pay increase under this government: $110 extra per week in total. Of course, those increases have been supported by Labor and opposed by the Liberals and Nationals at every single turn. Thirdly, 10 million households will receive $300 off their energy bills. While we're providing $300 in direct energy bill relief, the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Dutton, wants to impose a $600 billion nuclear tax on every Australian. Fourthly, we're continuing to freeze the cost of critical medicines for every Australian, because we're committed to strengthening Medicare and dealing with cost-of-living medicine costs, unlike Mr Dutton, who as health minister tried to kill bulk-billing and introduce a GP tax. There is much more we're doing on 1 July. Your superannuation guarantee is increasing, after years of freezes by the Liberals and Nationals. There are two more weeks of paid parental leave, and more funding for housing, health care and fee-free TAFE. Labor's plan is providing cost-of-living support while putting downward pressure on inflation. The Liberals and Nationals' only policy is to introduce a $600 billion nuclear tax on every Australian household. Tasmania: Child Abuse 42 13:40 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania In Tasmania we have a crisis of the worst kind. Our kids are dying because our Liberal government is failing them, failing miserably to provide protection for Tasmania's most vulnerable kids, especially in my backyard, on the north-west coast. The findings of the Commission of Inquiry into the Tasmanian Government's Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in Institutional Settings were an absolute national shame, and Tasmania was rightfully shamed by international organisations, yet the state Liberal government continues to fail in child protection services. Crippling staff shortages have had catastrophic consequences. Late last month in Smithton a four-year-old boy died after a man allegedly stomped on him. That four-year-old had a whole life in front of him stolen by those who should have been caring for him. Nothing the state government does now will bring that four-year-old boy back—absolutely nothing—but what the state Liberal government can do is make sure another Tasmanian child doesn't die at the hands of neglect. On the north-west coast, 60 per cent of jobs in child safety are currently vacant. That's well over half. There have been claims that the state government's health line, Strong Families Safe Kids, has had over 1,000 referrals that are still sitting on the desk. That this kind of neglect has happened and continues to happen makes me feel physically sick. It is totally unacceptable, and it doesn't look like there is an end in sight. Despite all of this evidence and all of the headlines about the sorry state of Tasmania's child protection sector, the Rockliff government still seems to be putting the protection of our most vulnerable children at the bottom of their to-do list. Minister Jaensch told the Mercury newspaper two days ago, 'The government is currently working on a package and will have more to say on this in the coming days.' Well, mate, you've had 10 years to fix it, and we've got dead kids. This is really—it's not even unacceptable; I can't find a word for it. It's absolutely horrific—10 years, Premier Rockliff. I can tell you: Tasmanians have every right to feel safe, but our kids have even more of a right to feel it. Cybersafety 43 13:42 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia Still on the theme of risk to our children: one year ago I stood in this chamber to help raise alarm at the rising rate of sextortion. I talked about a 14-year-old Adelaide boy who received this silent but potentially deadly message: Hey this is the end of your life. I am sending your nudes to the world now. Chilling—but there was much more. Thankfully his parents were aware of sextortion and acted immediately, seeking help from the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation. Their quick action averted a family catastrophe. Not everyone, though, has been that fortunate. Suicide is the leading cause of death for males under 30. Online abuse is helping to drive that. Twelve months ago there had been a hundredfold increase in reports of sextortion crimes. It has now quadrupled, to a 400-fold increase. Teenage boys make up the vast majority of victims. A lack of parental knowledge of social media risk can be and has been catastrophic. A Victorian father recently shared with me his heartbreaking story of finding out about sextortion too late for his now deceased son. In government, we would double the size of the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation because in 2022-2023 it received more than 40,000 reports of child exploitation—and Australians must keep reporting it. Now we see legislation to combat sextortion and deepfake material. Tightening age verification rules for social media giants could have been done last year when the coalition ramped up campaigning for it amid escalation and growing evidence of risk. The PM is finally now supportive of age verification as a solution posed by opposition leader Peter Dutton to this heinous criminal activity that targets our Australian children from anywhere. Tertiary Education 43 13:44 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia The Albanese Labor government is committed to improving access to education in Australia, particularly in regional Australia. In March this year, the government announced the creation of 10 new regional university study hubs, including two new hubs in Western Australia. The Ashburton University Study Hub will be operated by Pilbara Kimberley University Centres, which operate existing hubs in Broome, Karratha and Port Hedland. The new hub will build on existing services, while tailoring offerings specifically for students in Onslow and Tom Price. The new Katanning hub will be built on the success of the existing hub in Albany and will service students in Katanning. Regional university study hubs offer facilities and support to permit young people to undertake their studies while staying in their communities in regional Australia. The types of facilities that they offer include study areas, student lounges and kitchens, as well as high-speed internet and videoconferencing facilities and student support services. Regional participation in tertiary education remains disproportionately low. In 2022, while 26.2 per cent of Australians lived in areas classified as regional or remote, only 19.8 per cent of university students came from those areas. There is also significant inequality in tertiary completion rates for students from non-metropolitan areas. In 2018, 14 per cent of regional and 17 per cent of remote university students left their courses within the first year, and that is considerably higher than the national rate of around 10 per cent for metropolitan students. There are a number of other risk factors in this space, but it is important to note that only 44 per cent of regional students over the age of 25 studying part time successfully completed their degrees. That significant gap in tertiary education attainment levels between metropolitan and regional students is something that this government is committed to solving. AUKUS 43 13:48 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia In the recent estimates sessions, the chief of Australia's Navy apologised for not consulting with First Peoples about the construction on Meandup / Garden Island, the home of HMAS Stirling in my home state of Western Australia, which is less than five kilometres off the shore in the Derbal Nara, the Cockburn Sound. A subsequent meeting with the Navy was cancelled and we are still waiting for a rescheduled meeting. First Nations people have not been given a chance to be heard, and yet the work on this project continues. This is an indication of how AUKUS is causing issues across the country already. The nuclear waste dumps are sure to follow, and I will lay odds that the proposal for waste dumps on First Nations land is coming soon. We know this history all too well. You only have to look as far as Maralinga. The costly AUKUS deal binds us to the US military-industrial complex and brings with it all the disrespect towards First Nations land that comes with it—destroying our land and sea country. I want to see the 65,000 years worth of songlines—the songline of the Mamang, the whale, that goes right through this area—and the other tangible and intangible cultural heritage that litters the place around Garden Island and around the Derbal Nara protected from these types of projects. I've met recently with community members who are calling for a stop to this, but their calls are falling on deaf ears, as Labor do not listen. I don't want to see land that's been ravaged and destroyed returned to First Peoples; I want to see Labor's promised cultural heritage laws brought forward, and I don't want to see exceptions to that that made for military bases and waste dumps. AUKUS is about US subs. There's only a small chance of Australian ones. Don't talk about sovereignty when you're handing it away under a deal. Gambling Advertising 44 13:48 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory When it comes to gambling, Australia is the biggest loser in the world. We lose more per capita than any other country. Australians are sick and tired of turning on the TV and seeing gambling ad after gambling ad. Based on this concern, and the leadership of the late Peta Murphy, the Murphy review was a landmark report, mapping out a way to deal with this as a country where 75 per cent of young people now think that gambling is just a normal part of sport. Friday marks one year from the Murphy review, and we haven't heard a peep from the Labor government in response. We've seen nothing. Ms Murphy didn't mince her words at the time when she said that betting ads were grooming children. The recommended phased ad ban across all platforms was supported by everyone involved in the inquiries. It was a multipartisan backed report, yet, a year later, Labor haven't moved. We have to call this out. We have to have the courage to stand up to the gambling industry and to put our kids, Australian children, ahead of the profits of mostly multinational companies that are spending $260 million a year advertising their products, which are causing harm, addiction and other issues for people, families and communities—and we all pick up that bill at the end of the day. It's not good enough, and I urge the Labor government to act. Nuclear Energy 44 13:50 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I rise today to say that the nuclear energy debate is a debate this country must have. Firstly, I want to pay tribute to my good friend and colleague Mr Ted O'Brien, the federal member for the seat of Fairfax in my home state of Queensland. I think one of the reasons we're now in the serious steps of this debate is the gravitas, professionalism and rigour which my dear friend Ted O'Brien has brought to this debate. It really is a compliment to Mr O'Brien—who's part of a wonderful Queensland family, the O'Briens—and I really do congratulate him for it. If Australia does not move, we are going to be left behind. The risk is that the rest of the world embraces nuclear power and Australia doesn't. That's the real risk. I want to give you some startling figures. There are currently 440 nuclear energy power plants around the world, providing clean energy. There are 61 new plants being built today, and they're on every continent except Antarctica and Australia. In North America, Canada has 19, Mexico has two and the USA has 94. In South America, Argentina has three and Brazil has two. In Europe, Finland has five, the Czech Republic six, Hungary four, Romania two, Slovakia one, Ukraine 15, France 56, the Netherlands one, Spain seven, Sweden six, Switzerland four, the UK nine, Armenia one, Belarus two, Russia 36, Bulgaria two and Belgium five, and Turkiye has one under construction. In Asia, the United Arab Emirates has four, China 55, India 23, Japan 33, South Korea 26, Taiwan two, Pakistan six and Iran one, and Bangladesh has one under construction. In Africa, South Africa has two and Egypt has one under construction. We cannot afford to be left behind. (Time expired) Economy 44 13:52 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The response from Treasurer Jim Chalmers to yesterday's increase in the inflation rate was, 'There's more work to be done.' Oh, really? I would think the Treasurer has done quite enough already, thank you very much. Inflation is increasing, unemployment is increasing, mortgages and rents are increasing, the cost of living—including energy prices and grocery prices—is rising, and building costs are increasing. Bankruptcies are at a record high, with construction companies heavily featured. GDP per person is falling, and the economy as a whole is almost in the red. Taking these indicators together shows that Australia is in the early phases of stagflation, the scourge of the Whitlam, Fraser and Hawke governments. A One Nation government would immediately reverse the economic mismanagement of recent Liberal and Labor governments. We would grow Australia out of stagflation. We would shut down the department of climate change, withdraw from the UN Paris Agreement and rebuild our energy infrastructure with the lowest-cost power generation: hydro, coal and nuclear. We would terminate environmental and economic vandalism coming from pumped hydro and offshore wind by refusing industrial wind and solar generation on productive farmland and in native forests. We would take the government's jackboot off our farmers' throats and support our agricultural sector to once again feed and clothe the world. We would immediately freeze the issue of new permanent visas and review the skills list, to ensure those who arrive have the skills we need to support economic growth, and we would send home some people who are currently on resident visas. We would build Inland Rail to the Port of Gladstone, build a national rail circuit and a national shipping fleet, and push steel parks at Abbot Point and Port Hedland. We would close down insane pumped hydro projects and green energy subsidies. We would use the east-west rail line to support Aboriginal communities, mining and agriculture across the Top End and Central Australia. The government can only offer stagnation and decay. One Nation policies, though, represent growth and prosperity for all, for a secure future. Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) Bill 2023 45

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

13:54 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria I note the report tabled yesterday, following the inquiry into the Climate Change Amendment (Duty of Care and Intergenerational Climate Equity) Bill 2023, and the government chaired committee's recommendation that the bill not pass. That recommendation is as disheartening as it is predictable from a government trying to make itself the smallest possible target, a government constantly dodging its responsibility to young people in the face of climate change. The Greens tabled our dissenting report recommending this bill should pass. The government's arguments against the bill serve as nothing more than a smokescreen for its true intention: to avoid accountability, to avoid scrutiny and to protect the voices of the fossil fuel lobby and donors that line its pockets. Meanwhile, the futures of young people hang in the balance as they await decisions made by leaders more interested in self-preservation than in protecting our young people. If the government truly believed in the principle of intergenerational equity it would engage in good faith with the young people driving this bill. If the government truly believed that this legislation was not fit the purpose, it would seek to amend it. Instead it has dumped it in the too-hard basket, giving up on the climate and our young people. In refusing to support this bill, the Albanese government put themselves on a unity ticket with the former government, which took young people to the Federal Court to argue that they didn't have a duty of care. Securing the future for our young people deserves action and ambition, not an endorsement of the status quo. Anjali, Hannah, Jess and Daisy, the young people who have driven the campaign to date, have exposed a grim reality. In this place, a proposal can have support from Australia's medical sector, young people, peak education and legal bodies, and advocacy organisations—it can even have the support of some of the government's own politicians—yet the major parties still fail to show the climate leadership that Australians deserve. Shame! Murray-Darling Basin 45 13:56 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria For the people and the environments that rely on the Murray-Darling Basin, how water is recovered, and where from, are as important as how much is recovered. I visited family farms in Victoria along the Murray and chatted with locals about the water situation. The farmers and community spoke with a mixture of frustration and sorrow about the uncertainty that looms over their future, due to water management policies. I'm a passionate advocate for delivering the Basin Plan in a way that protects regional economies and delivers positive outcomes for communities and the environment and increases traditional owners' involvement. The limited detail on how this will occur is deeply concerning, and we heard that in estimates only recently. The farmers and communities who rely on the basin deserve to know how water recovery will be managed to minimise negative impacts. Open-tender buybacks cannot provide this certainty. Strategic, targeted water recovery, using a range of mechanisms like leasing, can provide security and sustainability that create benefits for everyone. Open-tender buybacks only benefit individuals and lead to an imbalanced market and ongoing maintenance costs for underutilised infrastructure. Past untargeted water-purchase programs in northern Victoria have created a Swiss-cheese effect, a patchwork of reduced irrigation that fails to reduce infrastructure costs and that harms local communities. Open-tender water purchases result in significant economic harm to our agricultural sector as well as to the communities that rely on it. The government need to clarify whether they will use strategic buybacks or rely on the open market. Will leasing be a viable option before buybacks begin? The 450-gigalitre target should not overshadow the positive outcomes for the basin and its communities. Budget 46 13:58 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I'd like to take this opportunity to remind colleagues that, the next time the Senate sits, every taxpayer will be paying lower taxes because of the government's tax cuts. Also, 2.6 million low-paid workers will get a pay rise, and that's the third consecutive increase since we came to office. Every household will see $300 for energy bill relief, and there's $325 for each eligible small business. There will be a freeze on the price of PBS medicines, and those starting a family will have access to an additional two weeks of government paid parental leave. Under the Albanese government, all 13.6 million Australian taxpayers will get a tax cut, not just some, as was proposed by those opposite, and 11.5 million Australians will get a bigger tax cut than they would have under those opposite. Families are set to be the biggest beneficiaries of our tax cuts, and recent analysis shows that households with children will receive an average tax cut of $3,000. This is what the Albanese government are delivering on and this is why we are in touch with families and are supporting them. This is the record of the Albanese government. The PRESIDENT 112096 We will now move to question time. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 46 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 46 14:00 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. In question time on 15 May this year the minister said that we will reach an inflation rate with a '2' in front of it through the year. Minister, do you still believe that you will reach an inflation rate with a '2' in front of it through this year? 14:00 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Birmingham for the question. In that answer on 15 May I was reflecting the Treasury forecasts which are contained in the budget. That is the Treasury advice to government on their expectations around inflation. So my comments, as I relayed them on 15 May, are accurate. And I would say that while the monthly CPI figures move around from time to time and don't necessarily measure the same things, we do have inflation at about half of its peak and certainly significantly lower than what we inherited when we came to government, and that is a welcome outcome. We are pleased with that, but it is still too high, and we want it to come down lower, which is why our calibrated and carefully thought-through budget, which has those measures that put downward pressure on inflation whilst also supporting households, is an important part of our plan. The other part of our plan, obviously, and as I've talked about, is delivering a surplus—a second surplus—which is something those opposite were unable to deliver. We've delivered one surplus. We're tracking for a second surplus. The savings that we have found—none of that was delivered in the last budget of the former government, where I think there was $40 billion worth of spending and not a cent in savings, at a point when inflation was higher than it is now. So, we are making good progress. There is more work to be done. We recognise that people are under the pump, that households are under the pump. Hence our sensible cost-of-living relief, some of which comes in on 1 July. How many days away is that? It is four days away. That will assist families with some of those pressures. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, first supplementary. 14:02 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Minister, yesterday you stated that 'the RBA forecast and the Treasury forecast are very similar'. Treasury has forecast an inflation rate of 3½ per cent for the June quarter. The RBA has forecast a different figure, at 3.8 per cent for the June quarter. And of course inflation for the month of May is running at four per cent above both those forecasts. Is inflation still on track to reach the RBA's target band by 2025, or not? 14:03 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The RBA are responsible for their inflation forecasts, and the inflation forecasts that they released in May 2024 were, from memory, a week before the budget was handed down. The Treasury forecasts had the benefit of the measures that had been agreed by the government in terms of formulating the measure. Outside of that, the forecasts between the RBA and the Treasury are, as I said, quite similar. And I think all of us in this place should be working to make sure inflation comes back to band as soon as possible, because that impacts households. Those opposite have not come up with one idea of something they would not spend on in this budget that would have an impact, certainly in the next financial year, whilst they criticise it. So, you can go out and criticise everything the government is doing, but you haven't come up with one suggestion or one plan about how that might be achieved. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, second supplementary. 14:04 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Minister, this morning you said that there's no doubt that those 13 interest rate increases have really hit households. Minister, Australian markets are now pricing in a 78 per cent chance of another 0.25 per cent rate hike by November this year. How hard do you think a 14th rate rise will hit already-struggling Australian households? 14:04 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The comment that I made this morning was accurate. We see in the consumption data, in retail trade and in a range of the other economic datasets the impact that those interest rate increases are having on households. I would say that inflation now is significantly less than it was when we came to government. Let's remember when the interest rate increases commenced: they commenced under you, Senator Birmingham. That is the economic impact. Senator Duniam 263418 Oh, okay—it's all our fault! Senator GALLAGHER ING No, I am merely pointing out the facts: when the RBA started their interest rate increases, it was happening in an environment where inflation was higher and you were in charge. We have managed to bring that inflation down. We want it to come down further, but we have done the hard work, through our fiscal policy and other measures, to make sure that is the case. Cost of Living 47 14:05 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. I note that since taking office the Albanese Labor government has been focused on getting wages moving and easing cost-of-living pressures after a decade-long race to the bottom on wages under the Liberals and Nationals. How does the Labor government's agenda make sure Australians are earning more and keeping more of what they earn? 14:06 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland That is a great question, Senator Sheldon. I think it'll be hard to top that question today. I'm pleased to let Senator Sheldon know that, under the Albanese Labor government, more people are earning more and keeping more of what they earn. Our workplace relations agenda is helping Australians with secure jobs, better pay and safer workplaces. Those people in the gallery want to hear about that: about getting higher pay, more secure jobs and even more. Thank you for the applause. I'm pleased to tell the gallery that on 1 July, next Monday, Labor is delivering a tax cut for every taxpayer, including every taxpayer up there in the gallery; $300 in energy bill relief for every household, including the households of those up there in the gallery; a freeze on their PBS medicine costs; a pay rise for the 2.6 million people on awards; and 1,721 more dollars a year for workers on the minimum wage. Every one of those measures was opposed by Peter Dutton and the opposition. Unlike the opposition, we believe that helping Australians get higher wages is a key part of providing cost-of-living relief. We know that the previous coalition government kept wages low as a deliberate design feature of their economic architecture, but now we know that, in opposition, the coalition have voted against every single one of our workplace relations measures. Of course, we recently learned that their industrial relations spokesperson, Senator Cash, has given her support to the New South Wales Liberal Party's Work Choices style policy platform. In a leaked letter to the New South Wales Liberal Party, Senator Cash said their platform had 'several good ideas that align with the coalition's approach to industrial relations'. What are those good ideas, according to Senator Cash? They include making it easier to sack people, abolishing the better off overall test, removing rights as a condition of employment, and removing award protections for thousands of workers. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, I remind you: when you refer to members in the other place, please use their correct titles. Senator Sheldon, first supplementary? 14:08 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Given that Senator Michaelia Cash and the Liberals have given their support to the New South Wales Liberal Party's risky industrial relations policy platform, can the minister outline how the Albanese Labor government's agenda is getting wages moving for the lowest-paid workers to ease cost-of-living pressures? 14:08 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I would be delighted to, Senator Sheldon. Isn't it interesting that Senator Cash, who usually has a lot to say in question time—she's very busy over there talking about very important matters of opposition right now—when we bring out the fact that she's written to the New South Wales Liberal Party, saying that it has 'several good ideas that align with the coalition's approach to industrial relations'— Senator WATT 245759 Oh, you are here, Senator Cash. What we know about those policies that Senator Cash has endorsed is that they would remove minimum pay and conditions for truckies, nurses, schoolteachers, Australian Federal Police officers, shop assistants, early childhood educators and coalmine workers. In contrast to that, on Monday 1 July, 2.6 million workers in Australia will see their pay increase as a result of the Albanese government's action and the Fair Work Commission decision. Every taxpayer, not just some, will receive a tax cut, and there will be $300 off every power bill for every household. Under Labor, you'll earn more and keep more of what you earn. Under the Liberals, you'll work more for less. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sheldon, second supplementary? 14:10 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I note that the Liberals and Nationals have committed to a targeted package of repeals to the government's workplace relations changes, endorsement of a risky industrial relations policy and an expensive energy policy that won't deliver much-needed cost-of-living relief for two decades. How are the Albanese government's reforms helping Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn while relieving cost-of-living pressures? Why are these reforms so important? 14:10 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Sheldon. As you very well know, the Albanese government's No. 1 focus is easing the cost-of-living pressures for all Australians. Combined with wage growth and our investment in reliable renewable energy, only the Albanese Labor government is delivering the cost-of-living relief that Australians need. Mr Dutton and the coalition want Australians to pay more for their risky nuclear reactors and pay more for their power, but they can't even get their lines straight. Will there be a cap on renewables or not? Senator Birmingham, or 'Solar Simon', as we like to call him, doesn't think so. He doesn't think there will be a cap on renewables. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, withdraw that, thank you. Senator WATT 245759 I withdraw. I didn't realise it was offensive to be called 'Solar' on the other side of the chamber, but apparently it is. But Mr Littleproud, the Leader of the National Party, has a different view. He says there should be a cap on renewables. How much will it cost? Well, apparently Australians aren't entitled to know, but Mr Littleproud says he knows. And the member for O'Connor, Mr Rick Wilson, knows the Collie reactor will be $7 billion. The Liberals and the Nationals want people to pay more for their power. They oppose every cost-of-living measure we're delivering to Australians. (Time expired) Cost of Living 48 14:11 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Minister, after three Labor budgets, the cost of food is up 11.4 per cent and housing 14 per cent. Rent is up 14.2 per cent. Electricity is up 21.5 per cent. And insurance is up 16.2 per cent. Can Australians expect to see significant decreases in the cost of any of these essential items prior to Christmas? 14:12 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Cash for the question. Inflation remains a significant challenge across many economies across the world. Australia is no different. We are seeing a welcome moderation in the inflation rate compared to when we came to government. Let's not forget we inherited inflation at 6.1 per cent. It peaked in December 2022 at over eight per cent. I think it was 8.4 per cent. It has come down and is now moderating, and that is welcome. I would have thought we would have all welcomed that. In terms of the three budgets since we came to power, we have had a record number of new jobs since coming to office. That is a great thing. We have the lowest gender pay gap on record. We have record women's participation. We have wages moving again for the first time, after a decade of stagnation and policy that kept wages low. We've seen increases in the minimum wage. Of course, we've delivered the first budget surplus in 15 years, with another one to come. I know that hurts those opposite. In terms of cost-of-living help and support for families, we have tax cuts for every taxpayer on 1 July. We have cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, Medicare urgent care clinics. We have tripled the bulk-billing incentive. We've got fee-free TAFE places. We've got energy bill relief. We've strengthened PPL. We've extended PPL. We're going to pay super on PPL. All of these are measures that those opposite in 10 years couldn't get around to. We've got increased support for JobSeeker and single parents. We have established the Housing Australia Future Fund, recognising the disarray the housing policy area was in. All of that we've achieved in just three budgets. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, first supplementary? 14:14 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Deutsche Bank chief economist Phil O'Donoghue said yesterday: Underlying inflation is intolerably high in Australia. In fact, Australia is the only G10 country where underlying inflation has increased since December. If the government's budget is working to put downward pressure on inflation, as you continue to claim, why is Australia the only G10 country that has seen a rise in inflation since December? 14:15 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory As Senator Cash knows—or I hope she knows—inflation peaked here lower and later than most G7 countries. Given it peaked later in Australia, its moderation is slightly behind. Senator GALLAGHER ING In fact, it peaked higher in most countries, Senator Birmingham. Across the OECD, inflation in Australia peaked later and lower than 21 out of 37 countries. Interest rates started rising here later than in the US, Canada and the UK. Despite that, our core inflation is lower than the UK and New Zealand. Inflation is moderating, but it will remain higher than we would like for longer than we would like, which is why we've taken the sensible decisions that we did in the budget—not only the tax cuts kicking in on 1 July but energy bill relief, our cheaper medicines policies and our work that we're doing for students with the HELP and HECS debt relief. All of this is to support people at— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister. Senator Cash, second supplementary? 14:16 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia David Bassanese, chief economist at Betashares, described the inflation figure as a 'shocker', adding, 'The result places enormous pressure on the Reserve Bank to raise interest rates in August.' Meanwhile, Steve Mickenbecker of Canstar stated that the inflation rise was 'staggering', predicting the RBA would likely raise rates at its August meeting due to the high risk of entrenched inflation expectations. Minister, do you accept that the likelihood of another interest rate hike has increased? 14:16 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I don't speculate on interest rate increases or decisions made by the independent Reserve Bank. I do note that, in this space, there are a lot of opinions, a lot of commentary and a lot of people writing various commentary about what they expect to see. We do not engage in that. The bank is independent. It will make its own decisions, and we don't pre-empt any of that. But the broader point is that inflation has moderated. It is much lower than its peak. It's much lower than what we inherited when we came to government, and we will continue to use all the levers available to us to make sure that we are putting downward pressure on inflation through measures like energy bill relief and through measures like Commonwealth rent assistance—housing and rents, where we're seeing those rates of inflation higher than we would like. Those measures are targeted at that. At the same time, we'll support households facing cost-of-living pressures through our targeted assistance that we're providing through the budget. Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 49

Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024

14:17 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Minister Watt. In late March your government tried to rush through the Trumpian and anti-refugee Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024. It was still warm from the photocopier when your government was pushing to have it urgently voted through. Three months on, and this stinker of a bill has been roundly rejected, but it remains festering away on the Notice Paper. Why did you mislead the public by saying it needed to be passed in less than two days with no parliamentary oversight? 14:18 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Of course, I reject the proposition that's being put forward by Senator Shoebridge. I remind Senator Shoebridge that not only did the government introduce this bill but the Senate committee that inquired into the bill recommended that the parliament pass this bill. We continue to call on the opposition to commit to supporting the legislation. I'm reminded that, on 28 March this year, the shadow home affairs minister, Senator Paterson, said, 'We will bring our members and senators back whenever required to pass this legislation.' Funnily enough, the opposition have not been prepared to debate the bill, including on many days when it has been listed. Even on 7 May, Senator Paterson said: … we do recognise there's a genuine public policy problem here, which is that some people who are found not to be refugees refused to cooperate with their own deportation and then can languish in Australia for many years after they should. That's a genuine problem. Unfortunately, Senator Shoebridge, as you would be aware, it does require a majority of senators to vote for any bill. We understand the Greens will never support this bill. But the opposition, despite their many claims, including those two from Senator Paterson, have made it clear that they are unwilling to pass this bill as well, even on the many days when it has been listed for debate. So we do continue to call on the opposition to actually do what it says that it's about, which is strengthening our immigration laws. We remain of the view that for those to whom Australia does not owe protection—of course, there's a different situation for those who have been found to be needing asylum in Australia, but for those found not to be affected, we do think that it is the Australian people's right to deport those people, and we think that those laws are required. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, first supplementary? 14:20 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Minister, with 103 public submissions from organisations and hundreds of personal submissions to the inquiry on this bill, only one—and that was from Home Affairs—supported it. Diaspora communities and human rights groups have called this bill 'racist', 'in breach of international law', 'a threat to social cohesion', 'cruel', 'ineffective' and 'unworkable'. Why did your government so fundamentally betray and ignore multicultural communities in Australia by pushing this bill in the first place? 14:20 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I've already outlined here, in Senate estimates and in previous question times the policy basis for this legislation. But I also reject the attempt by the Greens of late to try to characterise themselves as the guardians of the rights of multicultural communities in Australia. Any reasonable observer only need look at not only the history of this government but the history of every federal Labor government to see that the only improvements that have ever been made for the interests of multicultural communities in Australia have been under Labor's governments, including under the Albanese Labor government, whether they be, in every possible way, about immigration itself, about rights for asylum seekers, about support for those who are in Australia or about support for social cohesion—something, unfortunately, that the Greens have yet to learn. We know the Greens aren't interested in social cohesion. They're actually about inflaming division within the community, particularly multicultural communities. Labor stands by its record of supporting multicultural communities. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, second supplementary? 14:21 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Minister, with no-one supporting the bill outside of your government and with your government being too embarrassed to bring it forward, why won't you show some decency and just withdraw it from the Notice Paper and get back a tiny, tiny bit of your reputation with multicultural Australia? 14:22 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Shoebridge, I am well aware that the Greens, in the last little while, have tried to set themselves up as the guardians of multicultural Australia, having previously shown no interest in those issues whatsoever in the entire lifetime of their party. As I say, what this government is about is genuine support for multicultural communities, not actually dividing Australian communities—in particular, multicultural communities—in the way the Greens have been doing of late. This is an important time in Australia's history. We know that there are many international conflicts where there is great division within our Australian community, and what all responsible politicians in this chamber should be doing is actually working to bring communities together rather than dividing them in the way the Greens try to do, in the way Mr Dutton and the coalition try to do and in the way One Nation try to do. We are going to do better for multicultural communities than that. We're going to try to bring people together and we're going to continue supporting multicultural communities for the benefit of all Australians and our whole country. Budget 50 14:23 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Minister, how will the Albanese Labor government's tax cuts in four days time provide impactful cost-of-living relief and benefit for all Australians and all taxpayers, not just some? Can the minister also outline some of the other ways the budget supports all Australians with the challenges of the cost of living? 14:23 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you to my friend Senator Sterle for that excellent question. As he knows and as all of the senators on this side know, in just four days every Australian taxpayer will get a tax cut, and in four days our $300 energy bill relief for every household will also begin. Also, in four days, 2.6 million low-paid workers will get their third consecutive pay rise backed by this government. And in four days, paid parental leave will increase to 22 weeks. What I would say to those opposite who come in here almost barracking for an interest rate rise—the only people in Australia who want an interest rate rise are those opposite because they think it is in their political interests—is that we on this side understand that Australians are under pressure. We on this side understand how important it is to deliver cost-of-living measures to ease cost-of-living pressures. As well as tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer, we are delivering in total some $7.8 billion in cost-of-living relief in the budget. As I said, from Monday, 13.6 million Australian taxpayers get a tax cut—everyone who pays tax, not just some—and the average family will save more than $3,200. Sadly, what is Mr Dutton's plan? Mr Dutton's plan is: 'No.' He is saying no to getting wages moving, no to cheaper medicines, no to power bill relief and no to cheaper childcare. Remember how much they hated having to vote for the tax cuts? Well, they are still saying they were the wrong thing to do. I mean, we really know what the coalition is about, don't we? No to wage increases— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sterle, a first supplementary question? 14:25 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia As a proud member of a Labor government that delivers support for Australians when they need it most, can the minister please tell the Senate why Labor's tax cuts are fairer and better and will support more Australians in more industries, including those who are low- and middle-income earners? 14:26 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Sterle. I acknowledge your advocacy, and that of so many of our colleagues, over so many years for low- and middle-income Australians. That is one of the big differences between our parties. Those opposite—remember—had tax cuts which vastly benefited those on higher incomes. Senator WONG 00AOU And now they are still going on about it. I know it really pains you that 2.9 million people on incomes under $45,000 a year who would not have received at cent under your plan now get a tax cut under us. That really pains you, doesn't it? I look forward to Senator Birmingham being very supportive of the fact that nine out of 10 of our taxpaying constituents in South Australia will get a bigger tax cut. I look forward to Senator Hume being pleased that 86 per cent of Victorian taxpayers will get a bigger tax cut from 1 July. And I look forward to Senator Cash recognising that 81 per cent of Western Australians will get a bigger— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sterle, a second supplementary question? 14:27 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I find it concerning that that mob over there, the Liberals and the Nationals, have voted against cost-of-living relief and don't have a plan to provide reliable, clean and cheap power for this decade. Minister, how is the government supporting Australians with energy bill relief now and planning for the future? 14:27 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you. As Senator Sterle knows, we are ensuring $300 of relief on power bills from 1 July, on top of the relief we have previously provided. In four days, there will be $300 off your power bills. We know the attitude of those opposite because they have been so opposed to assistance to Australian households. Instead, what have they done? Labor's taken $300 off your power bills. In two decades, Peter Dutton will serve up the most expensive form of energy there is and he will ask taxpayers to pay for it. That is their plan. But I'll tell you what, colleagues. Have you noticed something? Have you noticed how they dropped off prosecuting this great political strategy? Have you noticed that nuclear in this chamber is now the policy that dare not speak its name. You know it is a dud. You know it is a dud and you can't even bring yourselves to defend it. (Time expired) Climate Change 51 14:29 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory My question is to Minister Wong, the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change. Minister, does the government owe children a duty of care to protect them against the harms brought about by climate change? 14:29 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I acknowledge that Senator Pocock made a contribution previously and regularly about this issue. I would say to him, as I said when I was climate minister many years ago, that the idea of intergenerational equity does matter, that we do have a responsibility in this place and as political leaders to think about not just the equity for those who elect us now but also those to come. That is one of the imperatives around acting on climate change. That is why, amongst many reasons, this government has been very clear about the level of ambition in our targets and the importance of acting on climate. We know it is a big task to reach the targets that we have articulated. It would have been far better if Australia had not had a decade where we didn't do this work, but we do recognise the economic and generational imperative of ensuring we do transition the Australian economy in the ways that we have outlined. Whether one talks about it in the context of duty of care or whether you talk about it in the context of our responsibility to generations to come, whatever the words you use, I do think those who appreciate what climate change means for our people need to also think about what it means for those yet to come. That's why we need to ensure we transition the economy. And there is only one party of government that will do that work, and that is the Australian Labor Party. We are the only party of government that is prepared to do that. We see that again, if I may say, Senator Pocock, disappointingly, after years of the climate wars, where we thought, finally, some policy sense would be seen in the coalition, we see what's happened under— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, a first supplementary? 14:31 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory A legislation inquiry into my duty of care bill received 403 submissions from young people, academics, lawyers, and even unions supporting the bill. The only submission that opposed a legislated duty of care to protect children was from the Institute of Public Affairs. Why is the government siding with the IPA on climate change government policy? 14:31 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator Pocock, you're generally a very considered contributor to political debate in this place, but that was not a considered contribution. I mean, to suggest that this government— An honourable senator interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU No, I think it's reasonable. To suggest that this government, on climate policy, is doing what the IPA wants in circumstances where you know what conservative think tanks and— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, on a point of order? Senator David Pocock 256136 On relevance, my question is about a legislated duty of care, not about broader climate policy. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Pocock. You referenced your bill and the submissions received for and against, and I believe the minister is being relevant. Minister Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU With respect, Senator Pocock, you're the one who made the suggestions about the IPA. I think I'm entitled to respond on behalf of the Labor government. What I'd say to you is: we understand how important action on climate change is. We fought to ensure a cap on emissions in government. It was obviously highly contested. You may remember the sort of scare campaign that was run by those opposite, including $100 roasts. Notwithstanding that, we have always held our position on climate, and we have gone to numerous elections and we have fought the argument— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, a second supplementary? 14:33 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Minister, will the government go to the next election telling young people that they don't deserve a legislated duty of care from the people who are sent to this place? From what I can see, our job should be to look after our young people and future generations? 14:33 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia We will go to the next election saying to young Australians that they deserve a government that delivers on action on climate change, that delivers a reduction in emissions and that delivers a transition in the Australian economy— Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 A billion-dollar gas project approved yesterday! The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Whish-Wilson, order! Senator WONG 00AOU and the only party of government that will ever deliver that is the Australian Labor Party. And that change will not come from motions on the floor of the Senate, or from slogans, or from political stunts— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Whish-Wilson! Senator WONG 00AOU or from interjections from the Greens political party. It will come from the hard policy work and the hard economic work that we know is required to change this economy from a fossil fuel dependent economy to one that is a clean energy economy and to ensure Australia is a renewable energy power. Change comes from government. The problem in this country is that change has not been delivered until the election of this government and we are delivering it. Economy 53 14:34 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Minister, how much has been added to monthly repayments on the average $750,000 mortgage since Labor was elected in May 2022? 14:35 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I don't have the figures on that in front of me, but we know that we have been experiencing a period of higher inflation than we would want. Certainly, when we came to government, we know what the inflation figures were, and the independent Reserve Bank has made its decision when it comes to interest rates. What I would say to the senator is that obviously the way in which we seek to deal with this, as Senator Gallagher and the Treasurer have outlined and have made clear in their budget, is to balance those competing economic considerations—that is, to ensure we do respond to the challenges that Australians are experiencing in terms of cost of living and to deliver responsible cost-of-living relief but doing it in a way that manages inflation. If you look at the recent inflation figures and what inflation would have been but for some of the measures of this government, including in relation to energy and rent, you can see that is what we are doing. We obviously understand Australians are doing it tough, and we understand that the inflationary environment and interest rate changes have made life much more difficult for many people. That is why we are doing what we can to deliver cost-of-living relief for Australians, as well as delivering budget surpluses rather than just talking about them. Now we're putting it on mugs. But I would also say this: we on this side have been clear about how we approach this. Those opposite have opposed cost-of-living relief time and again and continue to do so. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, first supplementary? 14:37 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Minister, thank you for not answering. Hopefully you can assist us with this one. By how much has real disposable income fallen on a per capita basis since you were elected two years ago? 14:37 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I can tell the senator that we have seen, pleasingly, in the March quarter real wage growth, and the— Senator McKenzie 207825 Real disposable income. Senator WONG 00AOU What I would say to the senator is that we understand that increases in average wages and minimum wages have been something that those opposite have not supported, but we have gone— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie? Senator McKenzie 207825 Point of order on relevance: I was very clear, and it was a very short sentence. It was about real household disposable income and the fall over the two years. Obviously, what the minister is saying is one piece of that data. The other piece of the data is how much of that has been eaten up by inflation. The PRESIDENT 112096 I believe the minister is being relevant, but I will continue to listen. Senator WONG 00AOU I think we've been clear about the challenge inflation poses for our economy and for consumers. Senator WONG 00AOU Senator McKenzie, I think we have been very clear about the challenge inflation poses to consumers and to the economy. And that is why we are working to respond to it in the most responsible way that we can. We don't have the same view that your party does that the way to respond to a high inflationary environment is to push back on wage increases. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, second supplementary? 14:39 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria By how much would a 14th interest rate hike increase the monthly repayments on the average $750,000 mortgage? 14:39 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I think that's the same as a question that was answered earlier by Senator Gallagher. As she pointed out, we don't speculate on interest rate increases or interest rate movements. Decisions on that are made by the independent Reserve Bank. I do think it's interesting—isn't it, colleagues?—how much those opposite are barracking for an interest rate increase. If you ever want to see an example of the way in which the coalition are always happy to look at their own political interests, this is it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie? Senator McKenzie 207825 A point of order on relevance: this was asking if the minister knew. If she doesn't know, she should say she doesn't know and that she hasn't got the answer. Let her just sit down. The increase on monthly repayments— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, you're debating. The minister is being relevant. Senator WONG 00AOU Again, we don't speculate on decisions of the independent Reserve Bank. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie! Senator WONG 00AOU I can comment on the barracking by Senator McKenzie and those opposite: you are always happy to try to see Australians lose if you think you will win. The only people in this country barracking for an interest rate increase are Senator McKenzie and her colleagues. They are the only people in this country who are seeking to barrack for an interest rate increase. Shame on you! Assange, Mr Julian Paul 54 14:40 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Does the Prime Minister's personal 'welcome home' for Mr Julian Assange, convicted of espionage by our closest intelligence partner, indicate that the Albanese government would tolerate a similar leaking of sensitive classified information in Australia? 14:41 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Paterson. I'm very happy to respond to that. In fact, I was asked a similar question this morning, and I made this point: we have laws in Australia in relation to national security information. We expect those laws to be observed by all citizens and by all entities. That is our position. In relation to Mr Assange, we have taken the view that this matter had gone on for too long and, as the Prime Minister has said, nothing would be served by further incarceration of Mr Assange. I appreciate that there are a range of views in the Australian community about his actions, and some are very deeply felt. As foreign minister, I can say that we viewed it as our obligation to advocate on behalf of an Australian citizen. As you would know, his passage home was enabled by the plea arrangements and the decision of an American court, which made its decision this week. That provided the pathway for his return home. Whatever people's views about these matters, the Australian government has taken the view for a very long time that this matter had gone on too long. That is why the Prime Minister made this a priority and why this was raised at all appropriate levels of the government, including by me. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, first supplementary? 14:43 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Did you agree with the Prime Minister when he compared Mr Assange's plight to that of Sean Turnell and Kylie Moore-Gilbert, people who were arbitrarily detained in dictatorships? 14:43 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia If you are referring to the Prime Minister's statement, I observed that. He was talking about a calm, considered, disciplined approach to diplomacy, which we have deployed in relation to all of those cases. Mr Assange went through an American legal process. You've heard me in this chamber, Senator—in response to other senators, including Senator Shoebridge—say that these are matters for either the United Kingdom or the US courts. In the comparable case, the matter could not be resolved until legal processes had been resolved. That is what occurred when the department of justice and Mr Assange appeared before the court in Saipan, and a judgement was entered. I will say to you, Senator, that it is appropriate for us to advocate on behalf of Australian citizens. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Paterson, a second supplementary? 14:44 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Did Mr Albanese use his 'welcome home' call to Mr Assange to seek assurances from him that, in future, he would not promote misinformation or release any further sensitive or classified information? 14:45 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia As I said, I suspect the 'welcome home' call was to express a hope that Mr Assange could spend time with his family. Obviously this has been a very long process for him, and he has been away from his family for a very long time. What I would also say is that I'm sure that the Prime Minister's expectation is, as I articulate, that national security information is to be protected. I can also assure you that the Prime Minister did not invite him to join the Labor Party in the way that Senator Canavan did, when he said, 'Well, mate, I'm happy for him'—Mr Assange—'to join the National Party.' Manufacturing Industry 55 14:46 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania My question is to— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Just a moment, Senator Polley— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senators on my left! Order! I had called Senator Polley— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan! Order! The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Canavan, I've called you twice. Order! Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my left! I had invited Senator Polley to ask her question. Senator Polley. Senator POLLEY e5x My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Science, Senator Farrell. I refer to the Albanese Labor government's recent announcement of our plan to rebuild Australia's manufacturing capabilities, to prepare for opportunities of the future and ensure A Future Made in Australia. How is the Albanese Labor government already working to deliver A Future Made in Australia and create more well-paid, secure jobs across our country? 14:47 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Polley for her question. I know she's got a great interest in manufacturing. This policy is not only A Future Made in Australia but also of course a future made in Tasmania. The Albanese government's Future Made in Australia plan is another part of this government's agenda to rebuild Australian manufacturing after a decade of neglect by the Liberals and the Nationals. We've established the National Reconstruction Fund and the Industry Growth Program and are developing the Battery Breakthrough Initiative and the Future Made in Australia Innovation Fund. We've also announced production tax incentives for critical minerals processing, and we're consulting with industry experts, workers and communities about how to develop a green metals industry here in Australia. This is a government that will leave no stone unturned in supporting our Australian manufacturers to create secure, well-paid jobs across the country and in Tasmania. We're establishing the framework that will help industry to grow, to respond to the market and to meet the future needs of Australia and our many trade partners. A Future Made in Australia is about making things here and shipping them everywhere. It's about forming partnerships with the private sector, attracting investment and rewarding success. Being a country that makes things matters. It adds value to our natural resources, it makes our lives easier and it ensures that we have access to the things that we need when we need them. But, perhaps most importantly, it delivers secure, well-paid jobs that are the lifeblood of many regional communities. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Polley, a first supplementary? 14:49 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Thank you, Minister, for outlining everything that the Albanese Labor government is doing to strengthen the nation's manufacturing capability and to deliver new secure, well-paid jobs across the country, including in regional Australia. How will the Future Made in Australia plan ensure that all Australians share in the benefits that will flow from a thriving global competitive manufacturing sector? We on this side want to know about that, even though those opposite don't. 14:49 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Polley for her very fine first supplementary question. One of the key announcements on budget night was that our Future Made in Australia agenda will be guided by the community-benefits principles. Those principles are how this government will ensure that workers, businesses and communities share in the prosperity created by our investment in Australian manufacturing. We want to ensure that we create safe and secure jobs with good pay and conditions, that we build a skilled and inclusive workforce by investing in training, that we engage with communities affected by the shift to net zero and with First Nations communities to achieve positive outcomes and, finally, that we strengthen our domestic industry capability to bring these changes about. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Polley, second supplementary? 14:50 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Thank you, Minister, for outlining how all Australians will share in the prosperity created by our investment in Australian manufacturing. This is at odds with the Liberals and Nationals, who oversaw a decade of inaction towards Australian manufacturing. How is the Albanese Labor government putting workers first in our policies surrounding domestic manufacturing and the great benefits it will bring not only to Tasmania but to the country? 14:51 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Again I thank Senator Polley for her very fine second supplementary question. One of the key differences in the approach taken by this government compared to the previous government is that we are taking a calm, methodical, rigorous approach to supporting Australian industry. On their watch, the total number of manufacturing workforce jobs in Australia shrank by 100,000. Many of those were skilled workers in the car industry in South Australia, which the Liberals and the Nationals ran out of town. Let's not forget that the Liberals and the Nationals voted against this government's energy price relief, which helped keep manufacturers in business. Repairing that sort of damage, unfortunately, won't happen overnight, but, under this Labor government, it will happen. Nuclear Energy 56 14:52 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Minister, recently a US congressman from the US House Committee on Energy and Commerce called on the government to rethink its opposition to new energy, with Congressman Neal Dunn saying: … 'Why isn't Australia with us on this?' There are a lot of commercial opportunities. You have got the uranium ore, you have got the skills, all you lack is the will. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom said in March that nuclear delivers cheaper, cleaner, cheaper, homegrown energy for consumers. How do you explain the government's ideological opposition to this technology when Australia's allies are looking to implement all options in the path to net zero? Government senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm waiting for order on my right. Order! Senator McGrath, you've asked your question. Minister Wong. 14:53 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia This is so funny. After they've had most of the week, when they haven't dared to defend their nuclear policy, we now have the last question, from Senator McGrath, about why we're not going down the nuclear path. Put very simply, Senator McGrath: we don't think $600 billion-plus paid by taxpayers for the most expensive power you can buy, delivered in 20 years, with no plan to do anything about supply until then, is a good deal. Funny about that, isn't it? We don't think that that kind of political strategy that the wheels are already falling off of is a good deal for Australians. That's why we are not going down the nuclear path. It is quite extraordinary, isn't it colleagues—the extent to which Mr Dutton's antirenewables obsession can lead them into this cul-de-sac, can lead them into this dead end of a policy that they know is a joke. That's why the best they can do when they are asked how much it will cost is say, 'It's a big bill.' That's it! It is extraordinary. Here we are needing to transition the Australian economy and 24 out of 28 coal-fired power stations are announcing their closure on the news and the most they can do is come up with a policy that is going to deliver a 'big bill', two decades of diminishing supply and the most expensive power there is. You couldn't make this stuff up, could you? (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath, a first supplementary? 14:55 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Minister, Chris Bowen was recently corrected by Canadian officials for falsely claiming that energy bills in Ontario were cheap due to provincial government subsidies. Why does this government continue to misrepresent the ways in which other countries are using nuclear power to lower energy bills and decarbonise? 14:56 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia What I would say again is that, if you really want to understand what's going on with this nuclear announcement, you only have to look at the last decade and a half of division in the coalition when it came to energy policy. They had in excess of 20 policies, while coal-fired power station after coal-fired power station— Senator McGrath 217241 President, I have a point of order on relevance. My question went to Chris Bowen and Canada. It did not reference anything to do with the coalition. So, while the minister flicks through the answers, if could you ask her to wander back towards the question that would be great, please. The PRESIDENT 112096 I do think the minister was being relevant, but I will continue to listen carefully and, if need be, I will draw her back to the question. Senator WONG 00AOU If you really want to understand why the coalition have gone for this political strategy, it is the decade and a half with in excess of 20 policies because they couldn't bring themselves to support renewables. They couldn't bring themselves to support renewables. It is all about the internals of their party room. I would also make the point that this has also been a change of position for Mr Dutton, because he has worked out that nuclear is the only thing that holds his party room together. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Sorry, Senator McGrath. I would have drawn the minister back to the question, but the time has expired. I will invite you to ask your second supplementary. 14:57 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland The UK Labour Party's 2024 election manifesto states: We will ensure the long-term security of the— nuclear— sector, extending the lifetime of existing plants … New nuclear power stations … will play an important role in helping the UK achieve energy security and clean power while securing thousands of good, skilled jobs. What does the UK Labour Party not understand about nuclear power that the Australian Labor Party does? 14:58 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia We obviously have a very deep and important relationship with the United Kingdom, but I think even they would recognise that we might get a bit more sun here. I reckon even they might recognise we have a bit more land here. I think even they would recognise that we might have the ability to look to renewables that are more challenging for them. I want to say this to those opposite: if this is so great, why have we seen so many state Liberals refuse to back you in? Why have we seen Mr Speakman—I didn't know who he was; I now know who he is—say, 'We can't wait for nuclear'? The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, order! Senator Birmingham, there are 13 seconds remaining and you are on your feet. Senator Birmingham H6X I am on my feet, with a point of order on relevance. The point of order on relevance is: why is it that Senator Wong doesn't want to talk about the UK Labour Party and their strong, clear endorsement in relation to nuclear energy? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, that is a debating point. Senator Watt? Senator Watt 245759 On the point of order: it's highly relevant for Senator Wong to be addressing the question asked by the opposition and providing the further detail that they were seeking, so I ask you to rule against the point of order. The PRESIDENT 112096 There was so much noise in the chamber. I did dismiss the point raised by Senator Birmingham, because it is a debating point. Senator WONG 00AOU I'm very happy. I wasn't trying to be gratuitous; I genuinely did not know who the person was. He said we can't wait for nuclear. John Pesutto has made his view clear. He said, 'I'm not raising down the nuclear path.' Peter Walsh has made the same point. The PRESIDENT 112096 The time for answering has expired. Senator Wong 00AOU I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. BUSINESS 57 BUSINESS Rearrangement 57 15:01 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I seek leave to move a motion relating to the referral of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee, as circulated. Leave not granted. Senator RUSTON 243273 Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the referral of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee. What we saw today before we moved into question time was a filibuster on the other side on the NDIS bill simply so we couldn't get to a position where we could allow the community the opportunity to debate this bill in the committee and see the intention of this bill. Six hundred and sixty thousand Australians rely on the NDIS. Six hundred and sixty thousand people will be impacted by the conditions, terms and amendments that are contained in the NDIS bill. All we are asking this chamber for is permission to enable that bill to be fully ventilated with the community so that people who are going to be impacted and their families, communities and friends have the opportunity to really understand what is being proposed here by the Labor Party. So we've just sought to refer this bill for a short additional length of time because of the truncated nature of the previous referral. We're more than happy for this bill to come back into this place the next time the parliament sits after this particular sitting session. But no. The Labor Party continue to be obstructive about this, without any regard whatsoever. I have to say this has become an extraordinary track record of this government. They do not want transparency about what they're doing. It's not just this bill. Bill after bill after bill and measure after measure after measure is shoved into this place with little if any consultation. Earlier this week, we saw an absolute classic when the very people impacted by a decision of this government that was shoved through this place—that is, the 6,000 small-business community pharmacies of this country—had something forced on them and they found out about it when they heard about it in the media. If this is what you think running a country is all about, I think you will be very sadly informed differently when you get to the ballot box next time, because I think Australians are sick to death of the contempt with which this government is treating them. We see this happen time and time again. So I am seeking to refer this bill to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee so that we can get the NDIA—the National Disability Insurance Agency, the very organisation that oversees the running and administration of the NDIS—before that committee. The NDIS is a scheme put into place with bipartisan support. It was very poorly put together at the time, I might say, but it received bipartisan support because we, the coalition, saw at that time, and still do see, the absolutely vital service that this provides for the Australians that rely on it. I acknowledge that this is causing extraordinary heartbreak and concern to the many Australians legitimately on the NDIS. Every morning that they wake up and see that this government wants to shove through a bill without giving them the opportunity to have their say on what's going on, they wonder why it is that their government is betraying them and not giving them the opportunity to have their say. I also commend Senator Steele-John for the fact that he and the Greens have seen that this is such an important issue that it deserves the kind of scrutiny that we are asking for it to have. So far we've had 2½ days of hearings on a matter that is going to affect 660 vulnerable Australians. If this government thinks that that is adequate, then they are completely missing the point. But I'm not overly surprised about the government missing the point because we keep seeing them missing the point because they keep failing to actually understand that real hard-working Australians are being affected and hurt by many of the policies that they continue to shove through this place without consultation or consideration. But I think it is an even greater shame on them that they would be doing it to some of the most vulnerable Australians—that is, those people who live with disability. I would hope that this chamber will reconsider the position that they are currently holding and allow this bill to be referred without any further argument. I think it would be a sign of good faith to those Australians who rely on the NDIS. It would give them some certainty about the changes that are going to be made by this bill and how the change are going to affect them, and make sure that they have their say. And, hopefully, when they have their say, they will actually be listened to, so that the relevant changes can be made to this act so that we can have an NDIS going into the future which is fit for purpose but which makes sure that it continues to provide the extraordinary support that it needs so that Australians who live with disability get the support that they need. I commend this motion to the chamber. 15:06 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I want to indicate briefly the government's position in relation to this suspension motion and in relation to the bill. It is clear to me, at least, that the government does not have the numbers to defeat this proposition, but I just want to outline who is engaged in this conspiracy to prevent reform in the interests of— Senator Steele-John 250156 Not me! The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Steele-John, I've called you. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Steele-John! Senator Hughes. Senator Hughes 273828 I ask Senator Ayres to withdraw for impugning motive of conspiracy. What a disgrace! What a disgraceful imputation! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes, resume your seat. Senator Hughes, there was no reference to you. There was no reference to any senator that I heard. Senator Ayres, please continue. Senator AYRES 16913 It may be clear to some— Senator Hughes 273828 I'm a mother of a participant, you grub! Senator AYRES 16913 who is engaged in this sordid, partisan plot— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ayres, please resume your seat. Senator Hughes, you will come to order! You have a choice to remain here and be silent or to leave the chamber or to make a contribution. Senator Ayres, please continue. Senator AYRES 16913 A sordid, partisan plot—that is exactly what this is. Because what is in the interests of Australians here, and particularly in the interests of disabled people and their families and carers, is that we establish the platform for reform that is set out in this bill. Senator AYRES 16913 This has had the broadest consultation of any piece of legislation— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ayres, please resume your seat— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Just as I invited Senator Hughes— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, I am speaking! Just as I invited Senator Hughes to remain and listen in silence, to leave or to make a contribution by standing and seeking the call, that is exactly what I'm asking all senators in this place to do. Senator Steele-John, I had to call you three or four times in a row. Then I had interjections from Senator McKim and Senator Shoebridge after I had called for order. You are out of order. If you want to make a contribution, stand up and seek the call or signal that you want the call. Senator Ayres. Senator AYRES 16913 I understand, President, that it is uncomfortable having the bitterness, the nastiness and the partisanship of this position here, which is putting the bitterness, the nastiness and the partisanship above the public interest and above the interest of disabled people and their carers. That is what is going on here. The Liberal and National parties have decided to do the same old trick, which is claim that they are interested in working with the government in order to fix this scheme and make sure that it is fit for purpose, that it does what it says it is supposed to do, that the growth in the scheme is moderated in a way that means it supports the Australians who it's designed to support and in the way that it's designed to support them and that it's fit for the future so that disabled people and their families can count on it. So they say that but then work with the party that will never agree to decent reform in this area—will never agree and will always position. So the two of them united together are out there trying to scare disabled Australians and to frighten communities about what is contained in this bill. The other thing that unites them is the dishonesty of that position. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Steele-John! Senator AYRES 16913 What it will mean is that, while this is going out to some new Senate committee process— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ayres, please resume your seat. Senator Steele-John, you are being incredibly disrespectful. I have called for order. As I said before, you have a choice. You can listen in silence, you can leave the chamber or you can seek to make a contribution. Senator Ayres. Senator AYRES 16913 I have watched the contributions of various senators who have been engaged in this over some time. I have watched them. This is the apotheosis of those contributions—partisanship over the interests of ordinary Australians who have a disability, who need the support of the National Disability Insurance Scheme and who need the certainty of a scheme for the future that will deliver. All this is about is crude politics and trying to position in the last half of 2024 and the first half of 2025. There is no interest in the public policy outcome and no interest in engaging with families and stakeholders. I know that it may be a futile task here, but my job is to ask people in this place to reflect on their duty to ordinary Australians—to disabled Australians, in particular—and to put the public interest first. But I know that, when the sordid partisan fix is in, the fix is in. 15:13 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I move: That the question be put. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the question be put.

The Senate divided. [15:17]
(The President—Senator Lines)

44 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 21 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. Payman, F. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Walsh, J. C. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

15:22 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the suspension motion moved by Senator Ruston be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:22]
(The President—Senator Lines)

Question agreed to.

15:25 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I move: That a motion proposing a reference to the Community Affairs Legislation Committee may be moved immediately, have precedence over all other business and be determined without amendment or debate. Question agreed to. BILLS 61 BILLS National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 61

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

Reference to Committee 61 15:26 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I move: That the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 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. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Ruston be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:30]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question agreed to.

QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 62 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 62 15:33 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today. Today we saw, yet again, a desperate attempt by the government to cling onto this fantasy they seem to have that they're good economic managers, when all of the economic indicators show that things are not doing what they said, before the election, they would be doing and that things are getting worse. This is a government, as I've said in this place a number of times, of broken promises. It promised the Australian people that they would receive a $275 reduction in their power bills. And the tragedy for the Australian people is that, when the $300 subsidy is gone, the higher power bills will remain. This is a government that promised the Australian community higher real wages, yet, as we know, real wages are declining. This is a government that promised the Australian people they would have lower housing costs, yet in question time today, when the ministers were asked to indicate what the increases in costs were, they were unable to answer, so let's put the numbers on the record. Since this government came to office in May 2022, somebody with a $250,000 mortgage has had $1,940 added to their monthly mortgage costs. That's $24,000 a year. When we asked how much real household disposable income had fallen on a per capita basis since the government was elected, again, the minister didn't want to answer the question. Do you wonder why, when the answer is 7.8 per cent and real household disposable income has fallen since this government was elected? This government promised Australians that they would make things better, yet things are going backwards, and they wonder why nobody in Australia believes them when they try to maintain the fantasy that they're good economic managers. Then, of course, when we asked how much a 14th interest rate hike might increase the monthly repayments on the average $750,000 mortgage, there was, again, no answer from the government. But, for the record, a 14.25 per cent interest rate would add another $123 per month to costs for a household with a $750,000 mortgage. What we see continuously from the government is that, when we ask the hard questions, they don't want to answer. They try to deflect. They try to blame somebody else. We asked questions about the inflation rate and their commitment only a few weeks ago to, by the end of this year, see a two in front of it, yet, of course, the figures released yesterday show it going in the wrong direction again. It was Treasury's estimate, not the government's estimate, despite the Treasurer going out in the days before the budget was released to spruik all these numbers and talk about how they knew something special and say that they had special plans, which even the Reserve Bank didn't know about, that would be applied and would bring down inflation. Of course, we all know now that the Reserve Bank, as they've told us on a number of occasions, have looked through those short-term measures, as they always do. We know that last year's budget didn't shift the dial, which the Reserve Bank told us at estimates. Therefore, the government wasn't doing what it claimed to be doing, which was assisting to bring down interest rates; it was leaving the Reserve Bank to do the heavy lifting. And now we're seeing exactly the same thing happening again this year. There is additional spending, additional capacity is going into the economy, inflation is going up, and now the Australian people face the spectre of another interest rate rise, all because of the complete mismanagement of the economy by this government. They should apologise to the Australian people for that mismanagement and those broken promises. 15:39 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this debate. It's incredible that those opposite would come in here and try to lecture us about running an economy. When we came into government, we inherited a trillion-dollar debt. We've brought down three budgets since we've been in government, and two of those, the last two, have delivered surpluses. You were in government for 11 long, wasted years without delivering a surplus—not once. Why is that? Because it's a fallacy and a myth that the Liberals and Nationals are better at managing the economy. We also have the opportunity to place on record that, when it comes to the cost of living, they left us with a $1 trillion debt and higher inflation, and they did nothing about it. What we have done is this. In four short days, there will be a tax cut to all Australian taxpayers. We have increased that tax cut on what the former Liberal government had legislated for. We must never forget that it was the low-income earners that were left off. They weren't going to give them any tax cuts whatsoever. Let's talk about what this government has actually delivered. We have delivered higher wages. We have improved industrial relations in this country. We are actually supporting higher paid, secure jobs right across the country. My question that I asked today was about bringing manufacturing back to this country, creating well-paid, highly skilled jobs throughout the country. We have delivered in our budget—and it will come into effect on 1 July—a $300 energy rebate. We are investing in renewable energy in this country that will actually provide cheaper electricity. What do we have from Mr Dutton, who, when he was the Minister for Health, was voted by the AMA the worst health minister in 35 years? His big solution to the energy costs in this country is to spend $600-plus billion on nuclear reactors for nuclear energy, which all the experts say will not deliver cheap electricity prices to the household and will not reduce the cost of energy. They want to burden the Australian taxpayer with over $600 billion to do that, and yet they lecture us about managing the economy. It's a joke. Seriously? You don't really think the Australian people are that gullible, do you? They gave you 11 years, and what did they get? Manufacturing offshore and a policy of keeping wages low. That was their government's policy. They were spruiking it and bragging about it. That was their policy—to keep workers' wages low in this country. On every measure that we have brought in to assist in providing more housing in this country—more social housing and affordable housing—what have the Liberals and Nationals done? Voted it down. What did they do when we introduced the $300 energy rebate? They voted against it. What have they done in terms of creating the $10 billion housing fund? They voted against it. You can't keep coming into this chamber trying to rewrite history with a tale about how you're much better at running the economy, because the proof is in what we inherited. And we inherited a $1 trillion debt, high inflation and interest rates that had already started to go up. They know very well that the RBA set the interest rates and they are independent of the government. What did they do about improving people's superannuation? Nothing. Because they don't believe in it. They wanted you to be able to raid your superannuation to buy a home. How shortsighted, with bad economics, can you be? (Time expired) 15:44 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia This week Labor senators have made much of the number of sleeps that Australian households have—four sleeps, apparently—before Australians get to see the very, very light relief in the form of cost-of-living measures from this government. But instead of counting sleeps, unfortunately Australian households are losing sleep, as a result of the inflation figures that were released just yesterday. And everyone should be reminded that Dr Chalmers, the federal Treasurer, on the eve of the federal budget in May, trumpeted the fact that the government was on top of the inflation challenge in this country. In fact, Dr Chalmers said that the mission had been accomplished, that the task of tackling inflation had been accomplished. Don't believe me; believe the Australian, which trumpeted the headline 'CPI mission accomplished by Christmas'. It said: Jim Chalmers will put the government's economic credibility on the line 12 months out from the election, with Treasury forecasts in Tuesday's budget expecting inflation to hit the 2-3 per cent target band by December … 'Mission accomplished,' Dr Chalmers said. I say, 'Mission impossible,' because the government's economic record is making Australians poorer. Labor is hurting Australian households: 13 interest rate rises since May 2022. Yesterday the RBA released data indicating the fastest interest rate increase, a jump from 3.6 per cent in April to four per cent in May. Worse than that, core inflation is sitting at 4.4 per cent in the last 12 months, up from 4.1 per cent. And money markets, which give us a sense of what the economic future might look like for Australian households, are now saying they are pricing almost a 60 per cent chance of an interest rate rise by September—a 60 per cent chance of an interest rate rise, on top of the 13 rate increases that Australian families have already had to work hard to get on top of. This is a government that does not care about the economic and financial ruin that it is putting Australian households through. And they're Australian households; this is not being experienced internationally. Australia has now seen four months of increasing core inflation, which is now sitting higher than in an any other country in the G10, including the United States, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Canada. Australians are hurting, because the government chooses to make them poorer. This is particularly important because, on the eve of the election in May 2022, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said that he had a plan that would make mortgages cheaper for Australians, that he had a plan that would make energy cheaper. In fact, in just two years, this Labor government has presided over a deteriorating economic situation which is making it harder for Australian households. Australian households know these figures themselves. The price of gas is up by 22.2 per cent, electricity by 21.5 per cent, insurance and financial services by 16.2 per cent, housing by 14 per cent, food by 11.4 per cent, health care by 11 per cent and education by 10.9 per cent. And Australians' real disposable incomes over the last two years have fallen by almost eight per cent per capita in the two years to March 2024. What we hear from the government is a lack of concern for the very real financial stress Australian households are under. So, Sam Lim in Tangney, Tracy Roberts in Pearce, Anne Aly in Cowan and Tanya Lawrence in Hasluck: you must face up to the Australian people, your electors, and explain why Labor is making it harder, why Labor is making them poorer. 15:49 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia The Labor government has been more active than any other on attacking inflation and lowering the cost of living. In fact, our workplace relations agenda is helping Australians. It's about better pay, safer workplaces and getting more secure jobs. Next Monday, 1 July, we are delivering a tax cut for every Australian wage-earning taxpayer. We're delivering $300 in energy bill relief for every household, a freeze on previous medicine costs, a pay rise for 2.6 million people and more dollars a year for workers on the minimum wage. We're talking here about real wages in the context of Australia's cost of living. Funnily enough, every one of those measures was opposed by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton. It seems that they don't believe that getting wages going is part of cost-of-living relief. They don't believe that controlling the price of medicines is an anti-inflationary measure. They don't believe that energy bill relief helps us tackle inflation, when quite obviously it does. What we also know about the previous government is that, irrespective of inflation, they had a wages policy of deliberate design of a system of low wages. It was a deliberate feature of our nation's economic architecture. Now in opposition, the coalition have, in addition to their record in government, voted against every single one of our workplace relations measures. We recently learnt that their industrial relations spokesperson, Senator Cash, has stepped in behind the New South Wales Liberal Party's state government WorkChoices style platform. It's the kind of platform we've seen state Liberals pursue in the state of WA to undercut wages and conditions. So it's little surprise to me that Senator Cash is now applauding such actions in the Liberal Party of New South Wales. These kinds of so-called good ideas include making it easier to sack people, abolishing the better off overall test, removing rights as a condition of employment and removing award protections for thousands of workers. When you look at cost-of-living pressures and inflation in our nation, you have to look to what an active and good government does in response to those issues. The simple fact is that those opposite left our nation bereft of the tools to support Australians at a time of growing inflation that was well apparent when they lost government. As Minister Watt highlighted in question time, it's interesting that Senator Cash is here to talk in this place about so-called good ideas that are actually there to remove minimum pay and conditions for truckies, nurses, schoolteachers, police, shop assistants, early childhood educators and coalmine workers. But on our agenda is a tax cut for 2.6 million workers in our nation. 15:54 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland It is very clear now that the government's budget, which is just a month old, is out of date. It's already past its expiry date. It's gone stale. It can no longer be consumed. Just a month ago the government forecast that its budget would help bring inflation down to three or less than three per cent by Christmas. As others have said today, inflation in fact has surged back up to four per cent a month after the government's budget. It's going in the wrong direction. In fact, we now have one of the highest inflation rates in the developed world. Of the world's 20 biggest economies, the only countries with higher inflation than us include Argentina, Turkey, Russia, Brazil, South Africa and Mexico. They've the only ones. Every other country in Europe, the United States and Canada, and New Zealand all have lower inflation rates than Australia now. That is a lot to do with this government's complete mismanagement of our economy. There have been two great sins here that the government has presided over that have caused this inflationary crisis. The first is that they botched the recovery from COVID. We had to reopen our borders after COVID. We had to let some people into this country. But this government opened the floodgates without any control whatsoever, and we now have a situation where over the past few years we've taken in a population bigger than the size of Canberra every year. We can't do it. We don't have the houses for it. We don't have the infrastructure for it. It's plain in front of everyone's eyes here in this country that we can't house this number of people. It's shocking that, in a country of Australia's standard and history, we now have a situation where there are multiple tent cities in our major capitals. It's something I never thought I would see as an Australian. You go overseas and see it. Sometimes you even see it in developed countries. But we were such a well-managed country—an island nation too, which obviously helps a little bit. There are no excuses here, really; every other government since federation has been able to manage our basic housing needs. There are different stresses at different times, but we've never had a situation where thousands upon thousands of working families find themselves with no alternative but to live in their cars or in tents. That's the situation. The government completely lost control of our borders, and that has partly led to these inflationary pressures on rents, housing and other services. The other big error that's happened at the same time is the government pouring fuel on that inflation fire. We just heard from a Labor senator there that they got to office and inflation was already high. It is true that inflation was increasing. It hadn't set in yet, but it was starting to rise when the Labor Party got to office. So what do you think you would do in an environment where you knew that inflationary pressures were starting to rise and it was happening all around the developed world? A logical, sensible government would seek to rein in government spending to take pressure off the economy, to avoid adding fuel to that inflationary fire and to make the job of the Reserve Bank easier. Instead this government has increased spending in their first two full budgets by more than $40 billion for their own decisions. It's not just the spending; they've made decisions to increase spending by more than $40 billion. How does that compare? These two budgets now are the two biggest-spending budgets—not including COVID, which was pretty special—since the global financial crisis and Kevin Rudd's budgets. At least Kevin Rudd had a global financial crisis to respond to. He went a bit far, but the direction was right. We had to spend some money to cover our economy from a global downturn. This government has gone in the complete opposite direction from what sensible economic thinking would say. During an inflationary spiral, when inflation is breaking out, governments should pull spending back, not add to it. That's the mess we find ourselves in now and, unfortunately, the Reserve Bank is possibly going to have to come along and clean up this mess. If they do raise interest rates in the next couple of months, just another 25 points will mean that the average Australian homeowner will be paying $1,000 more a year in repayments. That will swamp all the electricity rebates and other sweeteners they put in their budget. So start a new budget and avoid an interest rate rise in August. Question agreed to. Answers to Questions 65 15:59 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked today. I want to take note of the answers given by Minister Watt and Minister Wong in particular today. I'll deal first of all with the remarkable response we got from the government about their failure to bring on the Migration Amendment (Removal and other Measures) Bill 2024. This is the Trump-like travel ban bill—together with the extraordinary God-like powers that they want to give to the immigration minister, this one or some future coalition immigration minister—to effectively put people in jail if they won't agree to their own deportation. This is a bill that follows a pretty ugly Labor tradition of creating some of the worst precedents when it comes to being cruel to people who have come to this country seeking asylum—and deep attacks on multicultural Australia. Of course, it was the Labor Party, to their shame, who came up with the policy of mandatory detention. That is a policy invented by the Labor Party and weaponised by the coalition. It was the Labor Party that came up with offshore detention, another cruel policy created by the Labor Party and weaponised by the coalition. Now, the Labor Party has come up with yet another cruel innovation for dealing with people seeking asylum and dealing with migration—Trump-like travel bans and deportation powers that they want to give to an immigration minister. You would have thought that the Labor Party would have learned from that history of cruel innovation in this, and not created yet another ugly precedent. It isn't just the coalition in Australia that has been weaponising these attacks that the Labor Party have created in their history. We now see the rhetoric that has been created by this race to the bottom between Labor and the coalition being picked up in the United Kingdom, in the United States and in parts of western Europe. The race to the bottom on migration, the race to the bottom on how we discuss people seeking asylum in this country, is spreading around the world like some kind of toxic political discussion points and it is dehumanising people seeking asylum. We have seen it in the last two to three months, this debate between the Labor Party and the coalition, to see who can make the strongest connection between people seeking asylum and criminality. We know that when you look at the data on people seeking asylum, they are no more likely to commit any kind of criminal offence than the balance of the population. We know that the history of people seeking asylum is that they have come to this country and made incredible contributions to our society. But all we have heard from both the Labor Party and the coalition in the last three to four months is this demonisation of people seeking asylum. And now they want to legislate to deport people or to jail people at the whim of the immigration minister. Is it any wonder that Labor hasn't brought on this bill? The reason they haven't brought it on is not because they're not willing to do this new cruel innovation. It is that they are hurting at the moment in multicultural Australia. They are hurting because multicultural Australia has looked at how Labor has utterly failed multicultural Australia in their appalling stance on the genocide in Gaza, and Labor doesn't want to take another hit. Well, maybe they should learn and kill the bill, pull the bill, and try to build back one small part of their very damaged reputation with multicultural Australia. The response we got from Minister Wong on the question of why Labor won't support a duty of care for the environment, a duty of care that would protect future Australians, was derisory of the question. The fact that Minister Wong gave that answer—dodging the question, refusing to accept responsibility for her government's recent approval of Gina Rinehart's proposal for 151 coal seam gas wells by Minister Plibersek—the reason that we saw that dodging and weaving and failure to answer the question is because Labor knows that it is betraying the future. Those answers happened while we had Anjali Sharma and Daisy Jeffrey—two young people in the chamber who had been fighting for this bill, fighting for their future. The minister showed disrespect to them by refusing even to address the questions that came from Senator David Pocock, It was a shameful lack of leadership, and it is shameful lack of leadership which reflects Labor's history and its record on the climate. Question agreed to. PARTY OFFICE HOLDERS 66 PARTY OFFICE HOLDERS Jacqui Lambie Network 66 16:04 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania by leave—I inform the Senate that I should be designated as the whip for the Jacqui Lambie Network for the purposes of standing order 24A relating to the Selection of Bills Committee. BUDGET 66 BUDGET Consideration by Estimates Committees 66 16:05 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania I present additional information received by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee relating to estimates. COMMITTEES 66 COMMITTEES Human Rights Joint Committee 66 Report 66 16:05 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the Chair of Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present Human rights scrutiny report:report 5of 2024. Intelligence and Security Joint Committee 66 Report 66 16:05 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the report of the committee on its review of the administration and expenditure of Australian intelligence agencies. Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee 66 Report 66 16:05 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the Chair of the Joint Committee on Public Accounts and Audit, I present the 502nd, 503rd and 504th reports of the committee. Treaties Joint Committee 66 Report 66 16:05 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the 216th report of the committee. Intelligence and Security Joint Committee, Work and Care Select Committee 66 Government Response to Report 66 16:06 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I present the government response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's report on its review into the operation, effectiveness and implications of the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018 and the government response to the Senate Select Committee on Work and Care's final and interim reports. In accordance with usual practice, I seek leave to have the documents incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The documents read as follows— INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY JOINT COMMITTEE Australian Government response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security report: Review into the operation, effectiveness and implications of the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018 JUNE 2024 Introduction The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (the Committee) was required by section 70 of the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018 (FITS Act) to undertake a review into the operation, effectiveness and implications of the FITS Act within 3 years of commencement of the legislation. On 27 March 2024, the Committee tabled its final report, 'Review of the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018' (the Report). The Report considered the administration and effectiveness of the FITS Act and made 14 recommendations, which focus on legislative reform, enforcement and oversight. The Government welcomes the Committee's Report and is committed to substantial reform and overhaul of the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme (the scheme). The scheme is an important tool to support the integrity of Australia's democratic system and public confidence in our institutions. It is intended to bring to light foreign influence on Australia's political and governmental processes. It is important that there is public visibility of the nature, level and extent of foreign influence. By reducing the space in which foreign influence can be conducted covertly, the scheme can also deter corrupt, deceptive and clandestine activities. The Government is committed to ensuring the FITS Act is fit for purpose. These significant reforms will be informed by the Committee's findings and build upon the experience of the first five years of the scheme's operation. Recommendations Recommendation 1: The Committee recommends that, given the significant flaws in the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme, substantial reform is required if it is to meet its original intent and justify the compliance burden and resources required to administer it. Mere tinkering will not be sufficient. Response: Agreed. The purpose of the scheme is to provide visibility of the nature, level and extent of foreign influence on Australia's government and political processes. The Government agrees that the scheme has failed to achieve its intended purpose, and that substantial legislative reform is required. The complexity of the current requirements in the FITS Act has led to a range of challenges in administering the scheme. In the 2024-25 Budget, the Government has committed $71.6 million over the next 4 years to counter the growing threat of foreign interference and espionage in Australia. As part of this package, the Government has provided the Attorney-General's Department with funding of $2.1 million to undertake significant legislative reform of the FITS Act and to improve the scheme's ability to achieve its original purpose. Recommendation 2: The Committee recommends that the definition of foreign government related entity (FGRE) under section 10 of the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018 be amended to: Recognise a relationship of control through chains of holding and subsidiary companies between the target FGRE and the foreign government or foreign political organisation, no matter how many subsidiaries are involved; Recognise influence that may exist through a 'relevant interest' in shares or securities in an entity, similar to the approach taken in sections 608 and 609 of the Corporations Act 2001, to capture foreign principals that have influence over shares or securities in a FGRE, but not direct holdings; Add a new test to capture companies where there is any significant overlap in personnel between the membership of the board, executive committee or senior leadership of that company and a foreign principal's board membership, executive committee membership or senior leadership. This should apply to all incorporated and unincorporated associations; Clarify that ownership or control for the purpose of satisfying the tests to establish an entity as an FGRE includes where multiple foreign principals from the same foreign state are appointed as directors or executive committee members; Amend subparagraph (a)(v) and (b)(ii) of the definition of FGRE to replace the requirement for 'total or substantial control' from a foreign principal over an entity with wording to constitute a test of whether the foreign power has the opportunity or ability to direct or control, or actually directs or controls, the entity's activities in whole or in part; and Amend paragraph (c) of the definition of FGRE to reflect the multiple ways that political party control or influence can be exercised over an entity, by also recognising an entity as an FGRE when: the foreign principal is a foreign political organisation; a branch of the foreign political organisation has been established in the entity; and the entity is required by law to assist or facilitate the activities of the branch of the foreign political organisation. Response: Agreed in principle. The Government agrees that amendments to the definition of FGRE under section 10 of the FITS Act are necessary to ensure that the scheme reflects the different ways in which a foreign principal can exert control over an entity. Further consideration is required to determine the most appropriate form of amendments and ensure there are no unintended consequences from amendments. Recommendation 3: The Committee recommends that the definition of foreign government related individual (FGRI) under section 10 of the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018 be amended to: Amend current subparagraph (b)(ii) of the definition of FGRI to replace the requirement for 'total or substantial control' from a foreign principal over an individual with wording to constitute a test of whether the foreign power has the opportunity or ability to direct or control, or actually directs or controls, the individual's activities in whole or in part; and Remove paragraph (a) of the definition of FGRI, to allow for Australian citizens and permanent residents to be considered an FGRI for the purposes of the FITS Act. Response: Agreed in principle. The Government agrees that changes to the definition of FGRI are required to reflect the diverse ways in which a foreign government, foreign government related entity or foreign political organisation may exercise control over an individual. Further consideration is required to determine the most appropriate form of amendments and ensure there are no unintended consequences from amendments. Recommendation 4 : The Committee recommends that exemptions under Part 2, Division 4 of the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018 be improved by: Amending subsection 25A(c) to state that a person is exempt if the activity undertaken on behalf of a foreign principal is 'undertaken by an office holder in association with their office or appointment under a law of the Commonwealth, or under a law of a State or Territory', or words to a similar effect; Amending section 29 to remove the broad application of the current exemption for foreign government employees and commercial or business pursuits, to ensure that the exemption only applies to the regular activities of the employee in relation to their employment or the current operation of the commercial business or pursuit. Any amendment related to this exemption should ensure that lobbying or influence activities that may benefit the future state of that foreign principal's interactions with Australian governmental or commercial interests, either through regulation or tender processes, are not exempt from registration under the FITS; Amending the registered charities exemption under section 29C to ensure that any person undertaking activities for a charitable purpose, within the meaning of Part 3 of the Charities Act 2013, is exempt. To ensure that this expansion is not used for malign purposes, subparagraph 29C(d) also be amended to require that the activity undertaken must be disclosed to the public. Response: Agreed in part. The Government supports: narrowing the exemption in subsection 25A(c) so that statutory office holders would generally be required to register activities undertaken in their personal capacities, and amending the exemption in section 29 of the FITS Act as recommended. The Government considers that changes are needed to refine the scope of the charities exemption, to meet the important goal of a more consistent application to similar activities of charities and non-charities. However, further consideration is required to ensure there are no unintended consequences from amendments. The current exemption for registered charities in section 29C exempts a person in relation to otherwise registrable activities if: a) the person is a registered charity under the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission Act 2012; and b) the activity is undertaken in pursuit of a charitable purpose within the meaning of Part 3 of the Charities Act 2013; and c) the activity is not a disbursement activity; and d) at the time the activity is undertaken, both of the following matters are either apparent to the public or disclosed to the public: i. the fact that the person is undertaking the activity on behalf of a foreign principal; ii. the identity of the foreign principal. This recommendation, if implemented, would exempt any person conducting an otherwise registrable activity for a charitable purpose, regardless of whether they are a charity registered with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, provided the identity of the foreign principal and the activity undertaken are disclosed to the public. Due to the broad definition of 'charitable purpose' in subsection 12(1) of the Charities Act 2013, the Committee's recommended amendment would significantly broaden the scope of this exemption, which could inadvertently lead to the FITS Act exempting charitable activities of non-charities with a political purpose. The Government will further consider the registered charities exemption as part of the broader review of all exemptions (Recommendation 5). Recommendation 5: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government review all current and potential exemptions under the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018, with a view to including any further amendments to exemptions that may be warranted as part of legislative changes proposed to the FITS. The Committee further recommends that any future Bill put forward to amend the FITS Act, in response to this review or otherwise, be referred to this Committee for review and report. Response: Agreed in principle. The Government agrees that all current and potential exemptions under the FITS Act should be reviewed while considering broad opportunities for further reform to the FITS Act (Recommendation 1). Further, the Government will consider referring any future Bills to amend the FITS Act to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Recommendation 6 : The Committee recommends that the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018 be amended in the following ways to improve compulsory registration obligations on former Cabinet Ministers and recent designated position holders: Section 22 and 23 registrable activities obligations on former Cabinet Ministers and recent designated position holders be amended to preclude communications activities, as defined in section 13 of the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018, from registration where a foreign principal's involvement in that activity is apparent or declared and where the activity is not for the purposes of political or governmental influence in Australia; and Section 10 definitions, and related provisions as necessary, be amended so that registration obligations would apply to: Ministers who are former members of the National Security Committee of Cabinet for their lifetime; other former Cabinet Ministers for fifteen years; and recent designated position holders for ten years. Response: Agreed in principle. The Government supports tailoring the FITS Act's obligations for former Cabinet Ministers and recent designated position holders to ensure that activity captured by the scheme provides a clear transparency benefit for decision-makers and the public. The Government supports amending sections 22 and 23 of the FITS Act as recommended. These amendments would reduce compliance burden on former Cabinet Ministers and recent designated position holders who conduct speaking and writing engagements on behalf of foreign principals, such as interviews with state-owned broadcasters and talks at public universities. The Government generally agrees that shorter timeframes for additional obligations on former Cabinet Ministers and recent designated position holders would be appropriate. The Government will further consider the most appropriate timeframes for additional obligations to apply. Recommendation 7: The Committee recommends that the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018 be amended to insert two new enforcement options into Part 5 of the Act, to enable the Secretary of the Department to: Register a person (meaning an individual or entity) when they are liable to register but have failed to do so. The Secretary must be required to invite a submission within a reasonable timeframe from the person regarding their apparent liability to register, and if still satisfied after considering any submission that registration is required, then the Secretary is required to register that person; and Place information on the register about any person who the Secretary considers should be registered but who has not registered voluntarily, or has otherwise not complied with the Act. Response: Agreed. These amendments would provide valuable new tools to promote compliance and address non-compliance with the scheme. Introducing these graduated enforcement measures would allow enforcement action to be taken in circumstances where cooperative engagement has not been successful. This will be progressed as part of the broader legislative reforms. Recommendation 8: The Committee recommends that the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018 be amended to: Require the Secretary, when issuing a transparency notice, to not only state that the subject is a foreign government related entity or individual, but also identify the relevant foreign principal and foreign jurisdiction to which the notice relates; Allow the Secretary to set an appropriate timeframe, of no less than ten business days, for the subject of a notice to make a submission under section 14C of the FITS Act; and provide that a provisional transparency notice becomes final 20 business days after the date set in the invitation to submit if not revoked by then; and Amend section 14D and subsection 43(2A) to repeal the requirement that provisional transparency notices be published, and instead provide that only final transparency notices are published and taken to be in force for the purposes of the Act. Response: Agreed. These amendments would ensure transparency notices provide a range of information that is commensurate with ordinary registrations under the scheme, ensure adequate time to provide submissions on notices, and afford greater procedural fairness to the subjects of transparency notices. Recommendation 9: The Committee recommends that the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018be amended to: Clarify the definition of 'on behalf of' in section 11 so that it only captures circumstances where the person undertaking the activities knew or should reasonably have known that the activities would benefit the foreign principal, either directly or indirectly; Clarify information requirements under sections 16, 39, 45 and 46 to explicitly state that the power of the Secretary to request information is limited to the extent of information required for administration of the Act; Amend Division 3 of Part 4 to clarify that the Secretary cannot issue information gathering notices for any information other than what is required for the administration of the scheme; and Amend section 50 to preclude information gathered from the public domain as 'scheme information' for reporting purposes. Response: Agreed. The Government supports these recommendations to improve the functionality of the scheme. Amending the definition of 'on behalf of' as recommended would address comments made by Steward J, Gordon J and Edelman J in LibertyWorks Inc v Commonwealth of Australia (2021) HCA 18 regarding the breadth of the definition of 'on behalf of' and respond to concerns that the current definition may extend beyond the established common law concept of agency. The proposed amendments to sections 16, 39, 45 and 46, and Division 3 of Part 4 would clarify to registrants and notice recipients that information can only be requested for the purposes of administering the scheme, and cannot be used to gather information for other purposes. Amending the definition of 'scheme information' to exclude information that is already in the public domain would provide greater flexibility with how such information is used and handled. Personal information collected from public sources for the purposes of the FITS Act would continue to be collected, use and disclosed in accordance with the Privacy Act 1988 and the Australian Government Agencies Privacy Code. Recommendation 10: The Committee recommends that, within three months of any legislative amendments to the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018 resulting from this report coming into effect, the Australian Government establish a working group including the Attorney-General's Department, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and nominated university and higher education stakeholders to review the application of both the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme and the Foreign Arrangements Scheme, and identify good practice and options to ease the regulatory burden on the sector in complying with both schemes. Response: Agreed in principle. The Attorney-General's Department will collaborate with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) to consult with the university and higher education sector in relation to the application of the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme and the Foreign Arrangements Scheme. The Government notes that existing forums, such as the University Foreign Interference Taskforce and the DFAT University Forum, may be appropriate to facilitate this consultation where appropriate. In implementing this recommendation, the Government will have regard to the timing of the review of the Foreign Arrangements Scheme under section 63A of the Australia's Foreign Relations (State and Territory Arrangements) Act 2020. Recommendation 11: The Committee recommends that the Government review the resourcing of the administering department of the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme Act 2018 to ensure that both the level and capacity of staffing is sufficient to support the timely and efficient administration of the scheme, including any workload increases arising from the recommendations of this report. Response: Agreed. As part of the department's appropriation, funding is allocated for the administration of the scheme. As noted at Recommendation 1, in the 2024-25 Budget, the Government has provided the department with additional funding of $2.1 million to undertake legislative reform of the FITS Act. The Government will continue to monitor the department's resourcing to ensure that there is sufficient staffing to support the administration of the scheme and legislative reforms to improve the operation of the scheme. Recommendation 12: The Committee recommends that the Auditor-General consider undertaking a performance audit of the administration and outcomes to date of the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme before and/or after the implementation of any changes in response to this report. Response: Noted. The Government acknowledges that the inclusion of potential audit topics on the Australian National Audit Office's Annual Audit Work Program is a matter for the Auditor-General. Recommendation 13: The Committee recommends that section 70 of the ForeignInfluence Transparency Scheme Act 2018 be amended to provide that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security initiate a further statutory review of the operation, effectiveness and implications of the Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme, including amendments resulting from the recommendations of this report. This review should commence not less than three years after legislative amendments resulting from this report come into effect. Response: Agreed. The Government welcomes the recommendation for a further review of the FITS Act, including any amendments resulting from the recommendations of this report. Recommendation 14: Noting that the FITS concerns foreign influence not interference, the Committee recommends that the Government refer a review of the operation, effectiveness and implications of the amendments made by the National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Act 2018 to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Such a reference should be couched in terms that allow the Committee to avoid unnecessary duplication or conflict with any relevant reviews being undertaken by the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor. Response: Noted. The Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (INSLM) is currently reviewing the National Security Legislation Amendment (Espionage and Foreign Interference) Act 2018 (the Act). Pursuant to subsection 6(1B) of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act 2010, this comprehensive review will consider the following provisions of Chapter 5 of the Criminal Code: Division 82 (sabotage) Part 5.2 (espionage and related offences) Part 5.6 (secrecy of information). The Government will carefully consider the INSLM's comprehensive review of these provisions in the Criminal Code and any recommendations made before further references to this Committee are considered. WORK AND CARE SELECT COMMITTEE Australian Government response to the Senate Select Committee on Work and Care Reports: Final Report (9 March 2023) Interim Report (18 October 2022) June 2024 Overview of the Inquiry On 3 August 2022, the Senate established the Select Committee on Work and Care (the Committee) to inquire into and report on the impact that combining work and care responsibilities has on the wellbeing of workers, carers, and those they care for. The Committee held hearings across multiple locations across Australia and received a significant volume of submissions and tabled documents. On 18 October 2022, the Committee tabled its Interim Report, containing 8 recommendations. On 9 March 2023, the Committee tabled its Final Report. The Final Report built on the Interim Report by considering a variety of issues within the work and care system. It put forward 33 recommendations "for structural reform to early childhood education and care, respite care, support payments and workplace relations arrangements, including pay, leave, rostering, hours of work, flexibility and job security, amongst others".[ ] The Committee noted that the recommendations "are intended to support workers with caring responsibilities, and to promote more inclusive, flexible and responsive workplaces, by creating the conditions that allow people to better combine work and care".[ ] Government, Coalition and Australian Greens senators made additional comments and recommendations. The Committee's reports can be found at www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Work_and_Care. Overview of the Government Response The Australian Government would like to thank all those who assisted in the Committee's Inquiry. We particularly acknowledge the carers and workers who shared their experiences and ideas for improving the wellbeing of workers, carers, and those they care for. Throughout the Inquiry, the Committee received evidence and heard lived experiences about the challenges of combining work and care responsibilities. The Committee considered these impacts, as well as the interrelated challenges faced by women, culturally and linguistically diverse communities, First Nations peoples, people with disability, veterans, young people, and circumstances that can affect all Australians. The Government welcomes the findings of the Committee. The Government's vision is that all Australians receive high quality, person-centred care and support if they need it, delivered by workers with quality jobs, and that the systems and services that provide this care are productive and sustainable. The Government also acknowledges that fundamentally these issues are about gender equality and recognises the connections with the gender pay gap and the important contribution of unpaid care work to our community. The Government acknowledges the work and care challenges and impacts on certain cohorts. Women in Australia are more likely than men to work as carers. Women are more likely to use leave or access flexible work arrangements to provide unpaid care for children and other family members. Health care and social assistance is the most common industry of employment for working age First Nations women. First Nations peoples' family obligations and kinship networks compound the extent of caring responsibilities. Government action, developed in consultation with community, must deliver for First Nations women. The Committee's recommendations are a valuable and timely contribution to Australia's work and care policy discussion. While the recommendation's themes are consistent with Government policy, Government needs to consider implementation, with regard for the broader budgetary implications and legislative context. As part of this process, the Government has referred all relevant findings and recommendations to the Fair Work Commission for consideration as part of the Modern Awards Review 2023-24 requested by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Underpinned by Working for Women: A Strategy for Gender Equality, key activities underway across government include: expanding the Government's Paid Parental Leave scheme committing to pay superannuation on government-funded paid parental leave implementing significant legislative reforms to the Fair Work Act 2009 supporting the Fair Work Commission's Modern Awards Review 2023-24 delivering the National Carer Strategy commissioning the Productivity Commission's inquiry into the early childhood education and care (ECEC) sector in Australia providing the Carer Inclusive Workplace Initiative, and evaluating carer support programs including the Carer Gateway. The Government response describes these achievements in detail. It also captures other initiatives, policies and programs that are addressing the Committee's observations. The first chapter addresses the importance of an integrated and strategic approach to the challenges of work and care, including data and reporting. The second chapter addresses the need for flexible and supportive workplaces to help Australians to balance work and care responsibilities. It covers the recommendations about leave entitlements, forms of work and working hours. The third chapter addresses the specific challenges of ECEC and considers the recommendations about Australia's ECEC system. The fourth chapter addresses the need to support individuals including carers, workers, and those seeking employment, including relevant recommendations. The Committee made 33 recommendations in its Final Report and Australian Greens Senators made 14 additional recommendations. The Committee also made 8 recommendations in its Interim Report. The Government agrees in full, in part or in principle with 17 recommendations of the Final Report. The Government agrees with 4 recommendations of the Final Report in full (13, 14, 23 and 31), where actions have been taken or are in the process of being taken. The Government also agrees in principle with 4 recommendations (9, 10, 11, and 20) as the broader intent of these recommendations is being acted upon or being considered through work underway. The Government agrees in part with 9 recommendations (1, 2, 8, 12, 15, 16, 17, 25 and 26) where actions have been taken, or are in the process of being taken, to address part of the recommendation. The Government notes the remaining 16 recommendations and will further consider the issues as appropriate. Table of Government Response to Individual Recommendations 1 A Strategic and Integrated Approach The Committee investigated the ways in which workers combine working with the care of family members or friends, such as children, people with disability, medical conditions, or mental illness, as well as those frail due to age. It noted that care is a collective social responsibility. It found that a whole of government response is required to meet Australia's work and care challenges. The Committee found that care policies and the underpinning regulatory measures need to be reviewed and reformed holistically as a whole of government initiative. The Committee noted that there are multifaceted and interlinked issues for working carers, including the gendered nature of care, low wages, and insufficient conditions in the sector. The Committee also commented upon inadequacies within the ECEC system, the parental leave framework, the availability of flexible working arrangements, and the workplace relations framework. The Government is already taking a comprehensive and integrated approach to addressing the challenges of work and care. Working Future: The Australian Government's White Paper on Jobs and Opportunities (Working Future) acknowledges the role of balancing work and care in supporting inclusion and employment opportunities. 1.1 The Care and Support Economy In 2022, the Government established the Care and Support Economy Taskforce in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to address key shared challenges across the aged care, disability support, veterans' care and ECEC sectors. In the 2024-25 Budget, the Government established a Care and Support Economy Reform Unit in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to succeed the Taskforce. The Unit will focus on improving the alignment of policies, programs, and actions across aged care, disability support, veterans' care and ECEC, and tracking the implementation of reforms. Taking this holistic approach to improving the care and support economy in Australia will deliver quality care and support with quality jobs, while making sure the care and support economy is productive and sustainable into the future. The Government has already acted to address care and support economy challenges, including: implementing Working for Women: A Strategy for Gender Equality implemented Cheaper Child Care—making ECEC more affordable for families by lifting Child Care Subsidy rates from July 2023 strengthening pay equity through changes to the Fair Work Act 2009 providing funding to support increases to award wages for many aged care workers modernising the Government's Paid Parental Leave scheme and expanding it by two additional weeks each year from July 2024 until it reaches 26 weeks from July 2026 trialling an integrated commissioning approach across primary care, disability support, aged care, and veterans' care supporting Jobs and Skills Australia's ECEC Capacity Study, and getting the National Disability Insurance Scheme for participants, their families, and carers. These, along with the measures described throughout this response are addressing the gender pay gap and the challenges faced by people balancing work and care. Recommendation 1 The committee recommends the Australian Government take a comprehensive and integrated approach to addressing the challenges of work and care in this country. The Australian Government should implement the recommendations in the committee's interim and final reports to a range of systems, including workplace relations, early childhood education and care, paid leave, disability and aged care, as well as financial supports for carers. This reform package should ensure that Australians have a right to care, alongside their right to work, and our systems and laws should provide unequivocal support for this important role through a new work and care social contract fit for the 21st century. The Government agrees in part to this recommendation. The Government is taking a comprehensive approach to the issues of work and care across a range of systems and policy areas. The Government acknowledges the right to care as a shared responsibility across levels of government. The Government is addressing the issues at the intersection of work and care: First, the Government's Working for Women: A Strategy for Gender Equality, launched on 7 March 2024, forms the centrepiece of the Government's gender equality policy and identifies unpaid and paid care, and economic equality and security as priority areas. Second, the Government is developing a National Carer Strategy to deliver a whole-of-government framework to support Australia's carers. Third, the Government's Employment White Paper, Working Future, sets out its strategy for the labour market, recognising the role of balancing work and care in supporting inclusion and employment opportunities. Fourth, the Government has created a Care and Support Economy Reform Unit in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet to improve the alignment of policies, programs, and actions across the care and support economy. Fifth, the Fair Work Commission is conducting a targeted review of modern awards following a request made by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations on 12 September 2023. This request followed the Government's Jobs and Skills Summit commitment to consider where modern awards can be improved, and to consult on and research the impact of workplace relations settings on work and care. Recommendation 20 The committee recommends the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet consider the operation of markets in the aged, disability and early childhood education and care sectors and the effectiveness of current models of provision (including profit and not-for-profit models) in delivering quality care and addressing provision in thin markets. Australian Greens' Additional Recommendation 13 The Australian Greens recommend the Australian Government urgently review the provision of for-profit care in the aged, disability, and early childhood education and care sectors, including: consideration of the quantum of public funds diverted from direct service provision to profit and its consequences for the quality of care; comparing the quality of care in for-profit and not-for-profit care; and examining the relationship between for-profit provision of care and the occurrence of 'care deserts' across Australia. The Government agrees in principle to this recommendation and notes the Australian Greens' additional recommendation. Relevant Government departments are considering and trialing ways to improve access to services and service quality, particularly in thin markets. To better understand these issues, the Government directed the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to conduct an inquiry into the market for the supply of ECEC services. The National Disability Insurance Scheme Review and Aged Care Taskforce also considered thin market challenges in the National Disability Insurance Scheme and aged care respectively. The Department of Health and Aged Care Is developing an Aged Care Market Strategy and undertaken consultations to inform this work. The Government, through its Integrated Care and Commissioning Project, is trialling collaborative, place-based and innovative approaches to improve service availability across health, aged care, disability, and veterans' care sectors for people living in regional, rural and remote communities, and for First Nations peoples in targeted urban areas. The Government notes that these markets should meet First Nations cultural needs, including services that support people to remain on Country. 1.2 Data and reporting The Government notes the importance of adequate data to inform policymaking. Data sources that provide insights into the employment experience of carers and the intersection between caring and employment already exist and provide a platform to build from. In 2020, Deloitte Access Economics analysis found the estimated cost to replace informal/unpaid care in Australia was $77.9 billion per year.[ ] Taking time out of work or limiting work hours (often for caring responsibilities) can have a big impact on women's labour force participation, pay and career progression. In 2022, KPMG analysis found factors related to unpaid care work interrupted workforce participation and that part-time employment contributes 33 per cent of the national gender pay gap.[ ] Published in 2023, the Government's White Paper Working Future estimated that the replacement value of unpaid care work in 2020-21 was around $165.1 billion. On 7 March 2024, the Government released Working for Women: A Strategy for Gender Equality which outlines the Government's vision for gender equality—an Australia where people are safe, treated with respect, have choices, and have access to resources and equal outcomes no matter their gender. This is an important mechanism to elevate and prioritise actions over the next 10 years to drive gender equality in Australia, including addressing challenges relating to unpaid and paid work and care. This Strategy's reporting framework includes outcomes and indicators that will be used to measure change over its lifespan. To support better information, in 2023 the Government made significant legislative reforms to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency's reporting framework through the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Act 2023. The Government also remade subordinate instruments, the Workplace Gender Equality (Gender Equality Standards) Instrument 2023 and the Workplace Gender Equality (Matters in relation to Gender Equality Indicators) Instrument 2023. Following these changes, on .27 February 2024, the Workplace Gender Equality Agency published employer-level gender pay gaps for employers with 100 or more employees. Publishing employer gender pay gaps is a critical part of legislative action aimed at closing the gender pay gap. Recommendation 2 The committee recommends the Australian Government include a statement in the employment white paper, providing an estimate of the annual financial contribution of unpaid care to the national economy. Further, the committee recommends that the Australian Government consider including a statement in the Budget papers providing an estimate of the annual financial contribution of unpaid care to the national economy. The committee also recommends that the wellbeing budget include specific analysis of the contribution of care to wellbeing, and include measurement of such care, its state and change over time. The Government agrees in part tothis recommendation. In its White Paper, Working Future, the Government provided an estimate of the annual financial contribution of unpaid care to the national economy. While the Australian Bureau of Statistics has previously published estimates of the value of unpaid care, the Government appreciates that a more regular and timely measure is an important step to properly valuing the economic contribution of care work. As such, the Government has provided funding to the Australian Bureau of Statistics to produce regular statistics on the amount and value of unpaid care in Australia. Recommendation 24 The committee recommends the mandatory annual reporting of companies with over .20 000 employees in Australia to the Fair Work Commission on workplace practices to ensure roster justice and flexible working arrangements. The committee further recommends the mandatory collection of data by these companies of requests, including at store level, for roster changes and flexible working arrangements, and the percentage of changes to shifts that have been initiated by the employer within one week of the shift taking place. The data should: include a collection of all requests, including those deemed 'informal', and detail whether these requests were approved, approved with modification, or denied; provide information on the length of employment (up until the date of reporting) for that employee after their request was initially made; and be provided in full to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency and published on the respective company's website. The Government notes this recommendation. The Workplace Gender Equality Agency already requires employers with 100 or more employees to report on matters including the availability and utility of employment terms, conditions and practices relating to flexible working arrangements for employees and to working arrangements supporting employees with family or caring responsibilities. The reforms made by the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Closing the Gender Pay Gap) Act 2023 have strengthened reporting obligations in respect of this indicator and other gender equality indicators by requiring employers with 500 or more employees to put in place policies or strategies against all gender equality indicators. Such employers are now required to have policies or strategies to support flexible working arrangements and arrangements to support employees with family or caring responsibilities. Rostering and flexible working arrangements are being considered by the Fair Work Commission as part of the Modern Awards Review requested by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Discussion papers for both the work and care and job security streams of the Modern Awards Review 2023-24 identified recommendation 24 as a recommendation for consideration. The Government will consider the outcomes of the Modern Awards Review once the Fair Work Commission's Final Report is published. Recommendation 33 The committee recommends the establishment of a new longitudinal data set in parallel to the Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia survey with a specific focus on workplaces and the experience of workers within them, including how they intersect with care activities. The committee further recommends that additional research be funded to independently analyse and publicly report on the circumstances and experiences of carers in Australia. Interim Report Recommendation 1 The committee recommends that, as a matter of priority, the Australian Government include new questions in the Census and/or new regular surveys of a representative group of workers to determine the extent, nature and effects of the interaction of work and care responsibilities across Australia. This data collection project should survey workers every five years with the aim of: analysing the extent and nature of the interaction of work and care responsibilities across Australia, with consideration of particular subgroups including (but not limited to): age; gender; type of care; extent of workforce participation; and generating data to allow extensive analysis of the work and care system, and how it affects outcomes for working carers. The Government notes this recommendation and the Interim Report recommendation. The cost and complexity of longitudinal data collection with a workplace level focus would be more challenging than a longitudinal study of households and people like the Household Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia study. This is one reason why there is not a nationally representative, longitudinal workplace level collection, similar to the Australian Workplace Industrial Relations Survey from the mid-90s, in Australia. The Government notes that work could be commissioned to assess the extent to which existing data sources could be better leveraged or enhanced to meet key data requirements identified by the Committee (for example, integrating additional employer and employee data into other data collection activities). The Government will consider the most appropriate approach and avenue for progressing this work. A Household, Income and Labour Dynamics Australia Women's Progress Report 2001-2022 has been commissioned to showcase developments in women's progress since the study first commenced in 2001. Due in late 2024, the Report is expected to analyse changes in women's health and wellbeing, attitudes to gender roles in home and family life and employment, labour market participation, income and career progression, housing and homelessness, caring and unpaid labour and how this is shared in households, and financial health and security. 2 Flexible and Supportive Workplaces The Committee considered the experiences of both paid and unpaid carers and proposed the need for a new 'work and care social contract'. This work and care social contract would enable equalised child care responsibilities for both men and women, promote job security, provide flexible jobs and transitions in and out of work, and ensure that workers remain above the poverty line when they cannot work and when in retirement. The Government is committed to improving pay and conditions for all workers, including those in the care sector and those who have caring responsibilities. The workplace relations system should support Australians to manage work and care responsibilities. The Government has introduced significant legislative amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009 (Fair Work Act) to reform the workplace relations system to achieve these objectives. This chapter sets out the Government's response to the Committee's recommendations associated with leave entitlements, forms of work and working hours. It provides an overview of legislative reforms to the workplace relations framework since taking office. 2.1 Workplace relations reforms The Government has implemented a significant program of legislative reforms to improve Australia's workplace relations system. Many of these reforms are supporting employees to manage their work and care responsibilities more effectively, particularly through improved flexibility and more bargaining options. Employers and employees are being empowered to establish working relationships that are appropriate for both workplaces and families. 2.1.1 Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave reforms The Fair Work Amendment (Paid Family and Domestic Violence Leave) Act 2022 means victim/survivors do not need to choose between their safety or their pay. All national system employees, including casuals, are now entitled to 10 days of paid family and domestic violence leave each year, at their full rate of pay. This will extend to non-national system employees on 9 September 2024, 3 months after the International Labour Organization's Violence and Harassment at Work Convention, 2019 comes into force for Australia. 2.1.2 Secure Jobs, Better Pay reforms The Government introduced key reforms to improve job security and wages through the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022, which delivered on the Government's election commitments and outcomes from the 2022 Jobs and Skills Summit. The Secure Jobs, Better Pay reforms improve job security and put gender equality at the centre of the workplace relations system, through amendments that: made gender equality and job security objects of the Fair Work Act help guide the way the Fair Work Commission considers equal remuneration cases and gender-based undervaluation in work value cases require the Fair Work Commission to consider the need to promote secure work and achieve gender equality in setting the terms of modern awards require the Fair Work Commission to consider the need to achieve gender equality in setting the national minimum wage and award wages establish Expert Panels in the Fair Work Commission so it has the knowledge and expertise to deal with pay equity and care and community sector matters strengthen the right to request flexible working arrangements reinvigorate the bargaining system, with a focus on opening it up to low-paid, female-dominated sectors prohibit pay secrecy clauses in employment contracts, and limit the use of fixed-term contracts. 2.1.3 Protecting Worker Entitlements reforms The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Protecting Worker Entitlements) Act 2023 made further reforms to enhance worker protections, promote gender equality, remove unnecessary administrative burden, and clarify aspects of the workplace relations system. It included amendments to the Fair Work Act to: clarify the rights of temporary migrant workers to pay and entitlements is not affected by their migration status insert an entitlement to superannuation in the National Employment Standards, and provide stronger access to unpaid parental leave and complement recent changes to the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010. 2.1.4 Closing Loopholes reforms The Government also made further improvements to the workplace relations system through the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Act 2023 and the Fair WorkLegislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act 2024. The Closing Loopholes reforms make amendments to the Fair Work Act to: address the misuse of casual employment arrangements and provide a clearer pathway to permanent work ensure labour hire workers are paid at least the same as directly engaged employees doing the same work criminalise wage theft by introducing criminal offences for intentional underpayment of employees' wages and certain entitlements provide stronger protections against discrimination, adverse action, and harassment extend the powers of the Fair Work Commission to inquire into and set minimum standards for 'employee-like' workers, and introduce an employee right to disconnect. 2.1.5 Modern Awards Review 2023-24 In addition to legislative reforms, the Government committed at the Jobs and Skills Summit to consider where improvements can be made to modern awards, and to conduct detailed consultation and research on the impact of workplace relations settings (such as rostering arrangements) on work and care. The Government provided $0.8 million in the .2023-24 Budget to the Fair Work Commission and the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations to deliver on these important commitments. On 12 September 2023, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations wrote to the President of the Fair Work Commission to recommend the Fair Work Commission undertake a targeted review of modern awards. The letter identified key priorities for such a review, including: a consultation and research process considering the impact of workplace relations settings (such as rostering arrangements) on work and care, including early education and care [ … ], having regard to relevant findings and recommendations of the Final Report of the Senate Select Committee on Work and Care.[ ] The Fair Work Commission commenced the Modern Awards Review 2023-24 (Modern Awards Review) on 15 September 2023. It includes a work and care stream that is considering the impact of workplace relations settings on work and care, having regard to relevant findings and recommendations of the Committee. The job security stream is also having regard to certain findings of the Committee. The consultation process for the work and care stream included a discussion paper on work and care, a literature review produced by the Western Sydney University, a data profile on workplace flexibilities, a survey of employers, submissions from interested parties, and hearings with key stakeholders. The discussion paper on work and care identified the Committee's Final Report recommendations 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 27 (as well as Interim Report recommendations 4 and 5) as relevant to the stream.[ ] The Fair Work Commission will publish its findings in a report at the conclusion of the Modern Awards Review on, or around, 28 June 2024. 2.1.6 Resourcing the Fair Work Commission Funding for the Modern Awards Review complements the $20.2 million allocated in the 2022-23 October Budget to establish the Expert Panels for pay equity and the Care and Community Sector in the Fair Work Commission, assisted by a dedicated research unit. Taken together, the Government has provided the Fair Work Commission with the resources and expertise it needs to understand and address the low pay and conditions faced in female dominated workplaces such as many in the care and community sector. 2.2 Leave entitlements and forms of work Five Committee recommendations relate to leave entitlement access or forms of work. Minimum leave entitlements for employees are set in law through the National Employment Standards. An award, registered agreement or contract of employment can provide for other leave entitlements, but they cannot be less beneficial than the entitlement in the National Employment Standards. Employers can also provide terms and conditions of employment above the legislated minimum standard, including greater quantum and access to paid leave for employees. Recommendation 17 The committee recommends that the definition of 'immediate family' in the Fair Work Act 2009 be amended and broadened for the purposes of an employee accessing carer's leave. In addition to the current definition, the following persons should be classified as 'immediate family': any person who is a member of an employee's household, and has been for a continuous period of over 18 months; any of the employee's children (including adopted, step and ex-nuptial children); any of the employee's siblings (including a sibling of their spouse or de facto partner); and any other person significant to the employee to whom the employee provides regular care. The Government agrees in part to this recommendation. Family members captured by the first 3 bullet points of this recommendation are already able to access carer's leave under the Fair Work Act. Section 12 of the Fair Work Act defines immediate family as the spouse, de facto partner, child, parent, grandparent, grandchild or sibling of the employee, or of the employee's spouse/de facto partner. Section 17 provides that this includes step relations and adoptive relations. Sections 97 and 102 of the Fair Work Act enable employees to use paid and unpaid personal/carer's leave to care for both immediate family and for a member of the employee's household. With respect to the fourth bullet point—"any other persons significant to the employee to whom the employee provides regular care"—this form of relationship is not currently included in the Fair Work Act's carer's leave definitions. However, the workplace relations system enables employees and employers to agree to other arrangements tailored to the employee's caring responsibilities, including through enterprise bargaining. For instance, carers within the meaning of the Carer Recognition Act 2021 are entitled to make requests for flexible working arrangements under s 65(1A) of the Fair Work Act. This recommendation is being considered by the Fair Work Commission as part of the Modern Awards Review. The Commission's work and care stream discussion paper notes this recommendation and Question 15 of the paper asks: Noting the Work and Care Final Report Recommendation 17, that the definition of immediate family should be expanded, are there any specific variations in modern awards that are necessary to ensure they continue to meet the modern awards objective?[ ] The Government will consider this aspect of the recommendation further in light of the outcomes of the Modern Awards Review, including any award variation proposals put forward by parties. Recommendation 18 The committee recommends the Australian Government consider the adequacy of existing leave arrangements and investigate potential improvements in leave arrangements in the Fair Work Act 2009, including separate carer's leave and personal leave. Australian Greens' Additional Recommendation 8 The Australian Greens recommend the Australian Government amend the National Employment Standards under Division 7 of the Fair Work Act 2009, to separate carer's leave and personal leave into unique leave entitlements. These separate leave entitlements should: provide 10 days of paid carer's leave and a further 10 days of paid personal leave; and be available on a pro-rata basis to all casual, part-time and permanent employees who have been engaged by an employer for at least six months. The Government notes this recommendation and the Australian Greens' additional recommendation. These recommendations are being considered by the Fair Work Commission as part of the Modern Awards Review requested by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. The Fair Work Commission's work and care stream discussion paper notes this recommendation and Question 17 asks: Noting Senate Committee Recommendation 18, to consider separating personal/carer's leave entitlement, are there any specific variations in modern awards that are necessary to ensure they continue to meet the modern awards objective?[ ] The Government will consider the outcomes of the Modern Awards Review, including findings relevant to the above recommendations. Recommendation 19 The committee recommends the Australian Government request the Fair Work Commission to review access to and compensation for paid sick and annual leave for casual and .part-time workers. Australian Greens' Additional Recommendation 7 The Australian Greens recommend the Australian Government amend the National Employment Standards in the Fair Work Act 2009 to establish a right for all workers (including casual workers) who have worked for a period of six months, to pro-rata paid sick and holiday leave. The Government notes this recommendation and the Australian Greens' additional recommendation. Leave entitlements are being considered by the Fair Work Commission as part of the Modern Awards Review requested by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Both the work and care and job security stream discussion papers identified recommendation 19 as a recommendation for consideration. The Government will consider the outcomes of the Modern Awards Review once the Fair Work Commission's Final Report is published. The Government is committed to protecting and facilitating workers' access to entitlements as provided for under the Fair Work Act and other relevant legislation, including through legislative reform measures to prevent sham contracting and restore a fair, objective definitions of employment and casual work. Together, these will help ensure fewer workers miss out on leave entitlements due to misclassification. Recommendation 25 The committee recommends the Australian Government respond to the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Job Security as a matter of priority. The committee reiterates those recommendations and calls on the Australian Government to: develop a new statutory definition of casual employment that reflects the true nature of the employment relationship and is restricted to work that is genuinely intermittent, seasonal or unpredictable; and restrict the use of low base hour contracts, which can be 'flexed up' without incurring any pay penalty for additional hours worked beyond contract, and ensure permanent part-time employees have access to regular, predicable patterns and hours of work. This could include implementing penalty rates for any hours worked over the contracted amount. For example, if an employee is contracted for 15 hours and their employer rosters them for more, they should be paid a penalty rate for hours worked beyond the contracted amount. The committee further recommends that the Australian Government develop clearly delineated statutory definitions of part-time and full-time employment and that these definitions, as well as a definition of casual employment, be inserted into the Fair Work Act 2009. These definitions should accurately reflect modern employment relationships and address employers' use of widely accepted legal loopholes, which can result in employment conditions that do not align with community expectations. In particular, the growing trend of part-time work to function as a form of casual employment without the benefit of casual loading. The Government agrees in part to this recommendation. The Government's Secure Jobs, Better Pay and Closing Loopholes reforms to the Fair Work Act partially address this recommendation. This recommendation is being considered by the Fair Work Commission as part of the Modern Awards Review requested by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Both the work and care and job security stream discussion papers identified recommendation 25 as a recommendation for consideration. The Government will consider the outcomes of the Modern Awards Review once the Fair Work Commission's Final Report is published. Job Security Select Committee The Government is progressing its formal response to the Senate Select Committee on Job Security's reports. The Government further notes that the Job Security Committee's findings and recommendations played a substantial role in the development of legislative reforms already undertaken in this term of Government. Secure Jobs, Better Pay and Closing Loopholes The Secure Jobs, Better Pay reforms added secure work and gender equality to the modern awards objective and the object of the Fair Work Act. The Fair Work Commission, as part of the Modern Awards Review, is considering how these changes to the purpose of the legislation bear upon the modern award system. The Closing Loopholes reforms implemented the Government's commitment to legislating a fair, objective test to determine when a worker can be classified as casual, and the new definition will take effect from 26 August 2024. For employees who are effectively working like a permanent employee, they will have a clear and simple way to choose to change to permanent work. These reforms are in addition to other measures to address legal loopholes that undercut conditions of work, including a fair definition of employment and the establishment of the new framework for the Fair Work Commission to set minimum standards for employee-like workers and in the road transport industry. Recommendation 26 The committee recommends that the principle of equal pay for equal work should be applied to gig workers, who currently do not have the same conditions and entitlements as other workers. Gig workers should have the same rights regarding predictability of work, liveable income, decent health and safety standards, and paid sick and holiday leave. The committee further recommends the Australian Government remove incentives for gig platforms to avoid workplace regulations. The Government agrees in part to this recommendation. The Government is strongly committed to delivering minimum workplace standards to protect gig workers. The Government has legislated to empower the Fair Work Commission to set minimum standards for employee-like workers in the gig economy. This change closes the loophole that has left these workers without access to any minimum standards at all. These changes commence on 26 August 2024, or earlier by proclamation. Australia has ratified the International Labour Organization's Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951, and is committed to the implementation of equal pay for equal work across all forms of work. In this respect, the Government's Secure Jobs, Better Pay reforms added gender equality as an express object of the Fair Work Act. The employee-like framework is designed to ensure that employee-like workers receive fair minimum standards that reflect the unique nature of digital platform work. It will be a matter for the independent Fair Work Commission to determine which terms and conditions will be set as minimum standards, having regard to the applications before it and the requirements set out in legislation. This includes taking into account the objects of the Fair Work Act, which include the need to promote gender equality. This approach closes the loophole which has enabled digital labour platforms to avoid workplace regulations. It creates a new framework which will ensure minimum standards are fit-for-purpose for workers, consumers and platforms. In addition, the Government has legislated to update the sham contracting provisions (and increase penalties) and insert an objective definition of employment, to prevent misclassification of workers designed to limit access to entitlements. Employee-like workers will also be able to apply to the Fair Work Commission for dispute resolution if they consider they have been unfairly deactivated by a digital labour platform. The Government is strongly committed to ensuring all workers, including those in the gig economy, have equal access to decent health and safety standards. The model Work Health and Safety laws, adopted in the Commonwealth jurisdiction, extends to work performed in non-standard work arrangements, as duties relate to 'persons conducting a business or undertaking' and 'workers' (rather than 'employers' and 'employees'). The national work health and safety policy body, Safe Work Australia, monitors the implementation and effectiveness of the model laws. This includes ensuring these duties are being applied effectively in practice across modern work arrangements, such as the gig economy. 2.3 Working hours Five Committee recommendations relate to working hours, rostering, and the standard working week. Under the National Employment Standards, an employer cannot request or require an employee to work more than 38 hours of work in a week, unless the additional hours are reasonable. In determining whether additional hours are reasonable or unreasonable, a number of factors must be taken into account, such as any risk to employee health and safety and the employee's personal circumstances, including family responsibilities. Employees also have the right to refuse to work any additional hours that are unreasonable. 2.3.1 Employee right to disconnect The Closing Loopholes reforms included a new employee right to disconnect in the Fair Work Act which makes clear that employees are not required to monitor, read, or respond to employer or work-related contact out of hours, unless refusing to do so is unreasonable. The right to disconnect is a high level right, with factors to help employers determine whether an employee's refusal to monitor, read or respond to contact is unreasonable. There are no obligations that limit employers or others from contacting or attempting to contact employees—just protections for employees who reasonably switch off. Employees' right to refuse employer or work-related contact (or attempted contact) out of hours will be a workplace right, so the general protections in the Fair Work Act will apply. The Fair Work Commission will be able to deal with disputes promptly, including by issuing stop orders. The right to disconnect will apply to national system employees and employers, other than small business employers and their employees, from 26 August 2024. Modern awards will include a right to disconnect term from this date. For small business employers and employees, the right to disconnect will not commence until 26 August 2025, providing additional time for these employers and employees to make arrangements that suit their workplace. 2.3.2 Modern awards and enterprise agreements Modern awards and enterprise agreements can include terms dealing with maximum weekly ordinary hours (which can be fewer than 38 ordinary hours per week), parameters around working additional hours such as payment of overtime, and necessary breaks between work applicable for overtime periods. Modern awards and enterprise agreements must also include a term requiring the employer to consult employees about a change to their regular roster or ordinary hours of work. Employers must invite the employees to give their views about the impact of the change, including any impact in relation to their family or caring responsibilities. 2.3.3 Work health and safety The Government recognises the potential impact excessive working hours or unreasonable expectations around presenteeism could have on the psychological health of workers. Improving the understanding and management of such psychosocial hazards in Australian workplaces is an ongoing priority for the Government. On 1 April 2023, new Work Health and Safety Regulations on managing psychosocial hazards at work came into effect in the Commonwealth jurisdiction. To support implementation of the psychosocial regulations, a Code of Practice on managing psychosocial hazards in the workplace for the Commonwealth jurisdiction is being finalised. The Government has also committed $2 million over 2 years, from 2023 to 2025, to fund the development and delivery of a 'train-the-trainer' program on workplace psychosocial hazards for Health and Safety Representatives in the Commonwealth jurisdiction. The training will improve Health and Safety Representatives' psychosocial hazard literacy, and support implementation of regulations on managing psychosocial risks. Recommendation 21 The committee recommends, alongside its Interim Report recommendations to ensure employees have predicable, stable rosters, the Australian Government supports a review by the Fair Work Commission of current industrial awards, to require employers to give advance notice of at least two weeks of rosters and roster changes (except in exceptional circumstances) and genuinely consider employee views about the impact of proposed roster changes and to accommodate the needs of the employee. The committee further recommends the Australian Government support a review by the FWC into current industrial awards, to ensure employees have a 'right to say no' to extra hours with protection from negative consequences. Interim Report Recommendation 5 The committee recommends that the Australian Government amend the Fair Work Act 2009 to provide improved rostering rights for employees, and in particular working carers, by: ensuring employers implement rostering practices that are predictable, stable and focused on fixed shift scheduling (for example, fixed times and days); and amending section 145A of the Act to require employers genuinely consider employee views about the impact of proposed roster changes, and take the views of the employee, including working carers, into consideration when changing rosters and other work arrangements. The Government notes this recommendation and the Interim Report recommendation. Rostering is being considered by the Fair Work Commission as part of the Modern Awards Review requested by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. In particular, Question 8 of the Fair Work Commission's discussion paper on work and care asks: Noting the Work and Care Senate Committee Recommendation 21 that all employees should have at least 2 weeks' notice of their roster except in exceptional circumstances, are there any specific variations to rostering provisions in modern awards that are necessary to ensure they continue to meet the modern awards objective?[ ] The Government will consider the outcomes of the Modern Awards Review once the Fair Work Commission's Final Report is published. The Government's Secure Jobs, Better Pay reforms introduced new secure work and gender equality elements to the modern awards objective, which are under consideration, including in relation to rostering arrangements as part of the Modern Awards Review. Recommendation 22 The committee recommends the Australian Government write to the Fair Work Commission suggesting a review of the operation of the 38-hour working week set in the National Employment Standards, the extent and consequences of longer hours of work. The review should also consider stronger penalties for long hours and other possible ways to reduce them, including through the work, health and safety system which requires employers to ensure safe working hours as a part of providing a safe workplace. The Government notes this recommendation. Working hours and overtime, time off in lieu, and make-up time provisions are being broadly considered by the Fair Work Commission as part of the Modern Awards Review requested by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. The discussion paper on work and care identified recommendation 22 as a recommendation for consideration. The Government will consider the outcomes of the Modern Awards Review once the Fair Work Commission's Final Report is published. The Government also acknowledges that psychosocial hazards such as excessive job demands or low control can materialise in long working hours. These must be managed under work health and safety laws. Regulatory reform has recently taken place in the Commonwealth work health and safety jurisdiction and is underway in other states and territories to improve psychosocial risk management in workplaces. Recommendation 23 The committee recommends the Australian Government consider amending the Fair Work Act 2009 to include an enforceable 'right to disconnect' under the National Employment Standards, giving all workers a right to disconnect once their contracted working hours have finished and restricting employers from communicating with workers outside of work hours, except in the event of an emergency or for welfare reasons. The committee further recommends the Australian Government increase penalties for employers who commit wage theft through, for example, unpaid additional hours of work and consider changes to law that make these cases subject to criminal charges. Interim Report Recommendation 3 The committee recommends that the Australian Government amend the Fair Work Act 2009, including section 65 of that Act, to: make the right to request flexible work available to all workers and to remove the stigma attached to its use when confined to carers; replace the 'reasonable business grounds' provision at section 65(5) under which employers can refuse a flexible working arrangement, with refusal only on the grounds of 'unjustifiable hardship'; introduce a positive duty on employers to reasonably accommodate flexible working arrangements; require consultation with workers about flexibility requests; and revise sections 738 and 739 of the Act to introduce a process of appeal to the Fair Work Commission, for decisions made by employers under section 65 refusing to allow flexible work arrangements on the grounds of unjustifiable hardship, or on 'reasonable business grounds'. Interim Report Recommendation 4 The committee recommends that the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations investigate legislative reforms to the Fair Work Act 2009 and any other associated workplace laws, to enact a 'right to disconnect' from work. This right should: enable and support productive work from home and flexibility of work; protect the right of workers to disconnect from their job outside of contracted hours and to enforce this right with their employer; place a positive duty on employers to reasonably accommodate the right wherever possible; and allow employees to appeal to the Fair Work Commission where the right is not being enacted by employers. Australian Greens' Additional Recommendation 1 The Australian Greens recommend the Australian Government prioritise amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009 to include an enforceable 'right to disconnect' under the National Employment Standards The Government agrees to this recommendation and agrees in part to the Interim Report recommendations and the Australian Greens' additional recommendation. The Government supported a legislated a right to disconnect in the Fair Work Act through the Closing Loophole reforms. These reforms also criminalise wage theft by introducing criminal offences for intentional underpayment of employees' wages and certain entitlements and increase the civil penalties for wage underpayment in certain circumstances. The new right to disconnect provisions within the Fair Work Act makes clear that employees are not required to monitor, read, or respond to employer or work-related contact out of hours, unless refusing to do so is unreasonable. These changes start on 26 August 2024 for non-small business employers and their employees, and on 26 August 2025 for small business employers and employees. The Fair Work Commission is also required to insert a right to disconnect term into all modern awards and make written guidelines about how the right to disconnect will operate by 26 August 2024. To do so, the Fair Work Commission is undertaking consultation and engaging with interested parties. Parties can also negotiate rights to disconnect in their enterprise agreements to reflect the needs of workers and their workplaces and some workplaces already have a right to disconnect, or similar, in their agreement. These build on the Secure Jobs, Better Pay reforms to strengthen the right to request flexible working arrangements by making it an enforceable right, which reflect the Government's agreement in part to Interim Report Recommendation 3. The Fair Work Commission can deal with disputes about requests for flexible working arrangements, including by arbitration. Recommendation 27 The committee recommends the Australian Government request the Fair Work Commission undertake a review of standard working hours with a view to reducing the standard working week. The Government notes this recommendation. Working hours are being broadly considered by the Fair Work Commission as part of the Modern Awards Review requested by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. The discussion paper on work and care identified recommendation 27 as a recommendation for consideration. The Government will consider the outcomes of the Modern Awards Review once the Fair Work Commission's Final Report is published. Recommendation 28 The committee recommends the Australian Government undertake a four-day week trial based on the 100:80:100 model whereby employees retain 100 per cent of the salary while reducing their hours to 80 per cent while maintaining 100 per cent productivity. The trial should be implemented in diverse sectors and geographical locations. The Australian Government should partner with an Australian university throughout the trial to measure the impact of a four-day week on productivity, health and wellbeing, workplace cultural change, gender equality in the workplace as well as the impact on the distribution of unpaid care across genders. The Government notes this recommendation. The Government is committed to improving access to flexible work and to operating as a model employer. As an outcome of Australian Public Service enterprise bargaining, the Commonwealth published a forward-leaning common clause on Flexible Working Arrangements. The common clause supports employees to request a range of flexibilities, such as compressed working arrangements, part-time arrangements, altering the hours in which work can be performed, and altering the location of work including work from home. Requests are to be considered on their individual merits, with a bias to approval. The common clause recognises that flexibility applies to all roles, and different types of flexible working arrangements may be suitable for different types of roles or circumstances. This entitlement is now in effect in Australian Public Service enterprise agreements and is progressively coming into effect in other Commonwealth enterprise agreements as they are voted up by employees and approved by the Fair Work Commission. Claims for a four-day work week trial were not agreed in the recent round of APS-wide enterprise bargaining. Workplace flexibility is being considered as part of the Modern Awards Review requested by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. The discussion paper on work and care identified Recommendation 28 as a recommendation for consideration. The Government will consider the outcomes of the Modern Awards Review once the Fair Work Commission's Final Report is published. 3 Early Childhood Education and Care The Committee identified ECEC as essential social infrastructure for carers to balance working with caring for children and noted the interactions with other themes including working hours, parental leave entitlements and impacts on First Nations peoples. The importance of quality ECEC in narrowing inequality, and intergenerational inequity was recognised by the Committee, as well as its impact on gender equality and wage equity. The Committee called for a reinvigorated ECEC system to provide universally accessible, child-focused, culturally appropriate care of high quality, and be supported by a properly paid and equipped workforce. The Committee found these changes would increase access to ECEC, further benefitting children, their carers and society. The Government recognises the integral role that ECEC plays as the foundation for lifelong learning and development. Investment in the sector and its workforce leads to a range of benefits, including more equitable outcomes for children, increased social mobility, and higher women's workforce participation. The ECEC sector is highly feminised; over 92 per cent of the workforce are women. A highly skilled and professionally recognised workforce improves outcomes for children, while affordable care ensures the benefits of quality ECEC are available to families across Australia. As part of the 2024-25 Budget, the Government committed to providing funding towards a wage increase for the ECEC workforce. The Government has implemented Cheaper Child Care, directed the Productivity Commission to undertake an inquiry into Australia's ECEC system, commissioned the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission inquiry into the ECEC market and developed the whole-of-Commonwealth Early Years Strategy. The Government also made a provision in the 2024-25 Budget to deliver on its commitment to provide funding towards a wage increase for ECEC workers, with details to be finalised following Fair Work Commission processes. The 2024-25 Budget also invested $30 million over 2 years from 2024-25 in IT and payment services to deliver on this commitment. These initiatives, and other improvements to the sector help address the Committee's recommendations for the ECEC system. 3.1 Australia's ECEC system Australia has a national system to assist families with the cost of ECEC, as well as national standards for ECEC services. In addition to implementing Cheaper Child Care, the Government has multiple initiatives underway to improve the ECEC system. 3.1.1 Productivity Commission Inquiry The Government has tasked the Productivity Commission with undertaking a comprehensive inquiry into Australia's ECEC system to help chart a course for universal, affordable ECEC. The Productivity Commission released its draft report on 23 November 2023 and will provide its final report to the Government by 30 June 2024. As part of the Government's reform agenda, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission was directed to hold an inquiry into ECEC prices. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission released its final report on 29 January 2024. This will be considered alongside the Productivity Commission's inquiry into ECEC. 3.1.2 Early Years Strategy and National Vision for ECEC These inquiries are complemented by the whole-of-Commonwealth Early Years Strategy 2024-2034 (the Strategy). The Strategy: articulates how the Australian Government will prioritise and support child-centred policy development, and target investment in early years supports and services over the next 10 years, and seeks to support improved coordination between Commonwealth programs and funding impacting early childhood development. In addition, National Cabinet tasked education and early years ministers with developing a National long-term vision for the ECEC sector to guide future reform. The draft National ECEC vision covers all forms of ECEC, including preschool and all forms of education and care. It recognises that: quality ECEC has learning and development benefits for children in the most formative period of their lives. This can be especially significant for children from vulnerable and disadvantaged communities; and an affordable and accessible ECEC system supports parents to work and study, especially women. This in turn supports the Australian economy to grow and prosper. 3.1.3 Community Child Care Fund The Community Child Care Fund Open program helps services address barriers to ECEC participation. The Community Child Care Fund Establishing Child Care in Limited Supply Areas round was designed to establish new early childhood services in the most disadvantaged regional or remote communities, where there is a gap in the supply of approved services. In October 2023, the Government announced that 47 services, across 38 communities, would receive funding to establish new Centre Based Day Care services and Family Day Care premises in areas of limited supply. The Community Child Care Fund Limited Supply grant opportunity will provide a total of $16 million over 2 years, in establishment and capital support funding to successful grant recipients. Further, funding of around $84 million will be available for Community Child Care Fund Round Four from .1 July 2024 to 30 June 2026 to help support ECEC services address barriers to participation, particularly targeting disadvantaged and vulnerable families and communities, and services in regional, remote, and very remote areas. 3.1.4 National Agreement on Closing the Gap The Government is also committed to embedding the Priority Reforms under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap (National Agreement), including Priority Reform Two (Building the Community-Controlled Sector) and through the Early Childhood Care and Development Policy Partnership under Priority Reform One (Formal Partnerships and Shared Decision Making). Through the National Agreement, Government Parties have agreed to implement measures to increase the proportion of services delivered by First Nations organisations, particularly community-controlled organisations. The Government is also investing in targeted initiatives to support First Nations children to participate in and access high-quality services. This includes continuing to expand the Connected Beginnings program to 50 sites nationally by 2025. Connected Beginnings aims to support First Nations children to be school ready through the integration of early childhood education, health and family support services support services and programs in each community. In addition, the Government is working to expand the Community Child Care Fund Restricted program, establishing new, high quality and mostly community controlled ECEC services in mainly remote and very remote areas to support First Nations children and families. Recommendation 3 The committee recommends the National Cabinet develop a framework for and progress the implementation of a universal, quality, place-based and child-centred early childhood education and care (ECEC) system. The new ECEC framework should be developed within 12 months and: be supported by a clear policy framework which seeks to strengthen outcomes for children, their carers, childhood educators and childcare providers; be developed with active consideration of working carers, and especially women, to support better access to paid employment (including outside of core hours) while balancing work and care responsibilities; and/or set rosters that include caring responsibilities; and address 'childcare deserts' by providing ECEC facilities in rural, remote and some regional areas, and ensure culturally-appropriate, community managed and trauma-informed ECEC is made available where needed, especially in First Nations communities. The committee further recommends that the Australian Government continue to regularly review ECEC systems for adequacy, and undertake appropriate changes, with a view to universal, early childhood education and care. The Government notes this recommendation. The Government implemented Cheaper Child Care and commissioned the Productivity Commission with conducting a comprehensive inquiry into Australia's ECEC system. The Productivity Commission will make recommendations to support affordable, accessible, equitable and high-quality ECEC that reduces barriers to workforce participation and supports children's learning. The Government has also launched the Early Years Strategy 2024-2034, which sets out the Government's vision to best support Australia's children and their families. Practical steps to achieve the vision in the Strategy will be outlined in 3 Action Plans to be released over the ten-year lifetime of the document. The first will be released later this year, along with an Outcomes Framework. The Government is also committed to embedding the Priority Reforms under the National Agreement, including Priority Reform Two (Building the Community-controlled Sector) and Priority Reform One (Formal Partnerships and Shared Decision Making), through the Early Childhood Care and Development Policy Partnership. Recommendation 4 The committee recommends that the Australian Government work through National Cabinet to develop a framework for a universal early childhood education and care (ECEC) system that is consistent across Australia. This framework should be implemented with a view to increase access to quality ECEC and lower its costs. Interim Report Recommendation 7 The committee recommends that in the upcoming 2022-23 Budget, the Australian Government commits to long-term increases in funding to First Nations community-controlled Early Childhood Education and Care, with a particular focus on regional, remote and some urban areas. Australian Greens' Additional Recommendation 2 The Australian Greens recommend the provision of free early childhood education and care to families. The Government notes this recommendation, the Interim Report recommendation and the Australian Greens' additional recommendation. The Government implemented Cheaper Child Care as well as commissioned the Productivity Commission with conducting a comprehensive inquiry into Australia's ECEC system to make recommendations to support affordable, accessible, equitable and high-quality ECEC that reduces barriers to workforce participation and supports children's learning. Recommendation 5 The committee recommends the Australian Government consider the provision of a further 100 publicly owned early childhood education and care centres (including centres operated by local government), in areas identified as 'childcare deserts' and/or as having unmet demand. The centres should provide holistic, culturally appropriate, and trauma-informed services to children. The Government notes this recommendation. The Government supports ECEC sector services through the Community Child Care Fund to further address barriers to participation in ECEC in disadvantaged, regional and remote communities. The Community Child Care Fund is funding approximately $614 million over 4 years (2023-24 to 2026-27) and currently funds 900 services, including Connected Beginnings sites. In August 2021, the Government announced an additional $29.9 million over 4 years to establish new Community Child Care Fund (Restricted) services in mainly remote locations. The funding is part of the Government's commitment to achieving the Closing the Gap targets. The Department of Education is working with First Nations peak bodies, communities and organisations to establish these new services. In 2023, the first 8 sites were announced. The Productivity Commission inquiry into Australia's ECEC system will identify solutions to help chart a course to universal ECEC. 3.2 Subsidised care for children The Child Care Subsidy is the primary way the Government helps families with ECEC fees. The Government introduced changes to the Child Care Subsidy from July 2023 that have reduced the cost of ECEC and made it easier for parents and working carers to participate in paid work. This is particularly the case for women, who are more likely than men to be the primary carer of children, and more likely to have the cost of ECEC factored against their earnings. From July 2023, Child Care Subsidy rates lifted to 90 per cent for families with a combined annual income of $80,000 or less and increase for eligible families with a combined annual income less than $530,000. Supporting women to increase their participation, if they choose to, by reducing ECEC costs, will boost the economy and help close the gap between women's and men's long-term economic security. 3.2.1 Preschool Reform Agreement Preschool in Australia is a shared responsibility between the Commonwealth and state and territory governments, with state and territory governments primarily responsible for delivery. The Government's current focus for preschool under the Preschool Reform Agreement is on children in the year before fulltime school ensuring all children are receiving the full benefit of at least one year of preschool participation (for 600 hours). To see the full benefits of a quality preschool program, children need to be attending for the full 600 hours—not just be enrolled. That is why the Preschool Reform Agreement seeks to drive improvements in preschool attendance in the year before fulltime school, particularly for disadvantaged and First Nations cohorts. In relation to the Committee's use of the term 'subsidised care', the Preschool Reform Agreement does not directly provide for subsidised care for children attending a preschool program. The Government provides a contribution to states and territories based on the number of children in the year before fulltime school ($1377.83 per child in 2023). States and territories can choose to pass this on to reduce fees for families or to improve preschool quality, in line with Preschool Reform Agreement funding follows the child requirements. Most families who access a preschool program in an approved Centre Based Day Care setting are eligible for subsidised care through the Child Care Subsidy. The Government also provides significant funding support nationally for 3-year-olds in ECEC settings. In the 2023 December quarter, 66.6 per cent of all 3-year-olds in ECEC settings, around 200,000 children, were eligible for the Child Care Subsidy. 3.2.2 Inclusion Support Program The Inclusion Support Program was reviewed in 2023, with a report released in November 2023. The report made 21 findings, identified 21 short and medium-term opportunities to strengthen the program and recommended 5 longer-term opportunities to embed inclusion in the sector. The review aimed to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of the current Inclusion Support Program delivery model across the ECEC sector and explore alternative policy settings. The review considered interactions with other programs, like the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The review found that program resources are not being directed towards the activities which will have the greatest impact, such as workforce inclusion capability uplift. The current emphasis on providing Inclusion Development Fund subsidies for additional educators does not lead to increased capability, as these educators are used to supplement staffing ratios rather than embed inclusive practice. The review has informed the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission price inquiry and will feed into the Productivity Commission inquiry into the ECEC system. Recommendation 6 The committee recommends the Australian Government request the Productivity Commission to identify ways to extend the Preschool Reform Agreement (PRA) to both three- and four-year old children, to ensure that all children can access early childhood education and care in the two years prior to commencing school. .The committee further recommends that the hours of subsidised care provided for by the PRA be increased, to a minimum of 15 hours a week (600 hours a year) and a maximum of 30 hours a week (1200 hours a year), based on the needs of the child and their carers. The Government notes this recommendation. The new preschool outcomes measure under the Preschool Reform Agreement will enable measurement of, build domestic evidence for, and understand the 'value add' of the year before fulltime school. Subject to a successful trial and implementation, data and evidence will be available to inform future policy considerations and government investment, to maximise the outcomes for children in the year before fulltime school in the Australian context. Should governments agree to utilise this data the new preschool outcomes measure has the potential to assist all levels of government to identify the effectiveness of national and state and territory-led initiatives. Future Government policy considerations, including any expansion of preschool funding or increases to dosage supported under the Preschool Reform Agreement, will be informed by the implementation of the Preschool Reform Agreement reform agenda, the outcomes of the Productivity Commission inquiry into Australia's ECEC system, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission price inquiry, the Government's Early Years Strategy, and the National ECEC vision. Recommendation 7 The committee recommends the Australian Government request the Productivity Commission to immediately review the Inclusion Support Program and consider appropriate action including, but not limited to the commitment of additional funding of the program, with a view to provide extra support to children who have additional needs to participate in ECEC. Indexation of funding should also be considered. Australian Greens' Additional Recommendation 3 The Australian Greens recommend the Australian Government provide additional funding to the Inclusion Support Program (ISP) and implement revised guidelines for the ISP which: remove the cap on additional educator hours, and instead align funded additional educator hours with the needs and enrolled hours of a child; and ensure that the annual funding allocation to the ISP is properly indexed and aligns with the wages of early childhood educators. The Government notes this recommendation and the Australian Greens' additional recommendation. The Productivity Commission inquiry into Australia's ECEC system has been directed to options that improve access to quality ECEC and outcomes for children with additional needs. An additional $98.4 million was provided in the 2024-25 Federal Budget to the Inclusion Support Program. This funding will help meet expected demand for services to embed inclusion and support children with additional needs. Recommendation 29 Noting that the Productivity Commission will consider and report findings on the abolition of the Child Care Subsidy activity test, the committee recommends the Australian Government consider amending the relevant social policy and family assistance laws to abolish activity tests. Interim Report Recommendation 8 The committee recommends that the Australian Government amend the relevant Social Policy and Family Assistance Laws to ensure that First Nations people are not required to meet the requirements of the activity test in order to receive subsidised child care. Australian Greens' Additional Recommendation 9 The Australian Greens recommend the Australian Government amend, as a matter of urgency, the relevant social policy and family assistance laws to abolish the activity test for eligibility for the Child Care Subsidy. The Government notes this recommendation, the Interim Report recommendation and the Australian Greens' additional recommendation. The Productivity Commission is undertaking a comprehensive inquiry into Australia's ECEC system. The Inquiry will make recommendations to support affordable, accessible and inclusive ECEC that reduces barriers to workforce participation and supports children's learning and development. The Inquiry will consider activity requirements in this context. To support early childhood outcomes under the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, the Government has taken early action since July 2023, and is providing 36 subsidised hours per fortnight of ECEC base entitlement for First Nations children. 4 Targeted Support The Committee noted that the experience of combining work and care changes across individuals, families, genders, abilities, and social groups. The Committee considered evidence addressing groups with unique work and care circumstances, including young people, First Nations communities, people with disability, and culturally and linguistically diverse communities. Concerns regarding the adequacy of wages, flexibility, and leave entitlements in the paid care sector were also examined by the Committee. The Committee considered mechanisms for the Government to support Australians balancing work and care responsibilities. It acknowledged the Government has made significant improvements to encourage the workforce participation of women, including expanding the Government's Paid Parental Leave scheme, steps to enforce the right to request flexible working arrangements and child care support. Many government policies and programs provide support for carers, workers, and those seeking employment. The Government is investing in policies and programs to provide support for these individuals. For example, in October 2023 the Government launched a Carer Inclusive Workplace Initiative, which aims to expand carer inclusivity in workplaces around Australia and enable businesses, in particular small businesses, to self-identify as committed to carer inclusivity without the time commitment and cost associated with a full accreditation process. This will help carers identify workplaces that understand the challenges carers may face in employment while balancing work and caring responsibilities and will accommodate flexibilities so that carers can maintain employment. The Government has already started supporting Australians to combine their jobs with care for others. This chapter describes policies, programs, reviews, and targeted initiatives that support the care workforce, the supported employment sector, carers, people seeking employment and workers. The development of a new National Carer Strategy will seek to gather further information through a national consultation process on issues facing unpaid carers, including workforce participation and flexibility. 4.1 Care workforce The care workforce is female-dominated and low paid relative to other industries, partly reflecting the undervaluation of women's care by employers and institutions. 4.1.1 Care workforce pay and conditions As described in the "Flexible and Supportive Workplaces" chapter, the Government has ensured through the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022 that gender equality and job security are at the heart of the Fair Work Commission's decision-making. The Fair Work Commission is now properly equipped to help address pay and conditions in low-paid, feminised workforces like the care sector. The Government has also provided funding to support increases to award wages for many aged care workers, as per the Fair Work Commission's interim decision of 21 February 2023. The 2023-24 Budget included $11.3 billion over 4 years to fund the Fair Work Commission's interim 15 per cent pay rise for many aged care workers from 30 June 2023, delivering on the Government's election commitments. In March 2024, the Fair Work Commission found that the work of aged care sector employees was historically undervalued because of assumptions based on gender. Based on this and other work value considerations, the Fair Work Commission awarded increases to minimum award wages of up to 28.5 per cent, inclusive of the interim increase awarded in 2023. The Fair Work Commission has not yet set a commencement date for these wage increases. Aged care nurses were not included in this decision, with a decision on increases to their award wages expected later in 2024. The Government has made provision in the 2024-25 Budget for these wage increases. Furthermore, as part of the 2024-25 Budget, the Government provisioned funding to support increases to award wages for aged care workers and funding towards a wage increase for ECEC workers, with details to be finalised following Fair Work Commission processes. Through the Modern Awards Review 2023-24, the Fair Work Commission has been undertaking research and consultation in relation to the provisions in care sector awards: The making awards easier to use stream is considering proposals on opportunities to make the 7 most commonly used awards easier to use, which includes the Children's Services Award 2010 and the Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010. The job security stream is considering the need to improve access to secure work across the economy for all awards, and its discussion paper included a comparative analysis of provisions in these 7 most commonly used awards. The work and care stream is considering work and care provisions for all awards, and its discussion paper analyses 25 modern awards including these 7 most commonly used awards as well as awards referred to in the Committee's Final Report (Aged Care Award 2010, Health Professionals and Support Services Award 2020, Nurses Award 2020, Educational Services (Schools) General Staff Award 2020, Higher Education Industry—General Staff—Award 2020 and the Local Government Industry Award 2020). The Fair Work Commission has also undertaken a research project into gender pay equity, which informed the Expert Panel consideration of issues arising in connection with the gender equality objectives of the Fair Work Act 2009 in the Annual Wage Review 2023-24. Stage 1 of this research[ ] identified 13 modern awards used to set pay in 29 large, highly feminised occupations, including the Aged Care Award 2010, Nurses Award 2020, Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010, Children's Services Award 2010, Health Professionals and Support Services Award 2020, Educational Services (Schools) General Staff Award 2020, Educational Services (Teachers) Award 2020, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Workers and Practitioners and Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Award 2020. Stage 2 of this research examined the history of 12 of the 13 awards identified in Stage 1 to determine whether the Fair Work Commission (or its predecessors or, where relevant, State tribunals) had ever undertaken a comprehensive work value assessment of classifications within the awards and to identify any other indicia of historic gender-based undervaluation. Following its Annual Wage Review 2023-24 decision, the Fair Work Commission has initiated proceedings on its own motion pursuant to section 157 of the Fair Work Act 2009 concerning the following awards: Children's Services Award 2010 Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010 Health Professionals and Support Services Award 2020 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Workers and Practitioners and Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Services Award 2020, and Pharmacy Industry Award 2020. The Fair Work Commission will determine if it needs to vary minimum wages in these modern awards for work value reasons, including to ensure that the consideration of work value is free of assumptions based on gender. 4.1.2 First Nations care workforce The Government also recognises that a strong First Nations care workforce is key to ensuring cultural safety. Strategic Direction 3 of the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Workforce Strategic Framework and Implementation Plan 2021-2031 seeks to ensure First Nations people are employed in culturally safe and responsive workplace environments. In April 2023, National Cabinet also agreed to work together to progress a first tranche of reforms to grow the First Nations care and support workforce. The National Medical Workforce Strategy 2021-2031 will guide long-term collaborative medical workforce planning across Australia. It identifies achievable, practical actions to build a sustainable, highly trained medical workforce. Cultural safety is a cross cutting theme of the National Medical Workforce Strategy and is seen as important for early implementation to grow the First Nations medical workforce and provide a safe environment for First Nations peoples to give and receive care. The National Medical Workforce Strategy includes actions to improve cultural safety and the capacity of the medical workforce to create and maintain culturally safe environments for First Nations doctors, patients, and other health professionals. Better equipping First Nations organisations to implement care services is in line with the Government's commitment to Priority Reform Two of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. This is supported by existing policies including the Closing the Gap Implementation Plan. As identified in the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, the health sector was one of the initial sectors identified for strengthening. A Health Sector Strengthening Plan was agreed-in-principle through the Joint Council on Closing the Gap in December 2021 and includes 4 streams: workforce; capital infrastructure; service provision; and governance. Under Clause 55(b) of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, the Commonwealth Government is working with the Coalition of Peaks to identify evidence-led approaches to applying a 'meaningful proportion' of funding to First Nations organisations. The Government also recognises that First Nations registered training organisations play an important role in delivering culturally appropriate training, as well as lifting the participation of First Nations peoples in vocational education and training. Recommendation 13 The committee recommends the Department of Health and Aged Care and the National Indigenous Australians Agency develop processes to ensure that: care services for First Nations people transition to First Nations community-controlled organisations; and culturally appropriate training in care service sectors is available to workers providing care to First Nations communities, especially in regional, remote and some urban areas. The Government agrees to this recommendation. The Government supports increasing the availability of capacity building programs to support the transition to community-controlled organisations, to ensure that demand can be adequately met for First Nations people to receive culturally safe, skilled and local care and support services, and that intersectional care needs are accounted for. This is complemented by the Government's Integrated Care and Commissioning Project that is trialling collaborative, place-based and innovative approaches to improve service availability across health, aged care, disability, and veterans' care sectors for people living in regional, rural and remote communities, and for First Nations peoples in targeted urban areas. The Government has announced a new Remote Jobs and Economic Development Program as part of its commitment to replace the Community Development Program. Developed in partnership with First Nations people, it will support people in remote communities to move into employment by funding meaningful jobs that communities want and will give more flexibility to communities to identify local job needs and projects, including in the care services sector. The design of the program is being informed by consultations with remote communities and stakeholders to understand how to create flexibility in a national program that takes into account local conditions and how the program can create career pathways for local people to gain experience in a real job. Through the Northern Territory Pathways to Community Control program, the Commonwealth Government has a longstanding commitment to working towards greater levels of Aboriginal community control in the delivery of primary health care in the Northern Territory. For example, the Government currently funds transition activities for the transfer of Northern Territory Health clinics in Jabiru to Red Lily Health Board in West Arnhem and Kaltukatjara to Central Australian Aboriginal Congress in Central Australia. The Government supports increasing the availability of culturally appropriate training in care service sectors to workers providing care to First Nations individuals and communities. The Government is working with the states and territories to support First Nations students and apprentices, working closely with First Nations people, their communities and training providers to support skill development and career opportunities, including increasing the availability of culturally appropriate training through the new National Skills Agreement which commenced on 1 January 2024. Recommendation 15 The committee recommends the Australian Government support workers and their representatives in the care sector to use the mechanisms available to them through the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022 to achieve wage increases. This could include care sector workers and their representatives accessing the supported bargaining stream, initiating an application for an equal remuneration order, or a work value claim. The committee further recommends the Australian Government support a priority application to the Fair Work Commission (FWC) through the newly established care and community sector expert panel, for award wage increases for all care sectors including early childhood education, disability care and aged care, and all sectors covered by the relevant early childcare, and Social, Community Home Care and Disability Services Industry (SCHADS) Awards. In order to address pay equity and to stem the flow of workers out of the care sector, such a priority application should draw the FWC's attention to: the need to reconsider and appropriately reward classifications, wage structures, conditions and entitlements across all care sectors and awards, and under the SCHADS Award. This consideration should include appropriate relative pay across the care sector reflecting the nature of work and qualifications, skills and experience. It should also recognise the impact of gender on caring roles and the unique skills, variability and value of care work; the appropriateness of care sector employees receiving payments for work-related travel time, administrative responsibilities and engagement with essential training; and the appropriateness of a minimum shift call-in time across the care sector (for example, a four-hour minimum or another identified suitable minimum period). The Australian Government should consider mechanisms to fund and implement, in accordance with historical practice, any wage increases and improved conditions agreed to by the FWC. Interim Report Recommendation 2 The committee recommends that the Australian Government develop an analysis of care work classifications and wage structures to systematically address underpayments and lift wages in the care sector. Such an analysis should: consider the variability and value of work across the care sector; establish the interrelationships across care types; and recognise the inherent value of care work. Australian Greens' Additional Recommendation 4 The Australian Greens recommend the Australian Government appropriately fund any pay increases and improved classifications and conditions for care workers decided by the Fair Work Commission. The Government agrees in part to this recommendation and notes the Interim Report recommendation and Australian Greens' additional recommendation. The Fair Work Commission is responsible for setting minimum wages and conditions at an industry and occupational level through modern awards. Parties with standing can apply to the Fair Work Commission to vary the terms of a modern award at any time. Noting that different modern awards apply to different care workers, parties in the identified care sectors may apply to the Fair Work Commission for wage increases and improved conditions, or the Fair Work Commission could consider these awards on its own motion. To support such applications, the Secure Jobs, Better Pay reforms established new requirements for Expert Panels in the Fair Work Commission to hear and decide pay equity claims and relevant award variation applications. In future Fair Work Commission proceedings, or in the event of future proceedings, the Government will consider the appropriateness of mechanisms to fund and implement wage increases. For example, in the 2023-24 Budget, the Government provided $11.3 billion over 4 years to fund the Fair Work Commission's interim 15 per cent pay rise for many aged care workers from 30 June 2023. Additionally, the Government has committed to providing funding towards a wage increase for ECEC workers, with details to be settled following Fair Work Commission processes. Following its Annual Wage Review 2023-24 decision, the Fair Work Commission has initiated proceedings on its own motion to determine if it needs to vary minimum wages for work value reasons in a number of identified modern awards, including the Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010. 4.2 Supported employment sector The Government is committed to working with stakeholders to evolve the supported employment sector into modern, commercially viable social enterprises that better meet community expectations and provide greater choice and control in employment for people with disability. Recommendation 14 The committee recommends the Australian Government undertake further work in relation to the supported employment sector, including Australian Disability Enterprises (ADEs), to ensure that they meet community expectations, and both improve and increase pathways for disabled people into open employment. This work should build on work already being progressed through the Disability Reform Ministerial Council. Australian Greens' Additional Recommendation 14 The Australian Greens recommend the Department of Social Services develop and implement a plan to phase out Australian Disability Enterprises and increase pathways and supports for disabled people to gain and maintain positions in open employment. The Government agrees to this recommendation and notes the Australian Greens' additional recommendation. As part of the 2023-24 Budget, the Government is investing $57 million over 4 years to: create ongoing employment opportunities for people with disability with high support needs assist the supported employment sector to evolve to better meet community expectations, and provide people with disability with high support needs, their families and carers with access to advocacy support and information to build their confidence and understanding about rights and options at work. On 11 January 2024, the Government published the Commonwealth, State and Territory Supported Employment Plan to enact the guiding principles for the future of supported employment. The first tranche of the committed funding is in alignment with the guiding principles and was announced on 23 April 2024. The announcement include: $14.9 million to 32 organisations for the first round of the Structural Adjustment Fund $9.8 million to deliver the Disability Employment Advocacy and Information Program, and $1.4 million to deliver Disability Employment Expos. The Department of Social Services consulted with key stakeholders including people with disability with high support needs, as well as supported employment providers, on the design of these budget measures to ensure supports are appropriately targeted. The Government notes that the Final Report of the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of Disability also made recommendations in relation to supported employment. All levels of government have committed to working together to provide an initial response to the Disability Royal Commission in mid-2024. In the 2024-25 Budget, the Government also announced a new Specialised Disability Employment Program to replace the current Disability Employment Services Program from 1 July 2025. A key feature of the new program is expanding eligibility to people with disability with a work capacity of less than 8 hours per week in order to provide more diverse pathways into open employment for people with disability. The new program will be complemented by establishing a Disability Employment Centre of Excellence, which will be an evidence-informed, best-practice hub that will provide resources, tools and training to help providers deliver quality employment services and supports to both participants with disability and employers. It will also play a key role in building the skills and capacity of providers of supported employment—including Australian Disability Enterprises. 4.3 Carers The Government values the immense contribution carers make to the lives of the people they care for and the broader community and is committed to ensuring carers have access to practical, emotional and financial supports to assist them in their caring role. The Government recognises that balancing care responsibilities within the context of employment can make it challenging for unpaid carers to participate in employment, education and when seeking social connections. The intersections of additional experiences of marginalisation and diversity, such as culturally and linguistically diverse and First Nations peoples, can compound these challenges. These issues will be further explored through the development of a new National Carer Strategy with the goal to provide comprehensive action plans to address these challenges. 4.3.1 Carer supports The Government delivers a range of programs to support carers and their individual needs, particularly through Carer Gateway and providing financial assistance through payments and concessions. This is consistent with the Government's commitment to a strong a social security safety net. Through Carer Gateway, the Government provides tailored support to carers to meet their individual needs and circumstances. This tailored support may include provision of assistance that directly contributes to supporting carers to continue in the workforce, their education, to undertake training courses, to enter/re-enter the workforce and/or upskill for employment opportunities. This support may include: access to planned respite for care recipient/s enabling carers to attend education/training sessions either in-person or online provision of equipment (for example purchasing a laptop and providing internet access), and funding for education/training courses. The Department of Social Services has commissioned an evaluation of carer support programs, including Carer Gateway. Pensions, including Carer Payment, are generally paid at the highest legislated rate of income support in the Australian social security system. Base pensions are indexed twice a year in March and September to the higher of the increase in the Consumer Price Index and the increase in the Pensioner and Beneficiary Living Cost Index. The Pensioner and Beneficiary Living Cost Index basket of goods and services is weighted to recognise that pensioners spend more of their income on essentials. Base pension rates are also benchmarked to Male Total Average Weekly Earnings. These arrangements ensure pension rates are responsive to pensioners' actual living cost increases and keep pace with community living standards as measured by wages. The Government is committed to supporting young carers. Through Carers Australia, the Government funds the Young Carers Network, as well as the Young Carer Bursary Program that assists eligible carers aged 25 years and under to continue or return to study. On 26 April 2023, the Government announced additional funding of $3 million a year for the Young Carer Bursary Program, increasing the number of bursaries offered from 1,000 to around 1,600 and bursary payments from $3,000 to $3,768 each year, in recognition of the increased cost of living and challenges faced in balancing study and caring responsibilities. 4.3.2 Mental health services and resources The Government also currently funds a range of services and resources to assist young people experiencing mental ill health, including carers. headspace is the Australian Government's primary national platform for provision of services to young people aged 12 to 25 experiencing, or at risk of, mild to moderate mental illness. headspace is a trusted model of care that is recognised by young people, their families, carers and communities for providing youth friendly mental health support. The Individual Placement and Support program is delivered in 50 headspace centres nationally to help young people, including young carers, achieve their education and employment goals. To complement the Individual Placement and Support program the Government funds the Digital Work and Study Service. The Digital Work and Study Service is a unique integrated clinical and vocational work and study service providing support to young people with mental ill health, via a digital platform. The Digital Work and Study Service complements the Individual Placement and Support program by reducing waitlists and providing priority access to young people in regional and remote locations and First Nations people. The Digital Work and Study Service also offers participants the opportunity to link with a volunteer mentor through partnerships with employers and industry both locally and nationally. The Individual Placement and Support program and the Digital Work and Study Service are currently being evaluated. Evaluation findings will inform decisions on continued service delivery models, referral pathways, the community engagement model and inform how these programs could be integrated into future employment program reforms. The Government also funds Primary Health Networks to plan and commission regionally appropriate mental health and suicide prevention services within a person-centred stepped care approach that matches services to local need. Each Primary Health Network is required to ensure services respond to a range of mental health needs, from early intervention for mild and moderate conditions to more severe forms of mental illness. The Government is also investing in services to increase access to mental health care in the community for all Australians, including those with caring responsibilities and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. This includes through enhancing the clinical capacity and reach of the national network of Medicare Mental Health Centres (formerly Head to Health), piloting the Individual Placement and Support program in 2 centres. Medicare Mental Health Centres provide a safe and welcoming place to access mental health information, services and supports delivered by multidisciplinary care teams, without needing a prior appointment. Medicare Mental Health Centre services are free, and you do not need a GP referral or Medicare card to access them. The national Head to Health Phone Service provides additional support to access community based mental health services. The Head to Health Phone Service is operating nationally and anyone in Australia can call 1800 595 212 (between 8.30am and 5pm weekdays) and speak with a trained professional for advice, information, and referral into the most appropriate mental health support according to their needs. This may involve referral into a free or low-cost mental health service in the person's local area, depending on what best meets their individual circumstances. Anyone seeking language support can access the Translating and Interpreting Service (TIS National) by calling 131 450, advising the operator of their spoken language and asking the interpreter to call Head to Health on 1800 592 212. The national Head to Health website is also available and provides access to digital and low intensity mental health support offerings from trusted providers. The Government has also announced $7.5 million to establish and operate 2 independent national mental health lived experience peak bodies. One representing consumers and the other representing families, carers and kin. This is part of the Government's overall investment of $8.5 million to support those with a lived or living experience of mental ill-health to shape the policies and programs affecting them. The 2 new peak bodies are on track to be operational by mid-2024. Once established, these 2 independent national bodies will amplify the voices of consumers and carers to improve mental health and suicide prevention outcomes for all Australians. This follows work led by the National Mental Health Commission to scope the establishment of lived experience peaks. It also enacts Action 22.4 of the Productivity Commission Inquiry into Mental Health to fund separate peak bodies to represent the views of both consumers and carers. Recommendation 9 The committee recommends the Department of Health and Aged Care, in consultation with key stakeholder groups and allied health professionals, develop a mental health support program tailored to carers aged 25 years and under. The program should consider: the unique mental and physical health impacts of caring on young people; the intersection of mental health for young carers with their education, training and employment opportunities and outcomes; and how to raise awareness in educational settings of the burdens faced by young carers and how educators can support and direct young carers to appropriate support programs. The Government agrees in principle to this recommendation. The Government delivers a range of programs which support young carers and address mental health concerns. Through Carer Gateway, a range of services support young carers and their individual needs, including counselling services, in person peer support groups, coaching and online skills courses. These services aim to improve carer wellbeing and increase capacity to support carers to participate socially and economically, as well as reinforce resilience through preventative support services. Carers Australia, the peak body for carers in Australia, has established the Young Carers Network, which provides support, services and resources specifically for young carers. The Young Carer Network also allows young carers to connect with other young carers online. Carers Australia also delivers the Young Carer Bursary Program, which assists eligible carers aged 25 years and younger to continue to study. On 26 April 2023, the Government announced additional funding of $3 million a year for the Young Carer Bursary Program, increasing the number of bursaries offered from 1,000 to around 1,600 and bursary payments from $3,000 to $3,768 each year, in recognition of the increased cost of living and challenges faced in balancing study and caring responsibilities. The development of a new National Carer Strategy will explore how to better support young carers to improve and maintain their health and wellbeing. The Government also funds the National Workforce Centre for Child Mental Health known as Emerging Minds. In response to an increasing number of parents, carers and families accessing their resources and information, Emerging Minds has developed an online toolkit for parents, carers and families designed for use at home and/or with the support of a GP or other healthcare worker. The resources include coverage across a broad range of mental health information, parenting, trauma-informed approaches to managing impacts of COVID-19 and community trauma events, in addition to guidance on understanding supports available from practitioners. Supporting school-aged carers within education settings is critically important for both the building of their resilience skills and ensuring they are able to develop, achieve an education, and be positioned to progress their own future goals and wellbeing. The Government funds the national Mental Health in Education initiative, known as Be You, which provides evidence-based frameworks, professional learning, resources, and supports to increase mental health literacy and skills in workers and educators in early learning services and primary and secondary schools. This ensures they are able to support their students, in particular those cohorts with additional challenges potentially impacting their mental health and wellbeing. Once established, the 2 independent national mental health lived experience peak bodies will also seek to amplify the specific perspectives of mental health consumers and carers to drive equitable reform in mental health. The Individual Placement and Support program is delivered in 50 headspace centres and 2 Adult Mental Health centres to help people with mental illness, including young carers, find and keep a job of their choice. The Digital Work and Study Service, provides integrated clinical and vocational work and study service providing support to young people with mental ill health, via a digital platform. The Individual Placement and Support program and the Digital Work and Study Service are currently being evaluated. Evaluation findings will inform decisions on continued service delivery models, referral pathways, the community engagement model and inform how these programs could be integrated into future employment program reforms. Under the National Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Agreement, all governments committed to undertake an analysis of unmet need for psychosocial supports outside of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. While carers are not the main target cohort of the unmet need analysis, it will include modelled estimates of psychosocial need among carers—including those aged 25 years and under—of people with mental illness. The findings of the analysis, together with the National Disability Insurance Scheme Review, will help to inform all governments' considerations on future psychosocial support arrangements for people who are not supported through the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Recommendation 10 The committee recommends the Australian Government review the accessibility, availability, and flexibility of respite care with a view to improving respite care options available to working carers and those they care for. The Government agrees in principle withthis recommendation. Government funding for respite care predominantly sits in the aged care and disability sectors. Some state and territory government health departments also fund carer support and respite programs. Currently, the My Aged Care assessment teams assess My Aged Care clients and make one or more recommendations for respite services. This may include emergency respite, Commonwealth Home Support planned respite, in-home respite (through a Home Care Package), Home Care Package recipients with additional Commonwealth Home Support respite, residential respite and/or non-funded services. Subsequently, the carers and/or respite providers can then plan and book the respite services for the carer and client. Carer Gateway also supports carers to access appropriate respite options to support the needs of both the carer and the care recipient. Carer Gateway facilitates the booking and funds respite services on behalf of carers, however access to, and availability of, appropriate respite services is the responsibility of the broader disability and aged care service systems. The evaluation of Government carer support programs, commissioned by the Department of Social Services, includes a review of the use of respite services by carers, as provided under Carer Gateway. The Government also funds a range of dementia-specific respite initiatives and programs that support both the person living with dementia and their carer through the Improving respite care for people living with dementia and their carers program. In addition, the Department of Health and Aged Care is currently reviewing respite services in the context of the broader aged care reforms, with a key focus on improving access and reducing the stigma attached to respite services. Recommendation 11 The committee recommends the Australian Government develop and implement programs and initiatives for informal carers from migrant and CALD backgrounds to improve access to carer support services and family support. The Government agrees in principle with this recommendation. To assist carers in self-identifying, and to promote awareness of carer supports and services available, the Carer Gateway website has a range of information including factsheets that are translated in 29 languages as well as translated case studies, radio clips and posters. Carers can also access the Translating and Interpreting Service through the Carer Gateway. Additionally, the Department of Social Services has developed a tailored Carer Gateway stakeholder kit for culturally and linguistically diverse carers, which was provided to culturally and linguistically diverse organisations, to help promote the Carer Gateway among their networks. The Department of Social Services also engaged Embrace Society, a culturally and linguistically diverse specialist agency, as a campaign supplier to advise on and deliver appropriate public relations activities for culturally and linguistically diverse audiences for the Carer Gateway communications campaign which ceases 30 June 2024. The new National Carer Strategy will seek to ensure First Nations carers and culturally and linguistically diverse carers are self-identifying and how to improve engagement with these diverse groups. The Government also funds a range of services and programs which support people of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds caring for a person with dementia through the Department of Health and Aged Care, including through counselling and carer support groups, dementia behaviour support, dementia-specific respite programs, and dementia education and training. Recommendation 12 The committee recommends that the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations develop training materials for all staff in care roles about cultural competency and safety, discrimination and anti-racism and the delivery of trauma-informed care. The Government agrees in part to this recommendation. The Government has established a national network of 10 Jobs and Skills Councils to provide industry with a stronger, more strategic voice in ensuring Australia's vocational education and training sector delivers stronger outcomes for learners and employers. Jobs and Skills Councils identify skills and workforce needs for their sectors, map career pathways across education sectors, develop contemporary vocational education and training products, support collaboration between industry and training providers to improve training and assessment practice and act as a source of intelligence on issues affecting their industries. Jobs and Skills Councils may also create learning resources on behalf of their industries, as a key part of an industry-led training system. HumanAbility is the Jobs and Skills Council for the aged care and disability, children's education and care, health, human services, and sport and recreation sectors. It is responsible for the development of nationally recognised training package qualifications and skillsets that support workers in the care and support sector. This includes ensuring that national training products are responsive to current and emerging skill requirements. Training materials to support care workers are also developed by employers, peak bodies and unions. The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency has also developed the National Scheme's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health and Cultural Safety Strategy .2020-2025. The aim of this strategy is to make cultural safety the norm for First Nations patients. It sets a clear direction and course of action for Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, National Boards and Accreditation Authorities, who together regulate Australia's 850,000 registered health practitioners. The Dementia Training Program, funded through the Department of Health and Aged Care, develops and delivers dementia training for the aged care workers and other groups, with training including modules on culturally safe and trauma-informed care. The Department of Health and Aged Care also funds Partners in Culturally Appropriate Care to develop and deliver training for aged care providers to assist them in providing culturally appropriate care. The Equip Aged Care Learning Modules funded through the Department of Health and Aged Care are available for aged care workers and anyone interested in aged care. The short online modules cover a range of topics including trauma informed care and cross-cultural awareness. Recommendation 30 The committee recommends the Australian Government review the level of Carers Payment and Carers Allowance, acknowledging the significant social and economic contribution that carers make. The committee also recommends that the Australian Government consider reversal of the current policy which transfers sole parents from Parenting Payment Single to JobSeeker Principal Carer payments when their youngest child turns eight years of age, and imposes mutual obligation activities on them when their youngest child turns six years of age. The committee further recommends the Australian Government ensure all income security payments are regularly reviewed to ensure that they are adequate. Australian Greens' Additional Recommendation 10 The Australian Greens recommend that the Department of Social Services review and increase the level of the Carers Payment and the Carers Allowance, restoring them to their relative level of previous years, acknowledging the significant economic contribution that carers make. Australian Greens' Additional Recommendation 11 The Australian Greens recommend the Australian Government ensure all income security payments (including the Age Pension, Disability Support Pension and JobSeeker Payment) are regularly reviewed and increased to remain above the poverty line and immediately increase the rate of income support payments to at least $88 a day. Australian Greens' Additional Recommendation 12 The Australian Greens recommend the Australian Government ensure sole parents on income support payments can access the Parenting Payment Single until their youngest child turns sixteen years of age, and reverse the current policy which transfers sole parents from Parenting Payment Single to JobSeeker Principal Carer, when their youngest child turns eight years of age, and imposes mutual obligation activities on them when their youngest child turns six years of age. The Government notes this recommendation and the Australian Greens' additional recommendations. The Government recognises and acknowledges the significant contribution carers make. Carer Payment is an income support payment paid to individuals who, because of the demands of their caring role, are unable to participate in substantial paid employment. Carer Payment is paid at the highest legislated rate in the social security system and provides a safety net to assist carers with the basic cost of living. It is not a wage to compensate carers for providing care, nor is it designed to cover the full cost of caring for someone with disability or severe medical conditions. It is indexed twice a year—in March and September—to keep pace with changes in the cost of living. Carer Allowance is a supplementary payment for carers who provide daily care and attention to a person who requires substantial additional care. It can be paid in addition to Carer Payment and can assist towards some of the costs a carer might incur. The Government has announced a range of measures in recent Budgets to provide additional financial assistance for income support recipients. In the 2023-24 Budget, this included providing $1.9 billion over 5 years from 2022-23 to extend the age of eligibility for Parenting Payment (Single) until a recipient's youngest child turns 14 (previously 8). Expanding eligibility for Parenting Payment (Single) until the youngest child turns 14 ensures that principal caregivers receive higher levels of income support until their youngest child is old enough to require less ongoing supervision. By raising the age cut-off for the youngest dependent child from 8 to 14 years, an extra 86,000 single parents were receiving the higher rate of Parenting Payment (Single) as at 26 April 2024. In the same Budget, the Government also provided $4.9 billion over 5 years from 2022-23 to increase working age and student payments by $40 per fortnight and reduce the qualifying age to 55 years (down from 60 years) for the higher rate of JobSeeker Payment for single recipients who have been on payment for 9 continuous months. The Government also announced $2.7 billion over 5 years from 2022-23 to provide additional support to renters, by increasing the maximum rates of Commonwealth Rent Assistance by 15 per cent. The 2023-24 Budget income support changes came into effect from 20 September 2023, at the same time as legislated indexation of payments such as JobSeeker Payment, Commonwealth Rent Assistance and Parenting Payment. These measures are providing responsible and targeted assistance that is benefitting around 2 million recipients. The 2024-25 Budget included an additional $2 billion over 5 years in targeted and responsible support for income support recipients including: $1.9 billion to increase the maximum rates of Commonwealth Rent Assistance by a further 10 per cent. This was the first back-to back increase in over 30 years. $41.2 million to expand eligibility to the higher rate of JobSeeker Payment to single JobSeeker Payment recipients with a partial capacity to work of 0-14 hours per week, so that those with barriers to employment who have limited or no capacity to work due to their condition—but who do not qualify for Disability Support Pension—receive extra support. $18.6 million to change the 25 hour per week rule for Carer Payment recipients to instead allow up to 100 hours work over a 4 week period and remove the restrictions on study, volunteering and travel for work. extending the two-year freeze on social security deeming rates for a further 12 months to 30 June 2025. The Government has committed to consider the rates of income support payments at every Budget update. The Government has also established the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee to provide advice ahead of every Federal Budget on economic inclusion, including policy settings, systems and structures, and the adequacy, effectiveness and sustainability of income support payments. 4.4 People preparing for or seeking employment The Government recognises the value for individuals and the economy from entering or returning to the workforce. The gendered nature of work and care arrangements impact women's engagement and progression in the labour force and have implications on women's engagement with employment services. A well-designed employment services model plays an important role in improving outcomes of jobseekers, particularly women who face long-term disadvantage and complex barriers to workforce participation. The 2023 Carer Wellbeing Survey shows that the number of employed carers of typical working age increased significantly in 2023, with 62.4 per cent of carers employed, 6.2 per cent unemployed and 31.3 per cent were not in the labour force. Of the carers that were employed, 36.3 per cent worked less than 20 hours per week, 28.4 per cent worked 30-34 hours per week, 35.4 per cent worked 35-44 hours per week, and only 7.5 per cent worked 45 or more hours. Some groups of carers were significantly more likely to report that their ability to engage in paid work was getting worse. This included carers aged 55 to 74, those caring more than 40 hours per week, continuous carers, primary carers, sole carers, those who care for someone who lives with them and carers of people with high to very high assistance needs. In the 2024-25 Budget, the Government announced it would introduce changes to the participation limit for Carer Payment. Under the changes, Carer Payment recipients will be able to work 100 hours over a four-week period rather than the 25 hour per week current limit. This will provide greater flexibility for Carer Payment recipients to structure their work commitments around their caring role. Additionally, travel time, education and volunteering activities will no longer be counted in the participation limit. The measure also introduces a six-month suspension period for recipients who work over the new flexible limit, meaning if their circumstances change, they won't need to reapply to access the Carer Payment. Recipients will also be able to use single Temporary Cessation of Care days to cover one-off or occasional instances of exceeding the participation limit. 4.4.1 New voluntary pre-employment service for parents The House of Representatives Select Committee on Workforce Australia Employment Services was established on 2 August 2022 to inquire into matters related to Workforce Australia Employment Services. This House Select Committee specifically considered the role of ParentsNext in providing early intervention pre-employment services to parents and carers of young children as part of the employment services system. Its interim report on ParentsNext was tabled on 1 March 2023 and its report into Workforce Australia Employment Services was tabled on 30 November 2023. This recommended large scale reform to fundamentally rebuild the Commonwealth employment services system. The Government is carefully considering the House Select Committee's recommendations. On 7 December 2023, the Government announced that it will introduce a new voluntary pre-employment service for parents from 1 November 2024, to replace ParentsNext. The design of the new service is informed by consultation feedback from parents and their real life experiences and a broad range of stakeholders. Where possible, the service design also considered Recommendation 8 of the Interim Report of the Committee on Workforce Australia Employment Services. The new voluntary pre-employment service will be available to parents and carers who are facing disadvantage and who have young children under 6 years. A broader range of parents will be eligible for the service including those in receipt of certain income support payments, as well as some parents who do not receive a payment. The service will be flexible, will value parents' and carers' roles caring for their children, and it will support them to make their own choices about the support they need. The service will be high quality and delivered by suitably qualified staff and staff with lived experience, who will support parents to work towards their education and employment goals. 4.4.2 Pre-employment programs, employment services and incentives There are also a current range of pre-employment programs, employment services and incentives to help Australians, including those who have paid or unpaid caring responsibilities, build their capability and find work. These services include Workforce Australia (the mainstream employment service), Disability Employment Services (a specialist service for people with disability, with the Government announcing that it will implement a new specialist disability employment program in the 2024-25 Budget to replace the existing program by 1 July 2025 to deliver high-quality personalised services) and Transition to Work (a specialist service for disadvantaged young people). In remote Australia, the Government has announced a new Remote Jobs and Economic Development Program as part of its commitment to replace the Community Development Program. The Government funds tailored pre-employment projects which support participants to secure entry level employment through the Launch into Work program. The Local Jobs Program provides resources and funding at the local level to accelerate reskilling and upskilling of job seekers in areas that address community priorities. The Launch into Work and Local Jobs programs enable the Government to trial project ideas that build the skills of job seekers for employment or help businesses to fill vacancies. These projects gather evidence on interventions that work and could be suitable for broader application. For example, an activity undertaken under the Local Jobs Local Recovery Fund, which included a pre-employment program tailored to working in the ECEC sector, served as the model for the Department of Education in developing further pilots for the sector in different locations. In the 2024-25 Budget, as part of a Paid Employment Pathways Package, the Government invested $54 million to trial 2 new work programs. The Real Jobs, Real Wages initiative is a tapered wage subsidy pilot, brokered by the Australian Public Service, with a focus to reward employers for ongoing and sustained employment outcomes. WorkFoundations will support social enterprises and businesses who can provide tailored paid job placements for jobseekers facing high barriers to employment. In the October 2022-23 Budget the Government committed to a $1 billion 12-month Skills Agreement, jointly funded with states and territories. This made available 180,000 Fee-Free TAFE and vocational education places in 2023, prioritising access to training for unpaid carers, people out of work or receiving income support, women facing economic insecurity, First Nations Australians, young people (aged 17 to 24), women undertaking study in non-traditional fields, people with disability and certain categories of visa holders. The five-year National Skills Agreement that commenced on 1 January 2024 between the Commonwealth and state and territory governments will deliver significant investment in a national vocational education and training system that provides high quality, responsive and accessible education and training to boost productivity. A key principle is to ensure no Australians are left behind as the Australian economy transitions and adapts to structural change, including by providing opportunities for life-long learning and foundation skills development—particularly women, mature age Australians, those experiencing long-term unemployment, First Nations Australians, young people, people from culturally and linguistically diverse communities, people with disability, and regional and remote learners. Recommendation 8 The committee recommends the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations and the Department of Education develop a large-scale, evidence-based, appropriately evaluated, holistic, non-compulsory training and work placement program, to assist informal carers returning to or seeking further engagement with paid employment, training or voluntary work. Recognition of the prior education, employment and experiences of informal carers should be incorporated into the program. The committee further recommends that the compulsory elements of ParentsNext be abolished for people providing care. The Government agrees in part to this recommendation. The Government has already acted to make the ParentsNext program voluntary. On 7 December 2023, the Government announced it will introduce a new voluntary pre-employment service for parents of young children. Until the new service is implemented, the Government announced that it will extend the operation of ParentsNext as a voluntary program until 31 October 2024. The design of the new service is informed by consultation feedback from parents and their real-life experiences and a broad range of stakeholders. It is also informed by research and evaluation evidence, as well as recommendations from the House Select Committee, the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, and the Senate Select Committee on Work and Care. The new service will be available nationally, commencing from 1 November 2024, for eligible parents and carers of young children. This includes parents and carers who receive an income support payment as well as some who do not. The service will be client-centred and will focus on parents' and carers' strengths to support them to set and achieve education and employment goals. Services will collaborate with other local service providers to deliver locally engaged and place-based services. They will be able to support parents and carers to access other local services that they want and need. A new Individual Fund will give parents and carers discretion, transparency and equity over purchases related to building skills and capability. It may be used to pay course fees, materials or equipment required for a course, including laptops for online study. The Government funds Carers Queensland to deliver the Tristate Carer Vocational Outcomes Pilot Program (publicly known as Your Caring Way), across Queensland, South Australia and Tasmania to build carers' capacity to participate in social, vocational and economic opportunities. The program delivers face-to-face and online training, to help carers who are looking for work to gain vocational education qualifications.  Specifically, the program provides end-to-end vocational coaching and support, designed to support carers throughout the duration of the program, during placement and the transition into employment. Funding for the program is currently due to cease in June 2025. Findings from the evaluation of Government carer support programs (including Your Caring Way) will inform any recommendations to the Government on the future of these programs. 4.5 Workers Alongside legislative reforms to the workplace relations system, the Government is also taking steps to support eligible workers who have caring responsibilities through paid parental leave and improved superannuation entitlements. 4.5.1 Paid parental leave The Government has expanded and improved the Paid Parental Leave scheme to support women's workforce participation and help more dads and partners take time off to be with their children. Legislative amendments that came into effect on 1 July 2023 give more families access to the Government payment, give parents increased flexibility in how they take the leave and encourage parents to share care to promote gender equality. Then, from July 2024, the Government is delivering the largest expansion to paid parental leave since it was introduced. From 1 July 2024, 2 more weeks of payment will be added each year until the overall length of the Paid Parental Leave scheme reaches 26 weeks by July 2026 (up from current 20 weeks). More than 180,000 families are expected to benefit from the expansion of the scheme each year. The Government's reforms will also increase the number of weeks reserved for each parent on a 'use it or lose it' basis to 4 weeks in order to encourage greater sharing of care and household responsibilities. It will also provide more flexibility by increasing the amount of leave that parents can take at the same time, from 2 to 4 weeks. These settings, which are based on advice from the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce, strike an important balance of increasing support to families, encouraging both parents to take leave, and providing flexibility in how they structure their care arrangements. The Government Paid Parental Leave scheme is paid at the rate of the national minimum wage. The Government scheme is intended to complement employer-provided parental leave entitlements and extend the average length of time off work taken by parents after a birth or adoption. According to data reported by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, in 2023, 63 per cent of employers offered some form of employer-funded paid parental leave. 4.5.2 Superannuation The Government recognises the working-life earnings gap between men and women is the main driver of the gender gap in superannuation balances at retirement and has committed to reducing the superannuation gender savings gap. The Government has announced that pending the passage of legislation, for babies born or adopted on or after 1 July 2025, eligible parents will receive an additional 12 per cent of paid parental leave as a contribution to their superannuation fund. This will help to reduce the gendered gaps in superannuation balances at retirement and signals that caring for babies is valued. It will also help normalise parental leave as a workplace entitlement, like annual and sick leave. Once the Paid Parental Leave scheme is fully expanded from 1 July 2026, the maximum amount a family would receive in superannuation contributions is up to around $3,000 per birth. Modelling suggests that a median female earner's superannuation balance would be around $4,250 higher at retirement. Recommendation 16 In light of recent and forthcoming legislative amendments, the committee recommends the Australian Government consider mechanisms to fund and implement a pathway to reach international best practice of 52 weeks of paid parental leave. The government-funded leave should be paid at least at the minimum full-time wage, with consideration given to encouraging employers to top up payments to full wage replacement. The committee also recommends the Australian Government consider further amendments to the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 to: include 'use it or lose it' provisions so that a proportion of the leave is taken by a co-parent; guarantee the full period of paid leave to sole parents; and ensure superannuation is paid in addition to paid parental leave payments. Interim Report Recommendation 6 The committee recommends the Australian Government amend, as soon as is practicable, the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 to legislate for a paid parental leave period of 26 weeks. Australian Greens' Additional Recommendation 5 The Australian Greens recommend, as a priority, that the Australian Government amend the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 to immediately increase government-funded paid parental leave to 26 weeks, then by four weeks every year from 2027 to 2032, and then a final increase of two weeks in 2033, in order to reach the international standard of 52 weeks of paid parental leave by 2033. Australian Greens' Additional Recommendation 6 The Australian Greens recommend the Australian Government further amend the to the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 to: include 'use it or lose it' provisions to encourage co-parents to each take leave in accordance with best practice, and having regard to the recommendations of the Women's Economic Equality Taskforce; guarantee the full 52 weeks leave to sole parents; provide an additional two weeks leave, in addition to the 52 weeks, if the co-parent takes at least the minimum use it or lose it leave entitlement; ensure superannuation is paid in addition to the paid parental leave payment; and relax work and residency tests for eligibility for paid parental leave to ensure all parents have support to take leave. In particular, reforms should allow funded post graduate study to be counted as work for the purposes of satisfying the work test. The Government agrees in part to this recommendation and notes the Interim Report recommendation and the Australian Greens' additional recommendations. Australia takes a hybrid approach to parental leave, where the Government payment is a minimum entitlement designed to complement employer-provided leave. To extend the length of time parents can take off after birth or adoption, they can receive the Government payment before, after, or at the same time as employer-paid leave. Under the Paid Parental Leave Amendment (More Support for Working Families) Act 2024, the Paid Parental Leave scheme will progressively expand to 26 weeks by 2026. From 1 July 2024, 2 weeks of payment will be added each year to 2026, increasing the maximum entitlement by 6 weeks. This amendment will also progressively increase the number of 'use it or lose it' weeks reserved for each parent in a couple. From 1 July 2026, 4 weeks will be reserved for each parent in a couple, and couples can take up to 4 weeks of payment at the same time to encourage greater sharing of care giving responsibilities. If you are a single parent, you can still share your days with the other parent. If you choose not to, you can get the full number of days. The Government has also committed to making superannuation guarantee equivalent payments on Government-funded paid parental leave from for parents of babies born on or after 1 July 2025. Recommendation 31 The committee recommends the Australian Government amend, without delay, the Fair Work Act 2009 to establish the right to superannuation as a National Employment Standard. The Government agrees to this recommendation. The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Protecting Worker Entitlements) Act 2023 implemented the Government's election commitment to include a right to superannuation in the National Employment Standards. Recommendation 32 The committee recommends the Australian Government consider the implementation of a care credit scheme informed by the reform options proposed in the 2013 Australian Human Rights Commission, Investing in care: Recognising and valuing those who care report. As part of its review the Australian Government should investigate possible mechanisms to address the superannuation gap between men and women, including consideration of paying care credits to superannuation for up to five years for parents who take leave and reduce hours of employment to care for others. The Government notes this recommendation. The Government recognises that the working-life earnings gap between men and women is the main driver of the gender gap in superannuation balances at retirement, rather than retirement income system settings. The Government is taking action to address the earnings gap. The legislated increase in the Superannuation Guarantee to 12 per cent by 1 July 2025 will ensure women have more superannuation in retirement. In addition, the Government will make Superannuation Guarantee equivalent payments on Government-funded paid parental leave for babies born or adopted on or after 1 July 2025. This recognises the important contribution parents make to society, by reducing the impact career-breaks to care for young children have on superannuation balances. 16:06 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the documents. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 98 DOCUMENTS Consideration 98 COMMITTEES 98 COMMITTEES Consideration 98 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS 99 AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORTS Consideration 99 MOTIONS 99 MOTIONS Whistleblower Protection 99 16:12 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move: That the Senate— (a) affirms that it is essential to protect whistleblowers, to expand their protections and to include a clear public interest test; (b) commits to urgently reforming whistleblower laws and creating a Whistleblower Protection Authority; (c) celebrates the return to Australia of journalist and whistleblower Julian Assange; (d) notes with concern that Afghanistan war crimes whistleblower David McBride is in prison right now because broken whistleblower laws failed him; and (e) recognises that Australian Taxation Office whistleblower Richard Boyle faces a potential prison sentence after broken laws were found to not protect his actions. As millions of Australians and millions of people around the world have welcomed the freedom of Julian Assange, we need to take stock and remember those journalists and those other whistleblowers who are still paying the price for speaking the truth. Without whistleblowers, we wouldn't know about schemes such as robodebt or the abuse inside the Ashley children's prison in Tasmania. We wouldn't have seen the horrors of the 'Collateral murder' video of Iraqi civilians and journalists being murdered in cold blood by the United States military. We wouldn't know about how the New South Wales police colluded with the Hunter Catholic diocese to cover up sexual abuse by priests and avoid criminal prosecutions of priests. Whether whistleblowers are telling the truth about US imperialism, the United States war machine and the complicity of Australia in those wars, talking about government misconduct, talking about the war crimes of Australian Defence Force personnel in Afghanistan or blowing the whistle on corporate misbehaviour—appalling overcharging by corporations of the public—we must stand with them. We must ensure that the legal structures we put in place are there to protect them, tell truth to power and, once they've told truth to power, not go to jail for the privilege. The fact is: Australia's whistleblowing laws are fundamentally broken. In some countries, if you blow the whistle and identify government money being misspent—often in the millions—there are laws in place that don't just protect the person who bravely blows the whistle but, in some cases, can actually reward people for doing the right thing in protecting the public interest. In the United States, if you blow the whistle on state or federal fraud, there are laws in place that show that, if money's recovered, the whistleblower doesn't go to jail for disclosing the fraud; the whistleblower gets a modest but fair share of the money that's recovered by the public. Imagine Australia having laws that, instead of jailing whistleblowers, gives them a modest but fair share of the money that's recovered. That's not been on the agenda of the Labor government, and it was not on the agenda of the coalition government, but these are laws that have been in place for decades and decades in the United States. In Australia, the more likely scenario is that, if you blow the whistle, you lose your job. Often you lose your home. You get dragged into the criminal justice system by the government with few, if any, protections. Secret evidence is led against you in court, and your own evidence is excluded by certificates filed by the Attorney-General, alleging national security, so that even the judge can't see your defence. And, as we've seen time and time again, you can face jail. Just occasionally, perhaps because a government in our region might intervene, like the government of Timor-Leste, you might be saved at the last minute from going to jail. But, of course, we know that this government is quite comfortable with jailing whistleblowers because they've done it very, very recently. That might sound like hyperbole, but, in fact, you can prove it. The Human Rights Law Centre has undertaken a comprehensive review of Australia's whistleblowing laws and found that there had not been a single successful case brought by a whistleblower under federal laws designed to protect the public or private sector employees who speak out about wrongdoing. You would think that a government that came in promising transparency and whistleblower protections would be urgently trying to fill the gaps, put in place a whistleblower's commission and protect people who speak the truth, but, instead, we've got a government that is scrubbing the speeches given by Prime Minister Albanese from his website if they've made any mention of transparency. Before Prime Minister Albanese became Prime Minister, he spoke about some of this stuff as though it mattered to him. He made a speech about the core pillars of democracy. The Prime Minister, then the opposition leader, said one of the core pillars of democracy was transparency: FOI laws that work and whistleblower protections that work. He talked the big talk in opposition and then mysteriously, sometime, about March of this year, the speech that had been on his website for years was scrubbed—just rubbed off his website. And, within a matter of months, his government put David McBride in jail for blowing the whistle. Join the dots. This is a government that talked the talk of transparency in opposition, but they've come in and, in some ways, been even worse than the coalition on this stuff. They are deeply, catastrophically underfunding the FOI system so that the delays in FOI are longer now than they were under the worst days of the Morrison government. This is a government where the current Attorney-General, when he was in opposition, even put an affidavit on in support of former senator Rex Patrick's case to try and get some transparency and accountability in the FOI system. He came into office as the Attorney-General and backed in the case to kill off Rex Patrick's case. He backed in the Morrison government's defence of their appalling FOI system. Let's just talk about a couple of brave people, a couple of brave whistleblowers. Prime Minister Albanese stood near Canberra Airport and welcomed back Julian Assange, a brave whistleblower—and credit to the Albanese government for changing the tone and doing the work they did to get Julian Assange home. But it's pretty hard to take a Prime Minister basking in the glow of getting one whistleblower released after he had to plead guilty to a crime under a law that should never have applied to him, a law that the Prime Minister has never challenged, a law that the foreign minister has never challenged. It's pretty hard to take the Prime Minister basking in that, barely five kilometres away from David McBride, whom he put in jail for more than 5½ years for blowing the whistle on war crimes in Afghanistan. It's pretty hard to take that. I can imagine it's pretty hard for David McBride and his family to take that as well. It's pretty hard to take, because David McBride, just like Julian Assange, blew the whistle on war crimes, and our laws failed David. They failed him so comprehensively that he couldn't even present his defence in court, because of a certificate issued by the Attorney-General to squash the evidence. David is serving a 5½-year jail term for telling us the truth about war crimes in Afghanistan—what a comprehensive fail. It is not only David McBride but also Richard Boyle. Richard Boyle blew the whistle on some of the most unethical practices in the Australian tax office. He blew the whistle because no-one would listen to him inside the ATO. He raised it time and time again, and no-one was going to stop the unethical practices—breaking small businesses, breaking small taxpayers, breaking them financially and sometimes emotionally. He blew the whistle because nothing else was changing it. He was backed in by a majority report from the Senate that said he was right in what he did. He was backed in by an internal review by the ATO. He was right to blow the whistle. And do you know what happened? The former government started a prosecution against him for telling the truth, and this government is continuing it. When he tried to say, 'I had to gather all this evidence before I could blow the whistle,' what did this government do? This government ran a case that said: 'The whistleblowing laws don't cover you gathering your evidence together. If you broke any secrecy law by pulling your case together before you gave it to a journalist, none of that is covered.' They've left him with no defence at all. Everyone independent who looks at the Boyle case says that it's proof positive that our laws are so fundamentally broken that no whistleblower can use them, and yet Richard Boyle is being ground through the criminal justice system, and he can see the jail in front of him, just like David McBride said. Why is this happening? It's because the government wants to deter whistleblowers. And the coalition is quite complicit in it. They don't want anyone to blow the whistle. In fact, if you read the sentencing judgement that David McBride got—and they were remarks put in by the judge at the urging of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions—it keeps talking about deterrence. Why did David McBride get such a long jail sentence? It's because of deterrence. What does that mean? It means the court, on application by the government, on the urging of the office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, with evidence and money paid for by the Attorney-General and by the Albanese government, wanted to tell other whistleblowers, 'Don't you dare.' We need a whistleblower commission. We need world-class whistleblower laws. We need to be protecting and rewarding whistleblowers, not putting them in jail. That's the urgent task that this parliament needs to adopt. So we say this, with millions of Australians behind us: thank God Julian Assange is back and can spend time with his family and his kids, and we thank him for blowing the whistle on war crimes, but let's not stop with freeing Julian Assange. Let's free David McBride, let's end the prosecution of Richard Boyle and let's change the laws so that whistleblowers become heroes and are rewarded for their public service, not put in jail by a rotten government that wants to hide the truth. 16:25 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The government opposes this motion. Of course we agree that it is essential to protect whistleblowers. That is why we are committed to delivering strong, effective and accessible protections for them, and we've taken significant steps in this regard since coming to office. In June last year, the parliament passed priority amendments to the Public Interest Disclosure Act, which delivered immediate improvements to the public sector whistleblower scheme, and they were in place in time for the commencement of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. These were the first significant public sector whistleblower reforms since the Public Interest Disclosure Act was first enacted, a decade ago. The government is now progressing a second, broader stage of reforms. This stage includes the release of a consultation paper and public consultation on additional supports for public sector whistleblowers, including consultation on whether a whistleblower protection authority should be established. Submissions received as part of the consultation process are being used to inform the government's next steps. This is significant progress, but, of course, there is always more to do. The motion before us makes mention of Mr Julian Assange. Over the two years since we took office, the government has engaged and advocated to resolve Mr Assange's matter. We are pleased Mr Assange has now arrived in Australia. The Prime Minister said yesterday, 'This outcome has been the product of careful, patient and determined work.' Sometimes just quietly getting on with the job can be more effective than shouting from the rooftops, which is something that the Greens political party obviously struggles to understand. The motion also makes mention of cases that are currently before the courts or may be subject to appeal. It is not appropriate for the Senate to express a view on these matters, and it is irresponsible to propose that it do so. On that basis, this motion cannot be supported. 16:27 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I rise in obvious support of the motion that my colleague Senator Shoebridge brings before the chamber today. We know that we urgently need to fix our whistleblower laws. Our parliament supposedly has a progressive majority, so we should be able to make the changes that will protect whistleblowers in the future. Senator Shoebridge has articulated many cases, and, in moving this motion today, he has spoken at length about those cases. The current lack of action sends the wrong message to whistleblowers. Polling shows that people do understand the need for whistleblowers and the need to keep them safe from persecution. The community absolutely values transparency. Whether it is in government or in other big institutions across this country, they value transparency and they value the truth. The continuing prosecution of whistleblowers goes against this tenor. It drives a stake right into the heart of those community values, saying, 'We don't think that they're important,' when we are capable of protecting whistleblowers, who are in fact trying to protect the truth. The shared idea of the truth is fundamental to our democracy. We have nothing to talk about if we can't agree on a basic fact: when people are persecuted for telling the truth, our society is undermined at a fundamental level, because we can't even admit to the truth. We can't even admit that the community values the truth. In today's Australia, whistleblowers are being persecuted, they're being sacked, they're being slandered and they are even being driven to suicide by government agencies and corporations in this country who seek to protect themselves from scrutiny. And, as Senator Shoebridge said, they're also being put in jail. All the while, our government talks about the contribution that whistleblowers make. The difference between the rhetoric and the reality is absolutely outstanding. It's gobsmacking. As our laws currently stand, whistleblowers have very, very few protections. When the laws that currently exist are put under pressure by our legislators, who don't understand, in fact, the contribution that whistleblowers make, we have to defend the existing protections and shore them up with new laws. It is incumbent that we do that here in this place. It's why we are the elected representatives. The Albanese Labor government chose not to intervene in the shameful prosecution of David McBride, who now faces a long prison sentence. This prosecution should never have taken place in the first place. The laws that allow for prosecution must be changed. The government must do more than just talking about protecting whistleblowers, because talking about it is doing nothing. They must actively intervene when necessary. We saw the government intervention making a difference in the Assange case. Why was David McBride thrown to the wolves? How is that different? Oh, that's right—it was about war crimes. My own office in my home state of Western Australia has been contacted by people, particularly in the state government department, who are living in fear after telling the truth about their employers. The issues can include a lack of cultural safety at work, discrimination and outright persecution from the people in power. What comes through is this sense of: 'There is no-one to talk to. I have no protection as a whistleblower.' A lack of independent oversight means that whistleblowers are supposed to report bad behaviour to the very people who are involved in that bad behaviour. How is that for irony? This kind of thing is a problem at every level of government and, in fact, in many large institutions across this country, including businesses and corporations. A case for strong protections and for more independent oversight is easy to make, which only makes the lack of action more infuriating for those who truly know the truth. The Greens will continue to do everything we can to keep this issue at the forefront of the public debate until we see action. 16:33 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Welcome home, Julian Assange. Thank you, Julian Assange. Thank you, the people who have pressured politicians to release a persistent and determined whistleblower. People power and some of us MPs eventually pressured a failing and flailing Prime Minister to do the right thing. Congratulations to Julian's family, his wife, Stella, his father, John, and his legal teams. We are all glad Julian's home. We are glad you've fanned what were the dying embers of good governance in America. That has important significance for the world. Julian Assange's work is helping the American nation. It's helping Americans, helping democracy and helping humanity, as I'll explain. Firstly, as a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I remind everyone that, in a representative democracy, the people grant power temporarily to government to work for the good of the people, particularly in a proven constitutional monarchy such as ours in which our Constitution places we the people at the top of the hierarchy. Through you, Acting Deputy President, I thank Senator Shoebridge for his motion, and I want to read this from it: That the Senate— (a) affirms that it is essential to protect whistleblowers, to expand their protections and to include a clear public interest test; (b) commits to urgently reforming whistleblower laws and creating a Whistleblower Protection Authority; (c) celebrates the return to Australia of journalist and whistleblower Julian Assange … I support this. In this age of government overreach and distinct loss of our freedom of speech, I strongly support protecting our brave whistleblowers. It's essential. Whistleblowers need protection from retribution, particularly from overzealous governments who would prefer to keep the people in the darkness of ignorance and keep people uninformed and unaware of the dirty side of politics. That dirty side abounds throughout the world. Other villains include the mouthpiece media, the legacy media, the Big Brother globalist media who are always printing to their master's agendas and whose calls for freedom of the press ring hollow when they pick and choose, cull and remain silent on the day's most important issues. These issues include the lies of the safety and effectiveness of COVID mRNA injections, the failure to recognise the COVID jab injuries and the unnecessary destruction of the Australian economy through unfounded and often contradictory government directions, restrictions, mandates and lies. COVID awakened people to the mouthpiece media's lies and contradictions being propagandist and to the shills pushing the lines and lies of big pharma and big government. The mouthpiece media, the globalist media, failed to report the truth. It failed its role of holding governments and politicians to account. Instead of watching over politics, the globalist Big Brother media became an arm of globalists pushing their global agenda through the American Democratic Party; the Democrats' owner, George Soros; and their crooked, inhuman flag-bearers, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Some of the people who woke up have formed their own media enterprises. The alternative new people's media is telling the truth and driving the return of freedom. For example, there's Tucker Carlson; Joe Rogan; Tim Pool; ADH TV, in Australia; TNT Radio, globally and in Australia; Topher Field; the Australian Citizens Party; Youtube's In the Interests of the People; Spectator TV; Efrat Fenigson, the Light newspaper—to name just a few in Australia and around the world. Now that whistleblower voices are starting to be listened to, we must all recognise that the people's media and individuals are entitled to speak out without fear of retribution or censorship. Why are governments opposed to this? Because they're scared of what the people will do when made aware of the lies and deceit that have led to the destruction of so many lives in Australia and in which government decisions played a huge part. Look at what happened to doctors and others who exposed the improper behaviour of agencies such as Ahpra and ATAGI, who mandated dangerous drugs while knowing that they had not been adequately researched or trialled to ensure their safety or even their effectiveness. Doctors and nurses were punished under Australia's new Stasi: Ahpra. Those doctors and other health professionals who were brave enough to speak up have been persecuted and had their careers destroyed. Where were the whistleblower protections for them? While I remind everyone that always beneath control there is fear, that knowledge is no comfort for honest, courageous whistleblowers under attack. How can we stand here in the Senate and still not be able to rely on safeguards that can encourage, not destroy, these people who see wrongdoing and that don't punish them for speaking out honestly? When governments withhold information, it's intended to control what may occur if the truth is exposed. There exist, through state and Commonwealth governments, opportunities for making freedom-of-information or right-to-information requests to access government held documents. This is supposedly to allow transparency in government processes and to hold governments accountable for their actions. Misuse of this process allows governments to artificially create exceptions, thereby avoiding the production of a document that may embarrass the government. We've seen that—arrogantly hiding information on abuse of taxpayer funds or the misuse of authority that citizens have handed to governments temporarily on behalf of serving the people in the national interest. Examples of this hiding are arguing that the document was produced for cabinet consideration or must be withheld to protect commercial-in-confidence arrangements. These excuses supposedly warrant the information remaining hidden from sight. There are many examples where these arguments have been found to have been made unjustifiably to avoid scrutiny—so much for the Albanese Labor government's promised transparency. The other cheek of the uniparty were the Liberals under Scott Morrison. What's clearly needed is a full reform of whistleblowing protection across the board. It must cover the private and public sector. Let's turn to discussing democracy. For a democracy to fully function it requires the contribution of participants and people in the process and freedom from any intimidation, including freedom from any intimidation that prevents free speech and the sharing of differing views. In a totalitarian state the people are scared of the government. In a true democracy government is scared of the people. What do we have in Australia? I'd argue that we have closer to a dictatorship. The mouthpiece Big Brother media did not assist this process during the dark COVID early-response days. There was no publication of alternative views or information. Indeed, there was suppression of credible scientific and medical knowledge, facts and data—suppression of facts about COVID injections being killers, suppression that led to deaths of tens of thousands of Australians and perhaps millions of people globally and suppression at the hands of big pharma, big government, big tech, big media and globalist agencies like the UN and World Health Organization. The result: homicide. Even the suggestion of alternative treatments like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine or critical comments about existing treatments from big pharma were either suppressed or punished for not following the government's line. The government lies. I have to wonder how key decision-makers were bought off to destroy the whistleblowers, including highly respected, qualified and experienced doctors, scientists and allied health professionals, who were loudly sounding the alarm bells. Clearly the pharmaceutical companies where the big winners and the big controllers. It's the whistleblowers who deserve our thanks though. Thank you. We now know that Pfizer did not do the research they claimed they did and the mouthpiece media told us they did. Pfizer held back unfavourable results—the deaths of more than 200 people in their trials. Pfizer lied to America's FDA, their drug approval agency. Pfizer lied to our TGA, Australia's drug approval agency, and other key bodies and decent organisations that will now, along with others, face massive lawsuits for the biggest medical fraud in history—for depriving people of their ability to live a normal life and for aiding homicide. One of the best-known Australian whistleblowers is Mr Julian Assange—finally back and free in Australia. Look at the pain he's had to endure. He would be one of those whistleblowers who would have benefited from whistleblower protection. It's a pity that freedom-of-speech protections in the American constitution cannot be used to protect non-American citizens. The Australian Constitution does not provide protection for freedom of speech other than in the limited capacity of political communication, as Australia's High Court determined. Freedom of speech generally should be provided through Commonwealth and state legislation, as well as through specific provisions that provide protection for whistleblowers. Is there anything more important in a democracy? I argue there's not; it's fundamental. This whole area needs to be reformed and improved, and I thank Senator Shoebridge for raising it. In a democratic system, it's the people who are central and it's the people who vote in their representatives to govern on the people's behalf—for the people. Australia is unique as the only country whose people were actually consulted on and, through a referendum, voted for their Constitution. Only the people can change the Constitution. It's the people who choose, via an election, who form their government. We Australians must be sure to respect and treasure our democratic process, otherwise things could go wrong, as happens from time to time in the United States. We do not want a democracy that can turn a blind eye on the shenanigans of people like Hillary Clinton. Her practices were exposed in parts of the documents released through WikiLeaks that led to the relentless pursuit of Julian Assange. This is the woman who was a candidate for the presidency of the United States. One of her solutions of retribution was to propose droning Assange—murdering Julian Assange. No wonder she and the Democratic Party wanted to suppress Julian Assange. Similarly, bureaucrat Mike Pompeo proposed an attempt to assassinate Julian Assange while he was taking refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Since when do people just come in and murder others, without even entering court? A democracy that entertains the notion of assassination of civilians abroad has fundamental problems. Now, I love my country, Australia. I love some other countries—like Britain, from which our Australian nation sprang. I love America; I sincerely love America, which gave us so much, thanks to freedom: freedom of thought, freedom of faith, freedom of religious expression, freedom of speech, freedom of interaction, freedom of exchange, freedom of travel and movement, freedom of initiative, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom to defend oneself. I've lived, studied, and worked in America. My wife is an American, a dual American-Australian citizen. Our two adult children are dual Australian-American citizens. I've travelled to all 50 American states. I love the American people. They are truly caring people, generous people. In the past, America as a nation was much admired. Worldwide, it was admired. At the end of the First World War, America was in a position to dominate the world. And what did it do? It withdrew back to its shores—an admirable precedent. Contrast that with America since 1944 and the globalist takeover of America. America became a ruthless imperialist power. In the past 80 years, globalists exploited their control over America and corrupted its government. America strode the world stage, overthrowing governments and starting wars that fed its massive military-industrial complex. As a proud friend of America, we need to question what it does and stop blindly following America into wars. We need to support the wonderful, generous, caring American people. Now, as a result of American imperialism and aggression, the world is changing. BRICS—Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa—is growing, and undermining the American dollar. America faces karma. Australia must be careful because of this and ask questions of our American friend. Julian Assange exposed some of the inhuman dark side of the globalists hijacking and driving America. I wish to pay tribute to Julian Assange for standing up for truth and for freedom of speech, for exposing our country's friend, America, and its tilt away from civil democratic governments to unaccountable governments that drone American citizens without a court verdict, that drone people overseas without a court verdict—without even a prosecution, without even a case. It's appropriate that Julian can now have his family beside him and have the freedom he is entitled to enjoy. Since being elected a senator I've supported the push for Julian to come home, and I congratulate Senator Shoebridge for his constant, unfailing efforts in marshalling support to bring Julian home. Well done to all involved for your efforts. Thank you for your efforts. We need to expand protections for whistleblowers to restore democracy in our country. That's right: I said 'restore democracy in our country'—and restore democracy in our allies, restore democracy globally. Democracy is fragile. It's beautiful, but it's fragile. To restore and protect democracy, every citizen must do one thing: speak. 16:48 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I rise because I believe we do need better whistleblower protection laws in this country. In particular, I'm speaking from the experience of having been contacted by many whistleblowers in our bureaucracy in my time as a senator. These people aren't known to the public. For example, one Sunday night I was approached as I got off a plane at Canberra Airport by a bureaucrat, who'd sat there all afternoon waiting to meet me because he had information that was contrary to what was in the public domain and being reported by the public. He is one of three whistleblowers who have approached me on various issues. The fact of the matter is that we have a culture of fear in our Australian bureaucracy, and we cannot get the best out of our government if our bureaucrats are afraid to speak out. I often criticise the bureaucracy, but I know there are many good people in the bureaucracy who try to do the right thing but know that if they speak out they will lose their job or that their career progression will be halted. It was interesting: the other day I heard someone mention the term 'small-c corruption'. It made me think about it, because you often hear the word 'corruption' thrown around, and we tend to think of it as being brown paper bags exchanging hands, but in many ways it's just that often people don't speak up when they should. There's no doubt that, if we're going to stop what we're doing every day and try to fight every level of injustice that we see in the world, we'd never get anything done. But I don't consider that small-c corruption. What I consider small-c corruption is when people who have a fiduciary duty to do the right thing, when they're in a position of power, don't do the right thing in that position. That is what we see a lot. I've seen this time and time throughout the bureaucracy, most notably in estimates, where the bureaucrats won't answer questions properly, or when we pass an order for the production of documents here in this chamber and basically we're told, 'No, you can't have it.' Just today, less than an hour ago, I was in the Economics Legislation Committee, because I want the RBA to release information on the gold bars from the Bank of England. Why? Because I believe that the RBA should be held accountable for their management of it. But, of course, the RBA put this big word, 'confidential', on the top of the page, and they're claiming that they have the right to withhold that information from the Australian people. In particular, in regard to Senator Shoebridge's motion, I want to raise what is being done at the moment to Richard Boyle, a former ATO employee, who blew the whistle on the unjust and unfair treatment of small businesses by the Australian Taxation Office. It is absolutely reprehensible that the Australian government is going after this guy. He is out there. I'm calling on the Liberal Party to take a stand on that, because we're supposed to believe in protecting small business. We have people out there who are risking their jobs. He's now incurring hundreds of thousands of dollars just in legal costs to defend his position. We are not going to have a true democracy. Democracy is all about accountability and transparency, and we are not going to have that when we have this culture of fear throughout the government, and in the private sector as well, where, if you speak up or speak out, your career is curtailed or, as I'm sure has happened in many cases, you lose their job. We have to make sure there are genuine whistleblower protections out there so that people who try to stand up and do the right thing are protected. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 The question before the chair is that general business notice of motion No. 540, moved by Senator Shoebridge be agreed to. A division is required. The division, because it's after 4.30, will be deferred until Monday. ADJOURNMENT 105 ADJOURNMENT Girmit Remembrance Day 105 16:53 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland (): I rise today to speak about Girmit Remembrance Day. This is an extremely important day which commemorates those Indians who were transported as indentured labour from India to, amongst other places, Fiji. Between 1879 and 1916, 60,000 Indians were transported as indentured labour from India and sent to Fiji, mainly to work in the sugar industry, in the cane fields. Each year, Girmit Remembrance Day recognises what those members of the Indian diaspora went through as indentured labour. I would like to first congratulate the Fiji Girmit Foundation Australia for putting on a wonderful event to remember those Indians who went to Fiji as indentured labour, many of whose descendants have settled subsequently in Australia. I would also like to sincerely thank and place on the record my thanks to Mr Jitendra Deo and his family, who supported the event which I attended through their Deo Family Charitable Foundation. Jitendra is a wonderful Queenslander and makes a wonderful contribution to our community, and this is just one example of his and his family's charitable work through that foundation. His whole family was engaged during the event. It was very, very special to see. Finally, thirdly, I pay tribute to the descendants of those Indians who were taken as indentured labour and transported to Fiji who have subsequently settled in Australia, many of whom were given awards on the night for their contribution to Australia. These are the descendants of those original members of the Indian diaspora who were sent to Fiji as indentured labour that have subsequently settled in Australia, in our country, and they've made a wonderful contribution as part of our wonderful Australian Fijian Indian diaspora—contributions in medicine, business and community work. I honour their achievements. I honour their service. During the course of the remembrance day, I reflected on what their ancestors must think about the contribution they've made to Australia. Try to put yourself in the position of one of the members of those shipments of indentured labour with the resilience, the courage and the resourcefulness they all demonstrated. What must they think now that their descendants are working in our hospitals as doctors or specialists, working in our science community and working in jobs providing great community service? So I say to each and every one of the recipients of those awards at the remembrance day that I attended: you do great honour to your ancestors, and each and every one of you represents the very best of Australian values. Macclesfield RSL Sub-Branch 105 16:57 Senator McLACHLAN 287062 South Australia I rise to express my sincere thanks to the Macclesfield RSL. President Dennis Oldenhove invited me to have a discussion in regard to some of the government initiatives with the Department of Veterans' Affairs and its treatment of veterans and also the impending delivery of the royal commission report. I had a very meaningful discussion with Clyde, Robert and Peter in their beautiful rooms in this magnificent part of the Adelaide Hills. I was struck by how each veteran has struggled with the system before being granted the necessary compensation. As a veteran myself, it is very troubling that my fellow veterans who have served this country in times of war and have received injuries, both mental and physical, cannot easily access the system of entitlements. Once in the system, they all admitted, they're getting very good care. I found it confronting. I thank them for their honesty. I will take on board their views in my own advocacy. I increasingly hold the view that our veterans' entitlement system needs a complete overhaul, and it needs to be far more integrated with current defence members who are serving. I'll work with other members of the chamber post the royal commission's report being delivered to deliver better outcomes. Whilst I was there, we also took the opportunity to have a look at the Macclesfield ANZAC Memorial Gardens, which this RSL looks after. It's a great community asset, but they do more than look after the gardens. They have signs there which have phone numbers for those that are feeling vulnerable and in trouble to phone. This has been a great success. They have expanded this to bollards throughout the community with those phone numbers, like for Lifeline, and they're being used. So I wish to thank them for their commitment to their community and thank them for their service to the nation. They are a group of men and women who I deeply respect, and I thank them for their time and their honesty with me as a senator. Health Care 106 17:00 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I want to speak about health tonight in the chamber. I'll take the opportunity because today we passed the National Health Amendment (Supporting Patient Access to Cheaper Medicines and Other Measures) Bill 2024 in this chamber. Labor has always believed that life-saving and life-changing medicines should be affordable and easy to access. Cheaper medicines have been part of our overall strategy in relation to Australians' health since coming to government. I'm very proud of the fact that it's been the Anthony Albanese Labor government that has actually had the fortitude and the guts to introduce 60-day scripts. After all, we remember that those opposite were given the advice that we needed to shift to that to reduce the number of visits to GPs, to allow people to spend less time in a GP's clinic waiting to get a script and to enable them to save money by getting a 60-day script rather than having to keep going back. We did that because Labor believes that we need to ensure medicine is cheaper. We were prepared to stand up to Pharmacy Guild, unlike those opposite when they were in government. We have in fact not only reduced the cost of medicines and brought in 60-day scripts but also re-incentivised our GPs around the country to increase their bulk-billing to pensioners and to children. We've seen a significant increase in bulk-billing around the country and particularly in my home state of Tasmania. Our government has also frozen the indexation rate of the PBS co-payment so that all Australians for the next 12 months will not have an increase to the cost of their medications. For concession card holders, we have in fact frozen that payment for five years. These are all areas that are going to help the Australian community with the cost of living. It is important that we invest in health because better health outcomes are better for our economy and better for our communities. I want to give a big shout-out to the Hon. Mark Butler, the Minister for Health and Aged Care, for what he has done in terms of leading the way in incentivising GPs to do a greater amount of bulk-billing. He's actually incentivised GPs in that area. We have seen the implementation of our urgent care clinics. If you need to see a GP, you can go and see a doctor at these urgent care clinics. I know how busy the one in Launceston has been. All you need is your Medicare card; you don't need your credit card. Let's not forget that it was Mr Peter Dutton, the now Liberal leader, who, as a former minister for health, was voted by the AMA as the worse health minister for 35 years. I'd say he was really the worst minister for health, border force and immigration that Australia has ever seen. That would be my personal opinion. But we actually value investing in Australians' health. We are now leading the way in terms of changing vaping laws in this country. Because we understand the scourge of what vaping is doing to young people in this country, we again are leading the way, as we did with plain packaging, in encouraging people to give up cigarette smoking. It is a Labor government—again, I give a big shout-out to Mark Butler and what he has been doing in this area of health, because if we invest in the health of the Australian people then we will get not only a huge return from an economic point of view but a much stronger, cohesive community. (Time expired) Australian Society: Social Cohesion, Australian Greens 106 17:05 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania The world is finally waking up to the downside of social media, and thank God. I am glad government is looking at what can be done to protect our kids. But it's not only our kids that are at risk. Do you know what social media is really good at? It's really good at dividing us. It's all thumbs up or thumbs down, love or hate. It rewards opinions—strong opinions. It encourages us to hate each other. It doesn't reward someone for saying, 'I don't know what I think about that. I need more time before I decide.' When people are struggling, dividing us is easy. The Scanlon Foundation has been mapping and tracking Australia's social cohesion for nearly 20 years and they say that we are more divided than ever. Cost-of-living pressure is creating the most hardship, with 12 per cent reporting skipping meals, 12 per cent struggling to pay rent or mortgages and 22 per cent saying they don't have enough income for medicines or health care. When people are doing it tough, blaming others and identifying a group to blame is easy. Some would say it's the oldest trick in the book. And when we have global conflicts like the war in Gaza, it's the easiest thing in the world to whip people up and channel their anger at minority groups—at Jews, at Muslims and at migrants. What is much harder is being a leader or a political party that brings Australians together instead of tearing us apart. Since the Hamas terrorist attack on Israel on 7 October, the Greens have displayed the most despicable examples of leadership I have seen since I have been here. In my opinion, they have been behaving like the worst examples of social media. I don't think there are any Australians who aren't horrified by the plight of the hostages or the shocking suffering of the Palestinian people. War is awful. It's always awful. It's always the innocents who suffer. Every political and community leader should do everything they can to turn the temperature down, not to light it up. But instead of working productively toward peace since the Hamas terrorist attack on 7 October, the Greens have done all they can to whip up division and whip up hate in the community. On 18 October, just 11 days after the world learned of the horrific details of the Hamas terrorist attack—children burnt, women raped and hostages taken—the Greens were the only Australian political party that refused to support a federal parliamentary motion condemning the Hamas massacre. In November, a Greens senator was happy to be photographed with a protester holding a sign that showed a figure putting the Israeli flag in the rubbish bin alongside the words 'keep the world clean'. Adam Bandt, the Leader of the Australian Greens, has posted on his social media that protesters should continue holding the government to account by 'marching, calling, blockading'. The Greens likes to pitch itself as the party that stands on principle. It's a party that likes to portray itself as a party of peace. Instead, they are trying to bring the war here. It is a party that apparently stands up and fights for the voiceless, but when it comes to Israel the Greens it leaves these principles at home. In the days after 7 October, instead of standing in solidarity with the traumatised Australian Jewish community, the Greens immediately aligned themselves with an ultranationalist Palestinian agenda. As Philip Mendes, professor of social policy and community development at Monash University put it: 'The Greens are progressive except when it comes to the Jews.' Apparently Jews don't count in the Greens progressive agenda. In this place we're not allowed to use props, but Greens senators often come to this place wearing the keffiyeh, a symbol of Palestinian nationalism. The Greens like to claim they are the champions of the welfare state. They have a large block of senators in this place, but JobSeeker still hasn't gone up. They haven't suspended standing orders to call attention to Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine. They didn't suspend standing orders when Pakistan announced they were bulldozing the homes of one million Afghan refugees, driving them back over the border into the arms of the Taliban. Since 7 October the Greens have attempted to suspend standing orders or to introduce urgency motions on Gaza in the Senate or House of Representatives no less than 20 times. By the way, most of the motions said nothing about the hostages. These motions add up to nearly nine hours of wasted time and wasted taxpayers' money. So my question to the Greens is: do you really think these stunts do anything to bring Australians together? Do you really think it does anything to stop the suffering of Palestinians? Of course it doesn't. They are nothing more than stunts. They're stunts that they think win them votes. They're stunts that the Greens can pump out as video clips across social media. It's a disgrace. They're social media clips that whip up community division. They're social media clips that encourage the blockading of electorate offices. Electorate offices are there for the most vulnerable in our electorates to seek help. Australians who are coming to their MP's office are seeking help—help for their health, help for housing and help for their families. But I guess the Greens don't count them. These Australians don't count the Greens either. Senate adjourned at 17 : 10