2024-07-02 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Tuesday, 2 July 2024

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

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 12:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised. BILLS 1 BILLS Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024 1

Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024

Second Reading 1 12:02 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise to speak in support of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024. I have to say that the irony of this legislation does not escape those on the coalition side of this chamber, the reason being that this was the law, in part, that we introduced when we were last in government in 2020. That's right: it was the former coalition government that listened to constituent parts of unions that no longer wanted to be part of the militant, thuggish, bullying CFMMEU, and we allowed them, should they choose to, to put in place a process whereby they demerged. In other words: they got out of the part of the union which was bullying, intimidating and indulging in thuggery. At the time, on Wednesday 9 December 2020, the now Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Tony Burke, in a speech in the House of Representatives, supported the coalition's legislation on behalf of the then Labor opposition. I have the speech here. There's not often a time and place in which the Labor opposition will support the coalition when it comes to changes to industrial relations. So, when they do, you've got to look at it and go, 'Wow, the coalition really did get it right.' And that we did. Why? Because we listened to those workers, those members of bigger unions, who said: 'We are sick and tired. We are fed up with the bullying, the thuggery and the intimidation. We want to properly represent our workers, and the only way that we're able to do that is if we demerge from the larger union.' Let's have a look at what Tony Burke, the now minister for industrial relations, said at the time. He said: The bill before us— that was, of course, the coalition's bill— represents a commonsense technical amendment to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009—specifically the provisions in the act that deal with withdrawal from amalgamation. Currently the act allows a constituent part of an amalgamated union to withdraw from the remainder of the union. It's a democratic process involving a ballot of the members of that part of the union that would be seeking to withdraw from the amalgamation. The problem with the provisions as they currently exist— in other words, what the coalition was seeking to fix and, indeed, did fix— is that they only provide a window of between two and five years after an amalgamation in which a vote of that kind can take place. It's a narrow window that doesn't contemplate the possibility that the desire for a demerger and the reasons for a demerger may arise after that five-year window. You probably now need to ask yourself, 'Hold on. If Mr Burke, when he was the opposition spokesperson on industrial relations, was prepared to support a coalition bill that did, within reason, what this bill is doing today, how have we actually ended up in this place whereby we are re-legislating something that the coalition had put in place.' That's because, as we know, after the Labor then opposition supported our legislation, they got a knock on the door, and, lo and behold, who did they get a knock on the door from? That would of course be from the person whom many of the courts, including the High Court of Australia, have made some rather interesting comments about. That is Mr John Setka, who has been named, 'The most bullish thug in Australia when it comes to standing over other people.' The problem the Labor Party then had was that what Mr Setka says, has to go. As such, in the 2021 Special Platform Conference, the Australian Labor Party did a complete, total and utter backflip. They went from supporting what Mr Burke had said was, 'A commonsense technical amendment,' because as I said, the then coalition government had been talking to the workers, in particular in the textile unions. The textile division of the CFMEU had told us, 'Please, we have to get out of the CFMEU. They intimidate us, they bully us, they are thugs, and we need to be able to get out.' So we allowed them that pathway to get out, which, at the time, Mr Burke supported. Knock on the door, it's Mr Setka of the CFMEU, different marching instructions are given. We also know there was the small figure, I say sarcastically, of $4.3 million, which the CFMEU provided to the Australian Labor Party in the lead up to the 2022 election. So we saw a complete, total and utter backflip, and in the 2021 Special Platform Conference, this is what the Australian Labor Party outlined in relation to what there 'further industrial relations policies' were to include: Union demerger reform—reversing the Morrison union demerger government's legislative changes that make it easier for unions to demerge. One might ask, 'On what planet would the Australian Labor Party have to take that as a policy in its platform to the election when only 12 months before, they proudly stood in both the other place and this place, supporting legislation that Mr Burke himself described as merely a commonsense technical amendment to the Fair Work Act to allow those parts of unions who didn't want to be part of a bigger union, to actually leave?' As I said, it is right there in back and white. They had to reverse their position with a spectacular backflip because Mr Setka, in Mr Setka style, stood over the Australian Labor Party. We know that is true, and why do we know that is true? Because since they reversed the coalition's very sensible legislation, the textile union and representatives of the textile union have been walking this place, and they have been quite rightly speaking to anyone who will listen and telling them about the issues that they have with, in particular, the militant division of the CFMEU—the construction division—and actually begging for the ability to demerge from them. In fact, one of the union secretaries told the Age newspaper about the first meeting with the CFMEU: "It was a male-dominated space," she recalls. "He just went on this big rant and there was fear if anyone tried to say anything it would have just got a lot worse." Wow! That's a great way to treat low-paid women from a part of the union that can't afford to give a lot of money to the Australian Labor Party. You just leave them there to be bullied and intimidated by thugs, and you say, 'Well, that's okay.' As long as the $4.3 million was coming in prior to the last election, John Setka—guess what, mate—what you say goes. One of the other union reps stated, in regard to the workplace culture of the CFMEU—let's be very clear here; these are people who are members of the union. This is what they have been saying to the Australian Labor Party: Within the building there were jokes about domestic violence. It was very uncomfortable to the point where our division had to leave the building. Clearly, that doesn't worry the Australian Labor Party, as they were happy in February of this year to vote against both an amendment to their industrial relations legislation and a private senator's bill that Senator Lambie brought forward—both were supported by the coalition opposition—that would actually allow the textile division of the CFMEU, the manufacturers, to demerge from the bigger union. Why? Because we believe in freedom of association. It's something that those on the other side are fundamentally opposed to. If you believe in freedom of association, you actually stand up for the low-paid women in the textile division—the textile, clothing and footwear sector—of the CFMEU. You listen to what, frankly, are completely, totally and utterly abhorrent complaints in relation to the CFMEU, and you then act on them. Twice earlier this year, the Australian Labor Party was given the opportunity to do just that. Both times, instead of standing up for the low-paid workers in the textile, clothing and footwear sector of the CFMEU—it has the greatest number of women—they did the bidding of John Setka. In 2019 there was an affidavit provided, a sworn statement to the police, by Mr Setka's estranged wife. This is what she said, in relation to when Mr Setka had physically assaulted her: John was out of control. He hit my head against the table about five times. It was very painful. John is a lot bigger and stronger than me and he can totally physically control me. Again, the Labor Party did not listen to the pleas from, in particular, the women in the textile, clothing and footwear sector of the CFMEU and twice did not support the ability for them to get out of the CFMEU. In fact, in relation to Senator Lambie's bill, Senator Watt made it very clear. Senator Watt gave the position on behalf of the Albanese Labor government. He said, 'The government will not be supporting this bill.' So you really have to ask yourself: how did we get to this place today? The answer is very obvious. Mr Albanese has shown that he is a weak and impotent Prime Minister, in his inability to stand up to the bullying, thuggery and intimidation that Mr Setka is still throwing around. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Urquhart, a point of order? Senator Urquhart 231199 I ask that Senator Cash withdraw that imputation on the Prime Minister. It was a reflection. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 It wasn't a reflection of improper motive. It was within the political discourse. Go on, Senator Cash. Senator CASH I0M It was by his actions, in failing to condemn the recent statements by Mr Setka in relation to Mr Stephen McBurney and his position at the AFL. If you recall, Mr Setka said to the Prime Minister, who by his actions shows that he is weak and impotent, 'Stay out of it.' And, in press conference after press conference after press conference, that is exactly what the Prime Minister did. The leader of our country failed to stand up to the person who even the courts have said is a militant thug and part of the most militant union in this country. And it then became a political problem, because not even the press in Australia could believe that Mr Albanese would take his instructions from Mr Setka, and not listen to the pleas of the low-paid women in the textile, clothing and footwear sector of the CFMEU. We know that they are still taking their instructions from Mr Setka. How do we know that? Look at the limited application of the legislation that we have before us today. It doesn't revert to the coalition's position and say: 'Any smaller union, if you want to get out of the bigger union, we agree that you should because we believe in you. We believe that you should have the right to properly represent your workers. We believe in the right to freedom of association, and, if you do not want to be part of the bigger union, you can leave.' That is the second reading amendment that I now move: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to allow any division of any amalgamated registered organisation to withdraw from the amalgamated organisation after a vote of members within the division, to ensure that unions remain true representatives of the workers they represent". I don't expect the Australian Labor Party to support that because, again, this is a political bill, and nothing more, to clean up a mess. If you truly believe that smaller unions should be allowed to withdraw if they want to—and it really doesn't matter what the reasons are, quite frankly—because they no longer feel that they can represent their own workers within the bigger union that they are in, the only logical law to have in place is one that allows them to demerge. But no, this is a tightly drafted bill. Worse, it even has a timeframe in it, so that, if you don't do it in a certain timeframe, it's 'too bad, so sad' and you've got to stay. Shame on Mr Albanese and shame on Mr Burke. It's a political fix to what is a very, very serious problem. 12:17 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania The Australian Greens oppose the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024. I note that, when this was debated in the House of Representatives, Liberal MP after Liberal MP rose in that place and enthusiastically supported the legislation, and while, of course, a minister had to have carriage of the bill, almost no Labor MPs stood up in there and spoke to this legislation. The Australian Greens say to the Labor Party, 'That fact alone should give you pause for thought and should encourage you to reconsider what you are proposing to do with this legislation.' When you look at the speaking list in this place for this legislation, you see one Labor senator on the speaking list: Minister Watt. You see one person from the Australian Greens—that is me—putting our position of opposition on the record. The rest of the people on the speaking list are Senator O'Sullivan, Senator Lambie, Senator Scarr, Senator McKenzie, Senator Duniam, Senator McGrath, Senator Brockman and Senator Liddle. Again, we're going to see Liberal senator after Liberal senator—opposition senator after opposition senator—rise and enthusiastically support this legislation. This should give the government pause, but it won't. The reason it should give the government pause is that that mob over there are no friends of the union movement. They are no friends of the working people in this country. The Liberal Party has a long history of union busting and concocting labour-market reforms, or so-called reforms, that undermine the rights of working Australians. They've got a reputation—well deserved—of doing the bidding of big corporations and employers. Let's have a look at some of the relatively recent history in this policy area: Work Choices—who can forget Work Choices?—disastrous industrial relations changes brought in by the Howard government in 2005 that smashed the rights of working Australians. More than a million Australians on awards suffered a real pay cut of nearly $100 a week because of changes to the way minimum wages were set up under Work Choices, delivered by a Liberal-National Party government that had the numbers in both chambers in that parliament. Let's look at something else: creating the Australian Building and Construction Commission. This was effectively a construction industrial police force, a union-bashing exercise that undermined the basic rights of construction workers to be treated equally under the law. The ABCC failed to act as an independent regulator committed to the best interests of the construction industry, the conditions of workers and the legitimate needs of employers. Under ABCC rules, construction workers had their right to silence undermined. Workers were forced to name names under those rules. It undermined the rule of law, particularly the principle that the law is applied equally and the principle of the presumption of innocence. And let's not forget former prime minister Tony Abbott's royal commission witch hunt into the unions—a witch hunt that was determined to weaken the labour movement in this country. So, the Liberal Party has a demonstrated track record of throwing workers under a bus. The fact that they are going to so enthusiastically support this legislation should give pause to the Australian Labor Party. I mean, look who you are going to be voting with when the bells stop ringing. You're going to park your backsides on the same side of the chamber as the mob who are now in opposition, who've built political careers and an entire movement on throwing workers under a bus. The Liberals push for higher unemployment, they push for lower wages and they will take every opportunity to weaken the union movement—all in the service, of course, of big business and their corporate donors. To think that the Liberals have suddenly changed their tune and are deciding to take a position that would be positive for workers in Australia is naive at best; 'stupid' would be a more accurate description. I have no doubt that this debate in the Senate today, up until its conclusion, will reflect the debate in the House of Representatives, where Liberal MP after Liberal MP—in the case of this place, Liberal senator after Liberal senator—is going to get up and explain why they think this is a terrific piece of legislation. Well, that should give the Australian Labor Party pause. The government should be seriously questioning how they're going to end up sitting on the same side of the chamber as a mob that has a demonstrated track record of smashing the union movement and throwing workers under a bus in the interests of increasing corporate profits. Labor is defending this bill by saying the changes will impact only one union. If that's the case, we have a question: why are the Liberals so thrilled with this change? The answer to that question of course is: because it sets a precedent; it opens the door for yet more coalition-era anti-union reforms. As the National Secretary of the CFMEU, Mr Zach Smith, pointed out: This bill risks setting a dangerous precedent for anti-worker ideologues in future coalition governments to break up unions. Unions are a critical part of our society. Time won't permit me to run through all the amazing things workers collectively have achieved through their unions and the broader union movement throughout Australia's postcolonial history. But, in overview, they fight hard for fair pay, they fight hard for safe working conditions and they also make critically important contributions to our democracy. They've been pivotal in achieving so many of the things that we take for granted today: paid leave, public holidays, Medicare, superannuation, workplace health and safety, maternity leave, the eight-hour working day, minimum wage—as I said, time prevents me from listing all of the achievements. I also note that unions have been pivotal in the battle to save built heritage in Australia and also to save green spaces, particularly in urban areas in our country, from the relentless march of developers. I do note that the green bans that were put in place by a part of the union movement so many decades ago were instrumental in the naming of the German Greens at the time when Petra Kelly, then leader of the German political environment movement, came out to Australia. The Greens have a straightforward and very principled position on this legislation. We are not going to support this legislation. We're going to stand with working Australians, and we're going to support unions that in turn support the rights of working Australians. That's why we opposed things like the ABCC, that's why we voted against Work Choices, that's why we were so critical of the royal commission into unions, and that is why we're going to oppose this legislation today. We're not convinced that this legislation is not designed to fragment the union movement and dilute the power of workers to organise, stand up for themselves and take collective action. We are not convinced that this bill will not weaken the union movement, and we have concerns that any bill that weakens the union movement and therefore weakens the power of workers will ultimately lead to lower wages, to more unsafe working conditions and to a lack of ability for working people to take collective action in this place. The Greens say to the Labor Party here today: the enthusiastic support from the Liberal Party for this motion should be a canary in the coalmine. It should be a giant red flag to the Australian Labor Party. I ask again the simple question: if you're bringing in industrial relations legislation that is supported by the coalition, who have built their political brand on smashing workers and have a demonstrated track record of throwing workers under a bus, are you really sure you are doing the right thing? That's the question for the Labor Party here. Senator McKIM JKM Senator Scarr might be uncomfortable with the way I've described the Liberal Party, but history speaks for itself. We will never forget Work Choices, Senator Scarr. We will never forget the Australian Building and Construction Commission. We will never forget Tony Abbott's witch-hunt of a royal commission into the union movement. We know this mob over here. We know what their track record is in supporting working Australians, and that is that they don't have one. They don't have one because, when push comes to shove, they will do everything they can to drive wages down. I well remember—and I'm sure Senator Scarr does as well—the admission from former senator Cormann that low wages were a feature of the industrial relations system designed by the coalition when they sat on the Treasury benches. I well remember that admission from Senator Cormann when he said the quiet thing out loud. He said the quiet thing out loud one day, and we will never forget that. The opposition has a shameful track record of doing over workers in this country. They do that because they are being manipulated. They exist to deliver for the big corporations in this country. That is the modus operandi of the mob that find themselves on the opposition benches. They have a demonstrated track record of throwing working people under the bus at every opportunity. They don't want to see high wages; they want to see low wages. Former senator Corman admitted it on the record and he said the quiet thing out loud. He was being truthful and honest. It is about time this mob here today were truthful and honest as well. They want low wages. That's why they don't support the union movement. So to the Australian Labor Party I say— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 Order, Senator Lambie! I expect you will want to be heard in silence when it is your turn. Senator McKIM JKM I am surprised that Senator Lambie would disagree with my characterisation of the opposition as being antiworker, but here we find ourselves today. In conclusion, I want to say this. The fact that they are getting such enthusiastic support for this bill from the people they claim to oppose in this place, the fact that Liberal member after Liberal member in the House got up and enthusiastically supported this bill, should give them pause for thought. The fact that when the bells stop ringing they will be sitting next to a bunch of unavowed antiworker senators should give them pause for thought. It's shameful that not only is it not giving them pause for thought; it's not actually going to change their position. 12:32 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia What material do I have to work from now after that presentation? Who would have thought? I am speaking on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024. Senator McKim says that we are no friend of union movement. I'll tell you what: from what we just heard there, the Australian Greens are no friend of women who want to stand up for themselves and disassociate themselves from a union that is absolutely atrocious when it comes particularly to the bullying and treatment of women in workplaces. For Senator McKim to stand up there in the way that he did, obviously the Greens are thinking there are some votes in it for them. Finally we are seeing the Labor Party stand up against this and the Greens are thinking, 'Here's an opportunity for us to maybe bleed off some votes from the construction division of the CFMEU.' The Australian Greens should be ashamed. Here is an opportunity to right a wrong that has been in place for quite some time and here we have a section of the union that wants to disassociate itself, that wants to remove itself from the CFMEU and change its membership and become an autonomous group, and the Greens party want to stand against that. That just says all that we need to know about them. We are in this situation, and I am pleased that we are here. I just wonder why it took so long. Why has it taken us so long to get to this situation? The coalition parties and the Australian Labor Party are standing together in condemning the actions and behaviour of a trade union—who would have thought? Anything that dilutes the pervasive influence and control of the CFMEU, frankly, is a good thing. The union appears to be losing its friends. This union appears to be losing its friends and there's little wonder why. We saw Mr Setka, only a couple of weeks ago, hold up against every AFL-loving and sports-following fan in this country. They want to stand up against any construction project on any football field, AFL club or ground around the country just because they didn't get their way. The guy they despise the most, the former commissioner of the construction watchdog, the ABCC, has been appointed back to his old career of umpiring, and just because they're not happy with that appointment, they want to hold up jobs around the country. They want to hold up construction projects around the country because of their vendetta against someone who was just doing his job, to hold this union to account, to stop the thuggery that occurs in workplaces and to stop the intimidation that occurs on construction sites. It's holding our country back. It's holding back the ability to construct jobs and projects in a timely and efficient way because of the union interference. Finally, Mr Albanese has been dragged into this kicking and screaming, but he's working with the coalition to resolve this. I want to commend Senator Lambie. Earlier in the year she actually brought forward an amendment—or was it a private senator's bill; I can't recall, Senator Lambie—to deal with this very thing. Would the government support it at that time? No. But the coalition did. The coalition backed Senator Lambie all the way on that. And maybe it's because the CFMEU tapped into a vein, because AFL is the biggest sport in this country—sorry, Queenslanders and New South Welshmen, but it is—but there was outrage across the country. There was outrage across the country at the absurdity of Mr Setka calling that out in the way he did. So, finally, the Prime Minister and Mr Burke came forward with a sensible proposition. But it took Mr Setka to threaten the AFL for this decision to finally be made. Here we are, nonetheless, and I'm pleased that we're here. In February this year, Senator Lambie brought forward a private senator's bill that would have allowed the manufacturing union, which included the textiles union, to demerge from the CFMEU. This government had an opportunity back then to deal with an insidious issue where that section of the union wanted to disassociate itself because they were embarrassed to be connected with the behaviour of the construction division of the CFMEU. This government wouldn't do anything about it then. But, finally, we have a bill here—that we are going to pass today, hopefully—that will resolve this issue and allow the textiles union, in particular, to demerge from the CFMEU. This is a good thing. This legislation is enabling that demerger and enabling them to disassociate themselves. But I have a question for the Labor Party. Will you go a step further and stop taking political donations from the CFMEU? We know that you're absolutely addicted to those donations. We know that they're the biggest donors to the Australian Labor Party. We know that they provide your resources to campaign and peddle the rubbish you pedal. They know that that's who gives them this funding. This Labor Party is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the trade union movement, particularly the CFMEU. Will they follow through in the way that they brought forward this legislation? Will they accept donations in the future, or will they do the right thing and start to stand up? We know that the CFMEU gave the last federal election $4.3 million. Not only that, they have control of their preselections. These guys over here are in their seats; these guys up in the gallery get to have their jobs because of the preselections that occur. And they're all happening right now. Everyone has been facing preselections in recent months or is about to. The union powerbrokers have control over their preselections and decide whether they get to keep their jobs or not. But they also have control over the funds that come into that party, so will the Prime Minister be ruling out any further contribution from the CFMEU? If ever a government was beholden to the trade union movement since the failed Whitlam government, it is this present Labor government. They are the gold standard when it comes to delivering their paymasters' wish list. When it comes to industrial relations, we've seen their list of legislation go through this place. We've seen the sham inquiries that occur, the way that they guillotine debates and the way that they rush stuff through without proper scrutiny, without proper debate and without a committee process in this place because they are beholden to this union. They need to start standing up, but will the Prime Minister do that? Will the Prime Minister actually stand up? We know that this Prime Minister is weak. We know that this Prime Minister will not stand up. We know that they will continue to take these donations. We know that they will continue to have this undue influence over their processes and over their party. Maybe we could be surprised, but I'm not going to hold my breath. Under this government's fair work bills, they've attempted to insert pernicious trade union influence into just about every workplace in the country. It wasn't good enough to just have that pernicious influence over construction workplaces; they've now brought it into almost every workplace, including, in particular, small businesses across Australia. That is what this government's agenda is. They're just beholden to the trade union movement. We know that union membership has declined across this country. About seven per cent of workers are in a union. That includes police, nurses, teachers, public servants. If you were to take them out, I don't know what the number would but it'd be very, very small. We know they're heavily unionised. And there are many good unions, by the way. I'm not against unions. Senator McKim said that we're no friend of the unions. That's not true. We do believe in the right of association and the freedom of association. My wife's a nurse. She's seen the support of the federation over there in Western Australia. They do good work. The teachers union do fantastic work. There are good unions. But here we have an example, the CFMEU, particularly the construction section of the CFMEU, that clearly is absolutely atrocious, and this government will not call them out. You watch: in any of their contributions on this debate, there won't be any call-out of that. They're just going to appeal to the fact that they've got a group within that want to separate themselves, but they won't call out the atrocious behaviour that occurs. And it is atrocious. A Federal Court judge once described their conduct as systemic and unlawful, yet, despite this known pattern of behaviour by the CFMEU, this government rushed to abolish the ABCC in the early days after its election. Part of their first tranche of industrial relations law that came through this parliament was to abolish the ABCC. That was an integral oversight body with a proven track record of winning prosecutions against union thuggery, and they couldn't bear it any longer, so what did they do? They abolished it, rather than actually standing up and fighting against the pernicious activity that occurs in those construction workplaces. Back in the mid-1980s, in 1986, the Hawke Labor government passed a bill which deregistered the BLF, Builders Labourers Federation. This was a union that adopted, as a slogan, Mao Zedong's motto: 'Dare to struggle, dare to win!' In a long history of having leaders that were communists, one actually went to jail. Things must've been bad if the forces of the Labor government were lined up against the BLF, but the spirit of the BLF lives on in the CFMEU. Bill Kelty, former ACTU secretary—and a former AFL commissioner no less—is reported to have said this recently of Mr Setka's threats to the AFL: You're not entitled to be threatening people, you're not entitled to threaten the AFL … Why would you be threatening the AFL? The clubs have done nothing. The AFL members have done nothing. So why would you want to damage the AFL or its membership? It's not fair. It's not fair to the clubs, it's not fair to the members. Why would you make them pay? If you do things in life and you hurt people, you hurt organisations, somebody pays the price. Who will pay the price? It will be the clubs and the supporters. So it took the recent threats of Mr Setka towards the AFL for this Labor government to finally act. Senator Lambie, as I said, I congratulate you, because this in many ways emulates what you brought forward earlier this year. It took that bill and now these threats on AFL fields across the country for this government to finally come forward with something that addresses it. Labor should have addressed this issue long ago. We had an opportunity back in the last term of government for the then opposition to support addressing this issue, but they didn't. But finally, with their own bill being brought forward—a bill that very much resembles what we had in the previous term of government and certainly resembles what Senator Lambie brought forward earlier this year—we have an opportunity now to resolve this issue. One of the things that I'd like to see is an amendment, and I foreshadow the amendment on sheet 2694, which reads: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to amend the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 to ensure that anyone convicted of more than 10 criminal offences cannot be appointed as an officer of a registered organisation". We're not asking for much. In fact, it's a pretty high bar—10 criminal offences. Government, why don't you support this as well? Here's an opportunity to make sure that you can't be a union official or hold any office or authority within a trade union movement if you have a record of 10 criminal offences against you. It is a pretty high bar, but let's see if the Labor Party are prepared to do that or are going to continue to go low and support thuggery and the ability for union officials—people of authority within unions—to hold office within these organisations if they carry with them a record of significant offences. Let's see if they have got the guts to go one step further and fix that too. 12:47 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Well, hallelujah! The Labor Party has finally seen the light. I've been trying to fix this for six months now. In early February, I brought an amendment to the Senate so that the manufacturing division of the CFMEU, which include textiles, clothing and footwear workers, timber workers and furniture workers, could hold a secret ballot to demerge from the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union. The textile, clothing and footwear sector, the TCF sector, is currently part of the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union, or the CFMEU, after a merger in 2018. My amendment was knocked back, so in late February I brought forward a private senator's bill that would do the same thing. The textile, clothing and footwear sector is part of the CFMEU, unfortunately for it, and it has greatest number of women. Many of these women are from non-English-speaking backgrounds, and many of them have had firsthand experience of exploitation, underpayment, unsafe conditions and abuse. I was absolutely gobsmacked that this was knocked back. Seriously, all they are asking for is a secret ballot. Isn't that the core of our own democracy? The women in the textile sector probably know better than most what it's like to work for an organisation that is run by a bloke who likes to throw his weight around—putting it mildly. There are no prizes for guessing who I'm talking about: yep, John Setka, of course, the current state secretary of this Victorian branch of the CFMEU—you know, that bully boy who told a meeting that Rosie Batty's advocacy work had led to men having fewer rights. These women had to share offices with the CFMEU. As a union rep said to the Age newspaper: Within the building there were jokes about domestic violence. It was very uncomfortable to the point where our division had to leave the building. After these comments were leaked to newspapers, as usual Mr Setka, like the bully that he is, went after his critics and hired a private investigator, no doubt with members' money, to bug and follow them. That's what sort of man this bloke is. He is gutter trash and he is a bully! Many quit their positions and were forced out. Once reports of Setka's comments were out there Sally McManus, the secretary of the ACTU, and Anthony Albanese, then opposition leader, called for Setka's resignation. Later in 2019, John Setka's attitude towards women, especially to his wife, was revealed when reports emerged of an incident that took place in 2018. Following this incident, Victoria Police charged Setka with 30 domestic violence charges including recklessly causing injury and a pattern of harassment by breaching court orders and making threats. The harassment included 45 texts in which he called his wife horrible names using the most hateful, violent language. I brought that amendment and that private senator's bill so the women of the textile union could have some control over their own working lives without fear of harassment and intimidation. I thought it would be easy. Surely the modern Labor Party would support these women, especially as the current Prime Minister removed John Setka from the Labor Party years ago? But it wasn't easy because Labor was too scared of the CFMEU to do the right thing. Worse are the Greens—the party that constantly talks in this place about gender equality and fighting the good fight against domestic violence. Guess what, you Greens supporters. They voted against my amendment and they voted against my private senator's bill. They voted against the women of the textile union having a secret ballot, which is all they were asking for, so they could decide who was in charge of them and so they could get bully boy Setka out of their lives and finally feel empowered. That's all they wanted. But the Greens weren't having any of it and are still are not having any of it today! This is a party whose leader proudly proclaims that he is a feminist! So a union with thousands of women, many of them from non-English-speaking backgrounds, were denied by the Labor Party and the Greens the right to be in charge of their own destiny. This is the Australian Greens who have a lot to say about women on their website including: Women have the right to equal access and participation in decision making processes in all areas of political, social, cultural, intellectual and economic life. How's that quote going on your website right now? That's where we are at today. I was never going to back away from this fight—not ever, not for these women. I would have kept fighting for these women and also for the men in this sector so they could be free of John Setka and his intimidation and abuse. But then, just a few weeks ago, old Setka—he just can't help himself, that bloke!—started to bully the AFL, demanding that they sack their head referee because he previously worked for the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Seriously? This bloke is off the planet. He's incredibly dangerous! That was the last straw for Minister Burke. I'm glad we finally got you over the line for that, Minister Burke! God forbid that they would allow a man in an organisation like the AFL to be bullied. No, no, no, they couldn't be having any of that. So here we are, the Labor Party has copied my private senator's bill and have finally brought it to the chamber today—hurray. Well done to Minister Burke for acting quickly, no matter his motivation. I am confident the coalition will back this in. They know very well how John Setka operates and what pressure he puts on people to make sure that he gets what he wants. No matter what methods John Setka wants to use, he uses them. He does not care about human life. He does not care if he plays standover man to get what he wants. He's a disgrace. He's nothing but gutter material. That's all John Setka has ever been and will ever be. The CFMEU and their behaviour have put a stain on the entire union movement. You are disgusting. The core of the CFMEU behave like thugs. They don't care about these workers. They just want to make sure they get all those big-city construction projects, no matter how they get them. They don't play in the law, because the CFMEU don't know what 'law' means. They just care about money: they care about money, and they care about power. Let's see what the Greens do today—my goodness. Yesterday they refused to support a motion that I brought condemning the defacing of war memorials. You would have thought their standards dropped enough towards the gutter yesterday. But, oh, no. It's all about the CFMEU, instead of doing what they've said they'll always do—standing for the rights of women in this country. Here's your chance today. I have to ask: if you don't vote for these women, what are you getting out of the CFMEU? Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 I rise on a point of order. The senator should be directing her comments at the chair, not across the chamber at us. She knows that. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 Senator Lambie. Senator LAMBIE 250026 With all due respect, the Greens will have to grab a kleenex today. I have no feelings for them. Let's see who they are taking their orders from. Who are the Greens taking their orders from? Are they taking them from women in this country, or are they taking them from John Setka and the CFMEU? I can tell you now: that's the only thing that we want to know today. I want to know if the Greens are finally going to hit the gutter at the lowest end they possibly can today. Let's see what you've got. I hope your supporters are watching this, because I can tell them that the Greens are not the party they say they are. They're not even close to it. You can continue to support the Greens if you like, but open your eyes as supporters and wake up to them. They are divisive in this country. They don't stand for what they say they're going to stand for, and now they're supporting thugs in the CFMEU and John Setka. That's what seeing today. 12:57 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I really do applaud Senator Lambie's courage in relation to this matter. It takes a lot of courage to come into this place and say what Senator Lambie has put on the record in relation to such a powerful organisation as the construction division of the CFMEU. I really do congratulate Senator Lambie. People listening in the gallery should know that there is a cost when Senator Lambie does what she does, because the construction division of the CFMEU do not abide by the rules. Their playbook is intimidation, threats and bullying tactics. It takes a lot of courage for Senator Lambie to do what she did. I congratulate Senator Lambie. From my perspective, it represents the very best of this place, the Senate—speaking on behalf of the most vulnerable. Senator Lambie talked about vulnerable workers in the textile industry, speaking up for those workers and their right to a safe workplace. Good on you, Senator Lambie. I congratulate you. I'm so pleased that I'm on the same side as you on this debate, and I always will be. I have risen on many occasions and talked about the construction division of the CFMEU. This is not about trade union movements. My father was a member of a trade union, as was my mother. My sister still is. This is about the construction division of the CFMEU, a toxic blight upon our industrial relations landscape. Every single major construction project in my home state of Queensland—hospitals, schools, even the construction of Ronald McDonald House near one of our hospitals—has been subjected to intimidation, bullying tactics and unlawful conduct and behaviour by the CFMEU construction division. They are out of control. In that context, the Labor Party got rid of the cop on the beat, the Australian Building and Construction Commission, which was the only handbrake on the CFMEU construction division. Those on that side removed that handbrake, and we are all paying for it. We're paying for it as taxpayers, because every major infrastructure project in this country is costing 30 or 40 per cent more than it should. We're paying for it in terms of the workplace health and safety of workers on those sites, of contractors, of their wellbeing. It got so bad in the state of Queensland, in my home state, that the workplace health and safety inspectors—those people employed by the regulator to go onto building sites to make sure those sites are safe for the workers—had to take industrial relations protected action because they were too scared to go on the sites, because of the CFMEU. That's how bad it got in my home state of Queensland. This is a division of a union that is out of control, and we are all paying for it. I've got a number of cases from just the past 12 months in relation to the actions of the CFMEU. Here's one: the Fair Work Ombudsman v CFMEU, in relation to the Mordialloc Freeway project case. Every freeway that's built in this country has to try to grapple with the unlawful conduct of the CFMEU. The judge, in a judgement brought down on 21 June 2024, said that the CFMEU has a well-documented record of noncompliance with industrial laws. And this is a judge, not a politician. He said: On any view, the CFMEU is properly to be described as a well-resourced, recidivist offender. Since 2010, it has been held to have contravened [section] 500 of the [Fair Work] act more than 170 times in no fewer than 50 proceedings … Its record of contravening demonstrates a general disregard on its part of workplace laws … But they don't care about the law. They don't care about the wellbeing of people in our community. Anyone in their way is fair game. It's absolutely disgraceful. In this case, it was a female occupational health and safety manager. And I come back to Senator Lambie's point with respect to the position of the Greens. As Senator Lambie said, at every opportunity the Greens say they are for gender equality, as we all are, et cetera, et cetera. But when the rubber hits the road, where are they? In this case it was a woman who was the occupational health and safety inspector who was on the receiving end of vile language from a CFMEU thug. Senator McKim couldn't even bring himself to mention the letters C-F-M-E-U. It's disgraceful. Here's another case. In my home state of Queensland just recently, in May, from Justice Logan of the Federal Court. In Queensland we have a bridge called the Centenary Bridge, which needs to be duplicated. Who would have thought: the CFMEU turn up—50 of them—unannounced and surround the workplace in their LandCruisers and intimidate everyone. This happened just a few months ago. This is an important piece of infrastructure. This is how a witness described it in an article in my home state: The CFMEU are everywhere and confronting the workers on the bicycle path. We just tried getting through. About 50 people facing off and a heap in the carpark … . About 40 CFMEU blocked access to the front gate and surrounded a concrete truck on the main road, causing traffic problems. That's part of their strategy. They'll go and stop the concrete pour midpour—intimidation; make sure the site incurs costs. This is hundreds of thousands of dollars of additional cost to that infrastructure, which is partly funded by the Australian taxpayer, as a result of the intimidation and bullying tactics of the CFMEU. And where are the Australian Greens? It's absolutely outrageous. The judge had to issue an order called a penal notice to the CFMEU, including its delegates, officeholders, employees or other representatives. I'm not going to name the individuals, because they are working in a toxic culture. This is the culture of this division of this union. This is what the order says: 'If you refuse or neglect to do any act within the time specified in this order of the doing of the act or disobey the order by doing an act which the order requires you not to do, you will be liable for imprisonment, sequestration of property or other punishment. Any other person who knows of this order and does anything which helps or permits you to breach the terms of this order may be similarly punished.' That's the state we've gotten to. This isn't about orderly industrial relations conduct. The CFMEU construction division is something out of TheSopranos, without the good humour. It's an absolute disgrace. You will not hear any member opposite in the Labor Party even mention the CFMEU. I've sat here during the debates. They refuse to even mention them, even though they sit on the national executive of the Australian Labor Party and donate millions and millions of dollars to the Australian Labor Party. As for the Greens, it seriously just baffles me how the Australian Greens could possibly vote against this legislation. This is about the right of the textile worker members who form part of that union not wanting to be associated with the CFMEU construction division because they don't agree with the tactics of the CFMEU construction division and how they conduct themselves. On what possible basis would you say to a group of people who are currently part of a union and don't want to be part of that union because they don't agree with its intimidation, bullying, threatening and unlawful behaviour, 'No, you've got to stay there'? The Australian Greens say: 'You've got to stay there. We don't care. You've got to stay with John Setka and his bullying mates. You don't have the right to leave.' What right do the Australian Greens have to say that to those workers? What gives you the right to say that to those workers? They are people's mothers, sisters and daughters. What gives you the right to issue that edict from this place? What gives the Australian Greens the right? Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order. Senator Scarr was here earlier when I made the same point of order in relation to Senator Lambie. He needs to direct his comments to the chair, not the Australian Greens. He is deliberately being inflammatory. We're not going to rise to that, but I ask you to bring him to order. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 Senator Scarr, I will ask for you to reflect on your comments and to address them directly to the chair. Senator SCARR 282997 Indeed, I will. This isn't about politics. Senator Whish-Wilson said this is about politics. This is not about politics. This is the Senate doing the work it should do in terms of standing up for vulnerable people in the community who are being monstered by this unlawful activity of the CFMEU construction division. That is why we are here. It is certainly why I am here. Senator Jacqui Lambie's impassioned speech will be at great personal cost. Don't be in any doubt. You don't take on people like the CFMEU construction division without suffering a personal cost. So, again, I applaud the courage of Senator Jacqui Lambie. She had an option. She could stay silent. She could say nothing when these workers are in this terrible position. But she chose not to. She was the first to rise in this place back in February to seek action in relation to this issue, and she should be applauded for that. Senator Jacqui Lambie has been proven to be absolutely correct. Hats off to Senator Lambie in that respect. So this is not about politics—far from it. It's about the wellbeing of these workers. It's about their industrial democratic right to choose not to be part of a union infested with mugs, bullies and people who break the law. It doesn't get more fundamental than that, and yet the Australian Greens take it upon themselves to say that they can deny those workers their industrial democratic right to choose to demerge. Those workers don't want to be part of the construction division of the CFMEU. They don't want to be associated with them, and I can well understand why. What gives the Australian Greens the right to do that? It just flummoxes me. Really, you should reconsider. Senator McKim, at times I've stood, as you know, and congratulated you on certain things, absolutely. I'll do it again, but, seriously, you should really reconsider. I know you're a person with a good heart, and I know you would not want your daughter, sister or anyone close to you to be at the receiving end of the intimidating thuggery of the construction division of the CFMEU. They really are beyond the pale. As I think a previous speaker said, they actually do wider damage to the broader trade union movement because the reality is, if you look at the figures in terms of contraventions of the law, the CFMEU construction division are absolutely off the planet with their offending. Then, at the other end of the scale, you get the odd infringement from some of the other unions. But the CFMEU construction division are off the planet and our workers are suffering because of it. Every single Australian taxpayer suffers because of it because the cost of every single construction project in this country is 30 or 40 per cent over what it should be due to those intimidatory tactics such as occurred at the Centenary Bridge in Queensland when concrete pours were interrupted. Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional construction costs were added to that project, which we paid for. That was money which could have gone into social programs to help people in need in the community but was just wasted as the 50 CFMEU workers surrounded that worksite. Can you imagine what that's like? They had to lock the gates on the worksite. They were fearful for their wellbeing. Have a look at the video of what occurred: those are the tactics of the CFMEU construction division. I think every single senator in this place should support this legislation, and every single senator in this place should congratulate Senator Lambie for her courage in taking this fight on. 13:12 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria It gives me great pleasure to stand today to support the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024. As somebody who has sat on the Senate education and employment committee for a very, very long time, including back in the day when we actually did have the ABCC as the top cop on the beat of our building worksites, I saw Labor senators argue that that be dismantled. They win an election and what do we see: militant, aggressive, violent behaviour on construction sites not just in my home state of the socialist republic of Victoria but right across public works programs across this country. It goes back a long way. You can change the name of an organisation, but you can't change the culture. I'm old enough to remember the BLF, the Builders Labourers Federation. I'm old enough to remember a Labor Prime Minister that stood up to the BLF and the aggressive, militant, violent tactics of that union in the workplaces of Australians. Now we have the CFMEU, who are very proudly telling Australians that they run this government. They run the Victorian Labor government and they also run Anthony Albanese's government. It's all a bit rich, isn't it, for the Labor Party to walk in and talk about how tough they are on the abuse of women and how tough they are on workplaces with negative and toxic cultures, and yet they're very, very happy to accept the CFMEU's votes for their preselections and they're very, very happy to accept the CFMEU's support for the motions at the Labor conference. It's taken them a long, long time to actually come to the point where they're prepared to do what Bob Hawke wasn't afraid to do and say that the CFMEU is no friend of the Australian worker and does not have the workplace culture that we think is appropriate. You talk about Set the standard. Now is your opportunity. But too many of you are conflicted. Too many Labor MPs and too many Labor ministers are conflicted in their conversation about the CFMEU—because they owe their jobs to the CFMEU. That is the sad reality of politics in this country. If we talk about how the CFMEU is behaving and the impact it's having on my own portfolio in infrastructure and transport, major contracting groups warn that productivity has declined by 40 per cent on major construction projects because of restrictive work practices over the past 30 years, driven by the union—pay rises but no productivity increases. On a public infrastructure build in excess of hundreds of millions of dollars, it's not government money being put into these projects; it's the Australian working public's money being put to these projects. Every time productivity falls and costs go up because of an excessive EBA agreement with no productivity gains, guess who pays more? The men and women working very hard in the suburbs are just trying to keep a roof over their heads as their mortgages escalate because Jim Chalmers can't get the budget under control. Some examples of these productivity gains on major projects are no concrete pours on projects past 11 in the morning; no automatic detection systems, so you can't have a truck that beeps in reverse; you have to employ someone to tell you whether you're going to bump into something in your truck on-site; and a spotter, so you don't need to use technology; you need to hire someone whose only job for the day is to tell you that you haven't been looking in your rear vision mirror enough. I mean, it beggars belief! This is stuff we had to do in the forties! We have a computer in our hands, but we still need a spotter on a CFMEU worksite. Superglue and other adhesives also need to be applied to lock gates to stop workers from getting into worksites. Why? Why can't they get to work? And when they actually say, 'We would have loved to have started work on that project,' they can't, because the union has locked the gate. It's not the employer; it's the union that has locked the gate. The CFMEU has won RDOs that are baked into the calendars of workers regardless of the need for flexibility on particular jobs. I'll tell you that, when you're pouring concrete, rainy days matter. It's a bit like farming. When it's raining, you can't pour the concrete. 'So why don't we pour it tomorrow?' 'Oh, sorry, all the boys have an RDO. It's a Friday.' These are the types of issues that this union bakes in, and the taxpayer and the community pay. The community pays because roads take longer to build. They're more expensive. Councils and governments say, 'You can have stage 1, but you can't have stage 2 of that project,' which would mean you're not sitting in traffic for an additional hour that you don't need to. The Australian Constructors Association has calculated that there would be a $56 billion productivity lisp in our economy if these restrictive work practices and turf wars between unions were removed. How many schools is that? How many hospitals is that? If this government was actually interested in delivering real outcomes for the Australian people, it might want to look at the productivity of our worksites and the impact of its paymasters, the CFMEU bosses, on destroying productivity on worksites and on infrastructure projects around the country. The two centres of the CFMEU power are in Queensland and in my home state of Victoria. You don't have to go far to understand the rorts, the rubbish and the violence that the CFMEU has wrought upon the streets of Victorian worksites. The CFMEU in Victoria secured a 21½ per cent pay rise on their EBA agreement, and they took the rest of the day off to celebrate. Don't worry about the concrete pour. Don't worry about doing your job. Go and have a beer on the taxpayer for the rest of the day, boys. That is how it's run. Workers responded to the decision with, 'A 20 per cent pay rise. That's not enough. There's not enough Ford Rangers in the country.' That's what one speaker said. Meanwhile this mob's trying to stop you buying Ford Rangers, remember. It's got to be in EV. First-year apprentices are going to get Raptors—God bless the CFMEU. What is forgotten in this conversation is the 25 per cent increase on the cost of critical road and rail and the electrical rollout of our transition. The cost of these projects is borne by the taxpayer. Then we had the fantastic situation of John Setka—aka head headkicker of the headkicking CFMEU—running around trying to tell the AFL, 'We're not going to build any stadiums. We're not going to do any change rooms. We don't care that you're a sport,' that most kids now, thankfully, girls and boys play right across not just Victoria but every sensible state in the land. 'We're not going to do any of your projects because one of your umpires used to do a job that meant the CFMEU had to actually follow the law. This guy's job was just to check whether the union was kicking down any doors, bullying, harassing any women on worksites, ripping off bosses and punching people. Is the union following the law? That was this guy's job, and because he had that job they are now threatening the AFL to not build any infrastructure projects for the AFL. What did the Labour Party say? Nothing. That's because they are so conflicted. They owe their jobs to these guys. Let's face it, there aren't a lot of chicks in the CFMEU. There might be one or two ladies driving a truck somewhere and a lot are holding the signs, but in terms of who the powerbrokers are in this hypermasculine, toxic union, it is men. I want to say thank you to Senator Lambie for always having the guts on this issue. This is not the first time she has stood up and put her principles about trying to hold this particular union to account to paper and onto the floor of this Senate. I wholly support the fact that union members should decide whether they want to be part of a bully gang. Some members will vote to stay members of the bully gang, but a lot of workers won't. They love what they do, they love their jobs, they love their industries, but they don't want to be tarnished with the bad culture that the CFMEU has brought onto workplaces. There was another member of the CFMEU—the forestry division—who I'm sure would love to get out from under this pack of bullies, because where is this union standing up for the forestry industry? Where is the CFMEU standing beside timber workers, timber truck drivers and manufacturers in country towns right throughout Victoria, as the Labor Party shut down the native timber industry? Cooee! You couldn't find them. They were too busy buying their next Ford Ranger on their pay rise as they ripped their bosses and the taxpayers off as a result of the bullying tactics that I've outlined. When you look at the first two years of this government, there's one minister who's actually done his job. It's not Chris Bowen, it's not Tanya, it's definitely not Giles. Unfortunately, PM, it's not you either. We wish you were not weak and distracted, but unfortunately that seems to be the character of the man we find leading our country. The minister who has actually done his job and is best placed, I think, if the membership and the unions were to actually have a say in who should lead the Labor party, is Tony Burke. He's actually done every single thing the ACTU has asked him to do. What do we have a result? We have a weaker economy and businesses going bust at almost record levels. That is why this bill is a fantastic step forward. I'm sure the forestry division would also like the right to get out of this space, but anything that shuts down the CFMEU and brings sanity to our workplaces in the construction sector is something I will support. 13:25 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I move: That the question be put. I invite the government to rearrange business such that all stages of the bill can be concluded. Question agreed to. 13:29 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the second reading amendment as moved by Senator Cash be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [13:29]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question negatived.

 BUSINESS 13 BUSINESS Rearrangement 13 13:32 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I seek leave to move a motion relating to the routine of business for today. The PRESIDENT 112096 Is leave granted? Leave is not granted. A government senator interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 You need to actually say yes. Government senators: Yes. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. Senator Ayres. Senator AYRES 16913 I move that the fair work (registered organisations) amendment— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson-Young, you're not even in your seat. Wait just a moment, Senator Ayres. Senator Hanson-Young? Senator Hanson-Young I0U You asked whether leave was granted. There was a 'no' from this side. The PRESIDENT 112096 There wasn't a no, Senator Hanson. What I heard was— Senator Hanson-Young I0U It's Senator Hanson-Young, and there was a 'no' from this side. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson-Young, in this regard I am the umpire, and what I heard was nothing. I re-put it, and I heard yes. I have given Senator Ayres leave. The PRESIDENT 112096 No, Senator Hanson-Young. I've called it. Senator Hanson-Young I0U You actually said there was a no. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson-Young, I did not say there was a no, and I'm not in a debate with you. If you sit down, I will explain to you. I asked, 'Was leave granted?' and I heard nothing. Then I re-put it, and I heard a chorus of yes. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson-Young, you're not debating with me. Resume your seat. You are out of order. Senator Hanson-Young I0U Learn the rules! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson-Young, please withdraw that. Senator Hanson-Young I0U I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. Senator Ayres. Senator AYRES 16913 I move that the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ayres, please resume your seat. Senator McKim, you're standing, so I would have come to you. You do not need to shout out 'point of order'. Senator McKim JKM I think the Senate needs some clarity about what just happened, because from where I sat, President, it seemed that you indicated leave had been denied. We took that, on the face of it, to mean that you had heard that there was a denial of leave. I just want to place on the record that the Australian Greens will deny leave to this request. The PRESIDENT 112096 I will explain it once more, and then I am continuing with the business. Senator Ayres stood and asked for leave. I asked, 'Is leave granted?' I heard silence. I heard nothing, so I put it again and there was a chorus of 'yes'. That is my decision. I am standing by it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, if this is on the same point of order, I don't have to hear you. I'm not going to hear you if you're on the same point of order. Please resume your seat. Senator Shoebridge 169119 We have standing orders, not presidential rules! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, I'm not entertaining your point of order. Unless you are raising something new, please resume your seat. Senator Ayres? Senator AYRES 16913 I move: That (a) the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal of Amalgamation) Bill 2024 be considered immediately and have precedence over all other business until determined; (b) the questions on all remaining stages of the bill be put following the passage of this motion; and (c) divisions may take place for the purpose of the bill. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Ayres be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells being rung— The PRESIDENT 112096 I have been informed by the Clerk that we cannot hold divisions between 1.30 and 2.30, so the vote will be deferred until after 2:30. We will now move to two-minute statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 14 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Renewable Energy, Great Barrier Reef 14 13:37 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland Billions of dollars going into wind farms over several years has been unable to prevent a drought in wind power generation this quarter that has surprised the market. Electricity generation from wind farms in the national electricity market since 1 April has been roughly flat compared to the same quarter from 2021. Despite billions of dollars in investment in wind farms, whereby the capacity in wind has increased by 50 per cent over the last four years, we have only seen a very small rise of 15 per cent in actual output. How can anyone predict the generation capacity of a wind farm when it is completely unreliable? You should be able to spend an extra dollar and get a fixed amount of increase of output for that extra dollar spent. This is the problem with unreliables: you cannot guarantee a return on your investment. We're finally starting to see the chickens come home to roost. The other thing I want to discuss is last week's report by the Australian Institute of Marine Science on coral cover on the reef. I'm pleased to say that there is record coral cover for the second year in a row. UNESCO isn't going to put the reef on the endangered list as a result of this report, but that doesn't mean that UNESCO isn't going to stop dragnet fishing on the reef by 2027. They still demand that Australia spend billions of dollars for research on the reef and impose unfair conditions on land based activities along the reef. That is completely unfair. It is about time we stood up for our own sovereignty and stopped taking orders from UNESCO. Women's Economic Security 15 13:39 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland The child support payment has become a tool of violence used to economically abuse women. According to a survey that Swinburne University of Technology conducted last year, eight in 10 women have reported the deliberate withholding or nonpayment of child support. Today I will share some of the story of a constituent using the pseudonym Sam, who has sought support from my office with her experience of financial abuse, to demonstrate the failures in the current child support scheme. Sam has been a victim-survivor of ongoing intimate partner violence for 12 years, and she's had more than six DVOs taken out against the father. She commenced family law proceedings in October last year. Since these proceedings commenced, the level of violence Sam is experiencing has increased exponentially. Sam's been representing herself in the legal system as she's not able to afford a lawyer. The father has been overreporting the percentage of care for the children and underreporting his income to receive the family tax benefit and child support. Because of the false reports, Sam must pay a large amount of child support to the father. The weaponisation of child support in Sam's case is prolonging her legal case and is forcing her to continue to bear the burden of proof to Services Australia and the courts. Unfortunately, Sam's case is common. The Greens support the calls by frontline services and advocates for urgent reforms to close the loopholes, including introducing accountability measures to ensure that annual tax returns are accurate and lodged by prescribed dates. We also need family law reforms that recognise persistent underpayment of child support as a component of family violence. It is well past time for the government to close the loopholes and to stop the weaponisation of child support and the suffering of legions of women in Sam's situation. Labor Government 15 13:41 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Labor is bad for the bush and bad for WA. I'm going to go through the list, and it just keeps getting longer. We can go back to the Aboriginal Heritage Act, an absolute shemozzle and absolute failure of process from the WA Labor state government. Never let it be forgotten that this federal Labor government has an Aboriginal cultural heritage act in the wings, which they are keeping hidden in a bottom drawer because they're too frightened of the electoral consequences of releasing it. We've got the axing of almost $400 million in regional road projects and infrastructure projects in the bush in my home state of WA. Let's think about the offshore wind projects which have been proposed, most notably in the Geographe Bay area—the pristine, prime tourism and fishing heart of the Western Australian south-west—and which the community has said very loudly and very clearly they do not want. There's the South Coast Marine Park, a Western Australian Labor government initiative put through a federal international treaty obligation, which again the Esperance and surrounding communities are not happy about. We've seen an attack on commercial fishing in WA and an attack on recreational fishing. We've seen a massive cut to regional representation in WA. The list goes on and on; I can never get through the whole list. Now, on top of that, we have a direct attack on the fabulous Western Australian sheep industry. Keep the sheep. Workplace Relations 15 13:43 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Labor has always been the only party for working people, and we are delivering record pay rises for every Australian worker. Since Labor was elected we've delivered minimum wage increases of $143 per week or $7,450 per year. We've also delivered record increases to award wages. The average full-time award worker now receives $5.30 more an hour. That's an extra $200 per week or $10,400 per year. That's right: a pay rise of $10,000 per year on average for millions of Australians reliant on awards and minimum wage. That includes workers in retail, hospitality, fast food, aged care, disability, transport, construction, warehousing, cleaning and many more. The Liberals and Nationals opposed every single one of these pay rises. The opposition leader, Mr Dutton, said he opposed our workplace reforms because, 'It's going to result in higher wages.' Well, Mr Dutton, that's correct. Labor is delivering higher wages, and we'll make no apology for it. We've also passed laws giving more job security to casuals and people on short-term contracts. And we've passed same job, same pay for labour hire workers. Just yesterday, the mining union won a pay rise of $20,000 for hundreds of labour hire workers at Callide coalmine in Central Queensland. The Liberals, Nationals and One Nation opposed every single one of these reforms and are committed to repealing them. I dare you to front up to those miners and tell them you'll take their $20,000 away, and I'll set the date for the meeting myself. Tasmania: Youth Services 16 13:45 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I feel for young people growing up in today's world. It's really tough. According to the Productivity Commission, young people are much worse off than their parents were before them. They are struggling to pay their HECS debts. They are struggling to pay rent. Young Australians with cashed-up parents are living with mum and dad, and young Australians who don't have this backup are couch-surfing and dumpster-diving to keep body and soul together. And then there is social media. It tells them what they should be, how they should look, how they should behave and how they should think. I'm not surprised by the increasing rise in mental health issues among our young people. Governments can't claim that this is shock-horror and that they never saw this coming. This is an issue that has been brewing like a storm on the horizon. Despite living in the social media world where we are told we have never been more connected, headspace is reporting that more young people are feeling more disconnected and lonely than ever before. Nearly 40 per cent of 16- to 24-year-olds are experiencing a mental health disorder, and suicide is the leading cause of death for those aged between 15 and 24. This is our next generation. We must step up and make sure our young Australians can thrive and build resilience. I've called for the boot camps, like the Veteran Mentors program, which I'll continue to call for, but maintaining and expanding existing services so our kids can get the help they need is more important than ever. In the past couple of days, the peak body of Tasmania's autistic community, Autism Tasmania, announced that it will close due to a lack of federal funding. This leaves young Tasmanians with autism without the trained professionals, which includes mental health services, they need to achieve their best outcomes. Boy, oh boy, does this affect Tasmania! In 2023, autism was found to be the second-most prevalent disability in Tasmania, with one in four families impacted. Our young Tasmanians already have enough to deal with. According to the Tasmanian government, the proportion of Tasmanians who meet the requirements for a year 12 certificate was just over 50 per cent in 2012. When we take away important services, we make it harder for younger Tasmanians to achieve their best and build resilience to cope with mental health issues. Anything that we can do for our younger generation would be appreciated. Corporate Governance: E-Conveyancing 16 13:47 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales Last week we saw an inflation figure with a four in front of it. It was four per cent in Australia. Part of that is due to excessive government spending—expansionary state and federal government budgets—as the Reserve Bank has pointed out, but part of it is also due to a lack of competition in key sectors. I want to talk about one sector in particular today, the e-conveyancing market. The e-conveyancing market allows the digital settlement of property transactions, which is overwhelmingly done in Australia. About 75 per cent of property transactions, about four million transactions, were effected in this way last year. There's effectively a monopoly provider of these services, Property Exchange Australia, PEXA, which controls 99 per cent of the e-conveyancing market. Unsurprisingly, when you have a monopoly, you have monopolistic behaviour. There's a lack of competition, and higher prices result. The New South Wales Productivity Commission have just looked into this issue and they reported yesterday. Looking at this market, they said that the market is not effectively competitive, that there are high levels of market concentration, that high profits go to the provider and that there are material barriers to entry. In fact, Dr Andrew Leigh, the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury in the other chamber, has said that PEXA's behaviour has been that of a textbook monopolist. What are we going to do about it? The New South Wales Productivity Commission found that the existing regulator, the Australian Registrars National Electronic Conveyancing Council, ARNECC, which most people wouldn't have heard of, is simply not up to the task of policing that market. They've said that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the ACCC, a federal body, is best placed to lead the ongoing market reforms in this area. State and federal governments committed to opening this sector up to competition by next year, but at the moment that is woefully behind schedule. I urge this government and, in particular, Andrew Leigh, the assistant minister for competition, to get involved. Taxation 17 13:49 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Tax cuts, cheaper medicines, higher wages, energy bill relief, lower student debt—these are just some of the supports that are on the way to the Australian people. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator O'NEILL 140651 The Albanese government absolutely knows that many Australians are under pressure right now, with high costs of living, and, unlike those whinging on the opposite side of this chamber, Labor is delivering for all Australians. I am the Labor spokesperson for the seats of Calare, Farrer, Hume, Riverina, Lyne and Parkes in New South Wales. It's more than half the state. Together that is 412,000 people in regional and rural New South Wales who are receiving a tax cut. But things are not always clear on the aggregate. Let me talk about industrious Calare. An additional 11,000 people are going to be getting an average tax cut of $1,532 compared to the previous Liberal government's plan, which wasn't going to touch the sides. They weren't going to get a sight of it, not a smell of it. They were just going to get zero. In Farrer, which I had the absolute delight to visit just two weeks ago, up and down the Murray River, 10,000 locals are going to get an average tax cut of about $1,359. Before that, under the Liberals and the Nationals, what did they get? Zero. In Hume, where I shivered on Sunday as I attended mass at the cathedral of Sts Peter and Paul and met with locals, 11,000 hardworking Australians are getting a tax cut. The Lib's plan for them? Zero. In Lyne, 7,000 taxpayers are getting an average tax cut of $1,325. If the Liberal and National parties had their way, those 7,000 people in Lyne would be getting $0 in their tax cut. In rock-solid Riverina, many of our young service men and women at Wagga Wagga are amongst the 9,000 local workers who are going to get an average tax cut of $1,425. What did the Liberals have for them? Zero. Middle East 17 13:51 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I rise today to send a message to the Labor Party from Feras Shaheen, who is co-president of the Tasmanian Palestine Advocacy Network and a Palestinian-Australian desperately trying to bring his family from Gaza to Australia before it's too late for them. Feras has asked me to deliver this message to the Labor government: How can I feel equal in Australia? You say you are doing the best you can to support Palestinians in Gaza and in this country, but the reality is the community is doing the majority of this work. We rally, fundraise, share the stories that mainstream media won't, all while grieving the loss of our people, our land, our history, our culture. Meanwhile you supply weapon parts to Israel and fail to sanction Israel. You do not offer humanitarian visas to people fleeing Gaza. You seek to censor Palestinian chants and voices. The way you treat Palestinians in Palestine reflects how you treat Palestinian Australians. Israel won't stop until other countries and force them to stop. Palestinians know this because we have been experiencing this injustice for 76 years. Words without action won't save innocent Palestinian lives. You must divest, stop trade, champion boycotts. No amount of aid, grants, therapy will help without divestment and a ceasefire. You can't bring our families back from the dead. As long as you keep enabling Israel, blood is on your hands. Australian military hardware is being used by Israel to kill my family. I condemn Australia's complicity. Thank you for your powerful words, Feras, and for your courage, your compassion and your leadership. (Time expired) Early Childhood Education 17 13:53 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Today in Parliament House up in the glass gallery we have educators, parents, grandparents and more than 40 very small children who've come to ask for our support. They've asked for our support because their early education centre is going to close. It's not just one centre but four centres on campus just down the road at the ANU that face closure in January next year. My office has been inundated with the most heartfelt letters and pleas for assistance from not just current parents but former parents and even former students. One young person wrote to me saying that they attended Heritage Early Childhood Centre from the baby room with Meg until finishing preschool. They are now a university student and an aspiring clinical neuropsychologist. A parent said, 'My daughter should not be ripped away from her community without consultation or a plan to maintain continuity of care.' The praise for these centres and the community's cries for them to be allowed to remain are echoed in letter after letter. These community led early education centres are among the best not only in Canberra but in Australia and have even received global recognition. Some have been a part of our community for more than half a century. One educator has been there for 51 years. I thank and acknowledge Senator Gallagher and the member for Canberra, Alicia Payne, for their strong support and advocacy for these families and educators. I recognise some of the challenges the ANU has identified with the upkeep of these centres in heritage buildings, but these are challenges that they need to work with the community to overcome. Making four much-loved centres bid for just two licences is not an answer. Transferring those children from their cherished buildings and grounds to two purpose-built facilities—which are, in fact, nothing more than demountables in car parks—is also unacceptable. ANU is our national university. It occupies a special place, and with this, comes greater responsibility, and I urge them to please do better. War Memorials 18 13:55 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Over the weekend the Australian War Memorial was desecrated. It was vandalised with political graffiti. Yesterday, Senator Jacqui Lambie moved a motion condemning the act of defacing war memorials and condemning it as deeply insulting to current and former members of the Australian Defence Force. That motion was supported by the coalition—by the opposition. That motion was supported by the government, and I note the terrific contribution from Senator Ciccone in that regard. That motion was supported by everyone on the crossbench, but it was opposed by the Australian Greens. The Australian Greens opposed a motion condemning the desecration of our Australian War Memorial. Every other senator in this place supported the motion, but the Australian Greens—I have the Hansard here; you can check the Hansard—said: 'We will not be supporting this motion today. We will oppose this motion today.' It's in the Hansard. The extreme Australian Greens—every other senator in this place supported that motion condemning the desecration of our war memorials with political graffiti. I am sure that 99 per cent of Australians believe that, of all places, our Australian War Memorial should be something above politics, but the Australian Greens refused to condemn the desecration of our Australian War Memorial. Every single day between now and the next federal election, I will be reminding the people in those seats in Queensland held by the Greens of the fact that the Australian Greens opposed that motion. International Relations: Australia and Papua New Guinea 18 13:57 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Rugby league fans in Queensland and New South Wales are having a hard time understanding why the Albanese government has given $600 million of Australian taxpayers' money to Papua New Guinea for a new team in the NRL. I remind the Senate that this incredible generosity at our expense is on top of the almost $500 million a year given to PNG in foreign aid. Australia has also loaned PNG another $2.56 billion in budget support since 2020. Our fans wonder why a PNG based team is even needed in the NRL. More importantly, Australians struggling to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads, thanks to Labor's cost-of-living crisis, are right to be angry about this Labor government giving a foreign football team $600 million of their money. How many new nurses and doctors could this money fund in regional Queensland? How much in the way of mental health or drug rehab services could that money support? This is yet another example of the Albanese Labor government putting foreign interests before Australian interests. Next year Papua New Guinea will celebrate the 50th anniversary of its independence from Australia. It's a perfect opportunity for Australia to re-examine its relationship with our nearest neighbour and let it stand on its own feet without Australian aid, but how confident could we be in PNG's governance abilities to tackle its endemic corruption or its ability to resist approaches from Communist China? We must prioritise putting Australians and their urgent needs first before extremely low-order priorities, like funding a foreign football team. Health Care 18 13:59 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia The Greens are joining with the chorus of community members who want to see pathology tests continue to be bulk-billed. Right now, 99.6 per cent of all pathology tests in Australia are bulk-billed, but the future of this is at risk due to 24 years of successive governments failing to index the Medicare rebates on pathology. Right now, the rebates for pathology tests are exactly the same as they were in 1999. This is a dire situation that must be remedied immediately. While the Labor government have proposed some pathology items be— The PRESIDENT 112096 The time for contributions has expired. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 19 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Budget 19 14:00 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Minister, what changes have been made to the budget rules since the budget? 14:00 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I presume that Senator Colbeck is referring to the Australian Financial Review article. As you know, the BPORs, the budget process operational rules, are released after each economic update or budget. That is a commitment of transparency that we put in place. They are available online on the Finance website. In relation to future budget processes, we will release them in accordance with the way that we have done after the first three. We run a very tight budget process. Prime ministerial approval is sought to provide authority for proposals to come forward, and nothing has changed in that regard. Senator Birmingham H6X President, on a point of order: if I heard the minister correctly, she seems to simply be referring Senator Colbeck to a website. This is on direct relevance. Senator Colbeck was clearly seeking to understand if there have been any changes to any of the budget rules since the budget. Is Senator Gallagher, the finance minister, able to clearly address that particular part of the question? The PRESIDENT 112096 I think the minister is clearly addressing the question. I will continue to listen carefully. Senator GALLAGHER ING Yes, I am. We are continuing the process we put in place, which is that we release the budget process operational rules once an economic update or budget has been finalised. I did that after the last budget. They are on the website. I will release the BPORs after the next economic update, which would presumably be MYEFO. I am sure they are obsessed with the story in the Australian Financial Review— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING You're obsessed enough to ask a question about it rather than about cost of living. But, anyway, I've been clear. We've run a very tight fiscal approach to the budget. We have found savings. We have reprioritised spending. We have ensured that we are paying less interest on the debt that we inherited, and we are delivering surpluses. That is because we have a very strict set of budget process operational rules. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Colbeck, a first supplementary? 14:03 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I will take that as a yes. Are reports in the Financial Review correct that the Prime Minister has given himself the power to unilaterally scrap budget decisions taken in the budget process? Senator Gallagher ING Sorry, I didn't hear the question; I thought it was a statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 I will get Senator Colbeck to repeat the question. Senator COLBECK 00AOL I will repeat the question. Are reports in the FinancialReview correct that the Prime Minister has given himself the power to unilaterally scrap budget decisions taken in the budget process? 14:03 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I appreciate the question. In terms of our approach to the budget, the Prime Minister leads that, as he does other areas of policy work across the government. The Prime Minister provides authority, as I imagine your prime minister did. Well, your prime minister had ministerial responsibility for five portfolios, so I guess he didn't have to talk to himself about that. But the Prime Minister provides the authority for consideration of policy priorities within the government. He's always had that. He continues to have that. I think the contrast in our approach to budget management is pretty stark. You had deficits; we have surpluses. We're paying— Senator Birmingham H6X President, a point of order on direct relevance: Senator Colbeck was asking not about the Prime Minister's authority to allow the bringing forward of new policy proposals but instead whether the Prime Minister has given himself the power to unilaterally scrap budget decisions. Can the minister address this question? A simple yes or no will suffice. The PRESIDENT 112096 I believe the minister is being correct. I note that you repeated the question, and I think she is exploring the Prime Minister's responsibility in relation to the budget. But I will continue to listen carefully. Senator GALLAGHER ING Thank you, President. I know it must come as a surprise to those opposite that we run a traditional government of good process where the Prime Minister has ultimate authority. We have ERCs; we have proper process, unlike those opposite. We know what happened under them. They didn't even get a say. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Colbeck, second supplementary. 14:05 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I think we've had two 'yes's so far. Is it correct that the Prime Minister has made changes to give himself more flexibility in shifting budgeted funding to different projects? Why would the Prime Minister need such flexibility? And what obligations are there for the Prime Minister to consult you, as finance minister, of any actions he's taking to rewrite the budget? 14:06 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory There was a lot in that, Senator Colbeck. It might come as a surprise to you, but our Prime Minister is not the finance minister, and he's not the Treasurer and he's not the health minister and he's not the resources minister and—what else was there? So—surprise, surprise; shock, horror!—here it is, breaking news on the floor of the Senate: the Prime Minister talks to the finance minister about budget matters. Wow! Guess what? He also talks to the Treasurer about these matters. There's a shock, isn't it, because they're three different people, in our government. They're not one person; they are three different people, and you actually do have to go and speak to each other about it. So, that's what happens. We run a traditional, proper government process when we put our budgets together, and they are always focused on cost of living, which is what matters to the Australian people. (Time expired) Paid Parental Leave 20 14:07 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Women, Senator Gallagher. Government funded paid parental leave is a vital support for many new parents in Australia. It is a proud Labor achievement introduced under the leadership of federal Labor and Jenny Macklin back in 2011. Yesterday this Labor legacy was extended, with paid parental leave expanding out to 22 weeks. Can the minister please outline the aspects of the Albanese government's paid parental leave reforms and how these reforms will benefit many mums and dads in our community? 14:07 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Ciccone for asking this question and acknowledge the role he plays in bringing up his lovely son, who brings joy into this chamber. Paid parental leave is a proud Labor legacy. Under the Albanese government, PPL is being expanded and reformed to better support modern families. From yesterday, 1 July, PPL has expanded to 22 weeks. Each parent has two weeks of leave reserved for them, and the rest of the weeks—now 18 weeks—can be shared however those parents decide. This gives families the flexibility and choice to decide how they want to care for their children. And it certainly sends a signal to dads and non birth parents that their care is important too and that we want to support them to be an active carer early in their children's lives. These additional two weeks are the next step towards reaching 26 weeks of leave by 2026, delivering the largest expansion to PPL since Labor established it in 2011. When it is expanded to a full six months by 2026, families will receive an extra six weeks of paid leave following the birth or adoption of their child. That change started yesterday, and congratulations to those families who got a new family member yesterday. This builds on the changes from 1 July last year. This morning I met a number of parents with small children, including one who was six days old and so, unfortunately, had just missed out on the extension—despite her mother's best efforts to hold on! I talked to them about the role of a government funded PPL scheme made in terms of easier choices for them as they're bringing up their children, including with the shared parenting and shared care arrangements that many families are opting for now. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ciccone, first supplementary? 14:09 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Thanks, Minister, for that comprehensive answer. I'm sure many mums and dads out there will welcome the government's announcement. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator CICCONE 281503 Unlike those opposite. It's clear that expanded paid parental leave is an important structural reform, removing barriers for many families and giving women and men more choice. Can you please explain how paying superannuation on paid parental leave will actually benefit women and support their economic security? 14:10 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Ciccone for the supplementary. Super will be paid on PPL from 1 July 2025. This is an important Labor reform and again demonstrates that these big changes to support women and women's economic security are only put in place when you have a Labor government. One-third of our gender pay gap can be attributed to the time women spend caring for families and interruptions in full-time employment. As these lower earnings accumulate over their lifetime, they're exacerbating the gap between men's and women's superannuation balances at retirement. Recent ATO data puts that gender super gap between 22 per cent and 32 per cent. We on this side of the chamber don't believe that women should be penalised with financial insecurity in retirement just because they take on these important caring roles. You're paid super on your sick leave. You're paid super on your annual leave. There's no reason why it shouldn't be paid on your parental leave too. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ciccone, second supplementary? 14:11 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria These paid parental leave reforms are just one example of the Albanese government removing barriers that hold women back and limit their choice. We know meaningful change means looking at every single policy area and working to fix structures and systems, not women because they aren't broken. Can the minister please outline how the federal Labor government is working for women? 14:11 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Ciccone for that supplementary. From yesterday, 1 July, there are tax cuts for every taxpayer, including for every woman taxpayer, with an average tax cut of $1,650. Ninety per cent of women will be better off under our plan by an average of $707. There is $300 off every household's energy bill, a freezing of the cost of PBS medicines and a pay rise for 2.6 million workers on award wages. We know that many of those workers are women. We know that, in many households, it's women who put the budget together and that these measures are going to directly support them and the work that they do in keeping their households ticking over. We've also got investments in women's safety, our super on PPL, our investment in rent assistance—again, where the majority of those who will receive it are women, particularly women with children—our investment to reduce HELP loans and our investments in women's health— (Time expired) Interest Rates 21 14:12 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. What is the current rate of mortgage stress in Australia? 14:13 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Bragg for the question. We know that Australians are doing it tough, particularly those with mortgages. I don't think it's any surprise that that would be the case after the interest rate increases that actually started under you, which is conveniently forgotten every time this is raised by you. But that has had an impact— Senator Birmingham H6X Take responsibility. Senator GALLAGHER ING We take responsibility for the decisions the government makes, and we are doing that, which is why we are providing tax cuts, energy bill relief, cheaper medicines, investments to reduce student loans and support for wage increases, which those opposite consistently and repeatedly oppose, in order to make sure that households are given as much support as the government can provide them during this time. We recognise that households are under pressure and that particularly those with large mortgages are feeling the impact of those interest rate increases. We acknowledge that, which is why our cost-of-living measures, most of which you have opposed, have been calibrated and targeted to support those households as they are experiencing these tough times. So we are obviously making sure we do everything we can, in a time of higher inflation than we would like, so our decisions have to be— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator Birmingham? Senator Birmingham H6X Point of order on direct relevance: Senator Bragg's question was very precise about the rate of mortgage stress in Australia. Senator Gallagher has come nowhere close to addressing the precise question. If she's unable to answer then this is the type of question the minister should acknowledge and take on notice. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Birmingham. There were also interjections, but I will draw the minister back to that part of the question. Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, I am being directly relevant. I'm acknowledging that there are many households across Australia that are experiencing stress, particularly linked to their mortgages. I've already said that. Thanks for the patronising instruction from Senator Birmingham, but I have acknowledged— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, I need you to withdraw that comment. Senator GALLAGHER ING I didn't realise 'patronising' was unparliamentary, but I withdraw. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING No, I genuinely didn't. I'm sure I've heard it being yelled— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Gallagher, it was a direct— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Take your seat, Minister Gallagher. That was a personal reflection on Senator Birmingham, so, as a personal reflection, you have withdrawn that. Senator Hume, I believe you then interjected with a personal reflection, which I will ask you to withdraw. Senator Hume 266499 I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Hume. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING I would use this time to just remind people that, if they are experiencing mortgage stress, they can engage with their lender and should engage with their lender where arrangements can be made. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bragg, first supplementary? 14:16 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I'm not sure we got the answer as to what was the rate of mortgage stress, but we'll try something else. The comparison website Finder found recently that 13 per cent of mortgage holders had extended their home loan in the last 12 months. So, Minister, what guarantees can you give Australians who are already struggling to pay their mortgages and are also extending their mortgages that they won't face a 13th mortgage rate increase under Labor? 14:17 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The government has taken decisions to support households and to work hand in hand with the Reserve Bank as they have been undertaking their tightening of their monetary policy, and our decisions are supportive of that work. That is why we are able, within the room we've found in the budget, to provide targeted, calibrated cost-of-living support to help households. We acknowledge that people are doing it tough. That is clear, and the government has a serious responsibility to do what it can to put downward pressure on inflation where our decisions impact and make sure that the decisions we take support households, which is exactly why we revised the tax arrangements because, if we had not revised them and changed them—changes that those opposite wanted to call an election over originally—thousands, or millions, of workers, would have missed out on a tax cut on 1 July. So we— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bragg, second supplementary? 14:18 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales Minister, you've just cited those income tax changes, but how much does the average mortgage holder have left from those changes after they've paid the costs of rampant inflation, high mortgage rates and sky-high energy bills, let alone the prospect of further rate rises? How much worse off are Australians going to be under Labor's so-called relief? 14:18 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Well, they'll be better off than they would have been under you, Senator Bragg, because your— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, that is the answer, and you have opposed our other sensible cost-of-living measures. Let us not forget that, when it came time to vote, you all voted against the energy rebates. Just remember that. When we were trying to help households, you said no. When we wanted to revise the tax arrangements, you wanted to call an election over it. Remember that? We had your deputy leader in the other place saying that they wanted to go back to the drawing board. We had Senator Hume saying, 'Nothing's off the table.' We remember when you said no to providing relief across Australian households, because we have looked at every way that we can provide responsible cost-of-living relief in a way that supports households but puts downward pressure on inflation, something the bank has also acknowledged, with our energy rebates. (Time expired) International Students 22 14:19 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Education. Minister, your government's Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill is a blatant attack on international students, student choice and university independence. It is a power grab and a self-interested, politically driven approach to higher education which will be terrible for Australia's reputation as a place to study. Not since Scott Morrison's disastrous Job-ready Graduates Package have we seen such strong opposition from the sector, with everyone from the Group of Eight and Universities Australia to the New South Wales and South Australian governments lining up to slam the bill. Everyone I've spoken to—unions, experts, unis and students—all hate this bill. Will you dump the destructive international student caps bill? 14:20 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Faruqi. The short answer to your question is no. Unlike the Greens political party, this government does recognise that we do need to put some caps and some limits around the level of migration we are seeing to Australia at the moment, in particular through the international education system. I don't have the figures right in front of me at the moment, but we have seen a massive growth in international education over the last couple of years in Australia, and that is putting unsustainable pressure on the amount of migration that we are receiving in this country at a time when people are experiencing cost-of-living pressures and very real housing pressures. What would help to deal with this situation is if we could have any bit of cooperation whatsoever from the Greens political party when it comes to providing more housing for Australians. Instead, what we see from the Greens is constant cries for more housing and then constant votes against the initiatives that we take in this chamber to try to deliver more housing. We saw that it took many, many months for the Greens to finally capitulate and vote for the government's Housing Australia Future Fund, which will be delivering tens of thousands of new homes. Even in the last fortnight, what have we seen from the Greens when it comes to housing? We've seen them obstruct, delay and block more legislation from this government to help renters buy their own homes and also to encourage developers to invest in housing through our build-to-rent scheme. The Greens want to have it both ways. They want to get out there with their social media memes and their rallies and demand more housing. But, at the same time that they want housing, they also want to have rallies against particular housing developments. They want to call for more housing when they're out there on the forecourt in a press conference. But, when they come in this room, they vote against new housing being delivered, they vote against building to rent, they vote against Help to Buy and they also want to vote against measures like what we are taking with international education to put some limits on migration. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, first supplementary? 14:22 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Minister, you have just confirmed that your international student caps bill is nothing but a racist dog whistle of a policy, falsely—and you've done it again now—conflating international students, the housing crisis and the cost-of-living crisis. You're punishing international students for the government's own failures. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, resume your seat. Senator McAllister. Senator McAllister 121628 A point of order: Senator Faruqi is reflecting on the minister, and she ought to withdraw it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, I heard you say 'a racist policy' and that you weren't reflecting on the minister, but, if you could, just confirm that. Senator Faruqi 250362 Yes, President, I did say 'a racist dog whistle of a policy'. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, I remind you, in this chamber, that I expect senators to clarify without repeating what someone else has found offensive. I ask you to hold that in your thoughts next time you stand. Senator McAllister 121628 I do ask that people reflect on the transcript. It was a very specific reference to 'your' policy, and it related to the minister to whom the question was addressed. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, I don't recall— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I wrote down the keywords of your question. I am advised by the Clerk. If you made the reference 'your' policy—so I ask you to reflect on your notes—withdraw that part of your question without repeating the offence. Senator Faruqi 250362 President, I don't have a 'your' in my script here, so I don't know, but it is 'your'—meaning the government's—policy. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, you've indicated that you intend it to be 'your', so I am now going to ask you to withdraw. Senator Faruqi 250362 I will put the question again, if you don't mind. The PRESIDENT 112096 First of all, Senator Faruqi— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber! Senator Scarr, resume your seat. I haven't finished; I'm talking to Senator Faruqi at this time. Senator Faruqi, I have asked you to withdraw that part of your question, so I simply need you to stand up and withdraw, and then I will allow you to re-ask the question, if that is your request. Senator Faruqi 250362 I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. There being no further points of order, I ask Senator Faruqi to bear in mind the discussion we've just had and to re-ask the question. Senator Faruqi 250362 President, could we reset the clock then. The PRESIDENT 112096 Yes, certainly, Senator Faruqi. Senator FARUQI 250362 Thank you, President. Minister, you have just confirmed that the government's international students cap bill is a racist dog whistle of a policy that falsely conflates international students, the housing crisis and the cost-of-living crisis. It punishes international students for the government's failures. As if this scapegoating wasn't enough, you have now more than doubled the fees of student visa applications. When will the government stop punching down on international students and start supporting them? (Time expired) 14:26 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland You can always rely on the Greens political party to try to bring Australians together, can't you? Never very far from a wedge motion, never very far from a wedge political statement, demanding high standards of everyone else but going low themselves—that's what we've come to expect from the Greens political party. The reality is that international education is a huge Australian asset. It's a big asset for our country economically, socially and diplomatically, and we must protect our international education system to ensure that it remains so. The reality is that this government's actions are about restoring quality and integrity to the international education sector after the shonks in the sector were left untouched for the last decade. The Greens might want to defend a shonky system of international education that was left behind by the former coalition government, but we're cleaning it up. At the same time, we are delivering the housing that Australians are desperate to have and that the Greens keep opposing. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, a second supplementary? 14:27 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Minister, capping international student numbers will do nothing to fix the rental or the housing crisis, but capping rents will. Why won't your government take real action on the housing crisis by capping rents, by phasing out unfair tax handouts for property investors and by establishing a public developer? 14:28 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you for the dorothy dixer, Senator Faruqi. Do you know what will do something about housing shortages? What will do something about housing shortages and letting more Australians into more housing is voting for Labor's Help to Buy Bill. That's what will do it. What are the Greens doing about that? They're teaming up with Peter Dutton and the coalition to stop that from going through. Do you know what will also help Australians get into more housing? It's voting for Labor's build to rent bill. What are the Greens doing on that? The Greens are teaming up with Peter Dutton and the coalition to stop that as well. What did the Greens do when we were trying, for months, to pass the Housing Australia Future Fund legislation to deliver 30,000 more homes? You teamed up with the coalition and Peter Dutton for months, to stop that as well. That's what will do something about housing— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, I remind you to refer to those in the other place by their correct title. Senator WATT 245759 Sure. There are three examples, and that's without me even trying to think about them. There were two examples in the last fortnight, where the Greens have teamed up with Mr Dutton and the coalition to stop more housing being built, stop renters being able to get into their own housing and stop developers from building more housing. You want to come in here and keep whingeing about housing shortages when you keep voting to stop them from being fixed. (Time expired) Budget 24 14:29 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. I was pleased to see that, from yesterday, if you're a taxpayer in this country then a tax cut is coming your way. How is the Albanese Labor government working to ensure that Australians can earn more and keep more of what they earn? And can the minister please tell the Senate how every hardworking, tax-paying teacher, nurse, cleaner and carpenter in my home state of Queensland and right across the country will be better off? 14:30 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Green, for the question. Senator Green, you are right; the Labor government of which you and all the senators on this side are a part has delivered tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer—13.6 million Australians. What Treasury analysis shows is that our tax cuts will see families with children pocket an average of more than $3,200 over the next 12 months, and it's for all taxpayers, not just some. Of course, from 1 July about 2.8 million people in your state of Queensland, Senator Green, got a tax cut. Out of those, nine out of 10, or 2.4 million Queenslanders, are better off under Labor than they would have been under Mr Dutton's plan. This is what Labor's tax cuts mean: a part-time cleaner earning $40,000 a year will be more than $650 better off; a builder earning $80,000 per year and helping deliver much-needed housing supply—if the Greens get out of the way—will be getting an extra $1,679 in their bank account over the next 12 months; and a nurse earning $110,000 will see nearly $2½ thousand more in their pocket over the next year to help ease cost-of-living pressures. This is genuine tax reform that lifts thresholds, cuts rates and returns bracket creep at the same time. Of course, we are providing tax cuts and other cost-of-living support while also working to create jobs. Since the election, 880,000 jobs have been created, which is the most of any first-term government. Australians now have a government that supports wage growth, unlike those opposite's deliberate design feature of low wages— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Green, first supplementary? 14:32 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I thank the minister for that response. As a proud member of the Albanese Labor government that works for all Australians, I'd like to ask the minister this: why is the government giving a tax cut to every taxpayer in this country, not just some, as the Liberals and Nationals would have liked? 14:32 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Green, for the supplementary. I think we really saw one of the differences between the parties in the tax cuts that they came forward with. We really saw that. The majority of Australians and all Australians on lower incomes wouldn't have got a tax cut under those opposite. This is the contrast between the Labor government seeking to work for all Australians and the Liberals and the Nationals, who are all negativity and no plan. We saw this on display when we announced the tax cuts for every taxpayer. Guess who opposed it? The Liberals and the Nationals. Guess who said they'd roll those tax cuts back? Do you remember? We had a bit of rollback over there. Then of course they called for an election. They were going to have an election on the tax cuts. Then what did they do? They just quietly voted for them, although they want to change them and take them to the next election, and they're not telling people what they really want. But, because this economic policy is an expression of values, we do know what they really think. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Green, second supplementary? 14:33 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I know that the Albanese government's work to ease cost-of-living pressures goes beyond tax cuts. Can the minister please update the Senate on how the Albanese government is providing energy bill relief now and delivering the only plan backed by experts for a clean, cheap, reliable and resilient energy system that will support Australians? 14:34 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Power prices and energy security are serious issues, and they deserve serious attention and a real plan. That is what this government is providing. It's the first time that Australians have seen that in over a decade. What we know about those opposite is they have no plan. They have a political strategy, which is their nuclear announcement—we haven't really heard a lot about that lately—which is the most expensive form of energy. They want to deliver the most expensive form of energy in 20 years time and, worse, they want taxpayers to foot the bill. You know what the Smart Energy Council said? It said that your reactors would cost as much as $600 billion of taxpayer dollars while delivering 3.7 per cent of the energy needed in 2050. (Time expired) Tasmania: Cradle Mountain 25 14:35 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania My question is for the minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Senator Watt. In 2018, the coalition government committed $30 million to build a cableway at Cradle Mountain. That funding was withdrawn by Labor last year because the Tasmanian Liberal government failed to submit more information. Now Tasmanians are in the dark, with no-one willing to confirm if this project is still on the table or not. Is Labor still considering funding for this project or has the door been shut on federal funding for the Cradle Mountain cableway? 14:36 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Tyrrell. I may have to wait for some more detailed information to be provided to me so I can address the specifics of your question. I have had some helpful commentary from a couple of my Tasmanian colleagues—and that's far better than any question time brief—who have informed me that the Tasmanian government has provided not just little information but, I think, no information to support their application. Senator Duniam 263418 That's just wrong and you took the funding away. Is the money on the table or not? Senator WATT 245759 It would seem that there's one Tasmanian senator over the other side of the chamber who's willing to defend the Tasmanian government, but I would prefer to rely on the information I'm getting from my colleagues here. As I say, Senator Tyrrell, it is incumbent on the Tasmanian government to provide the information that's necessary to support what is a fairly substantial commitment of taxpayers' funds. If they were to do so, I presume that we would consider that application for funding. I'd obviously need to double-check that with the infrastructure minister who I'm representing here, but if I have any further information that I can provide in response to your question, I'm very happy to do so. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie! Senator Tyrrell, your first supplementary? 14:37 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania I'll take that as a maybe. In a media release on 26 February 2018, the now Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, said that Labor would invest $15 million to improve facilities at Cradle Mountain. If the full cableway funding is off the table—which we're not sure about yet—will Labor honour this promise? 14:37 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you again, Senator Tyrrell. I would need to get some specific details to address your question and come back to you on that as soon as I possibly can, but I am reminded that—and you've sort of referred to this yourself—the Commonwealth's actions have been largely based on the failure of the Tasmanian government to deliver the information required for us to be able to meet that commitment. It's not unusual for Commonwealth grants to be made to state governments but it's dependent on state governments either providing business cases or providing information about the cost or delivery timetable for a particular project. My understanding is that the information that's required has not been delivered so it makes it difficult to therefore provide that kind of money— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie! Senator WATT 245759 to the Tasmanian government. As I say, Senator Tyrrell, if I can get some further information for you, I'll come back to you as quickly as I can. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I would ask that senators—particularly the Tasmanians—not interject across the chamber when there's a question on Tasmania. Senator Tyrrell, second supplementary? 14:38 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania I will attest that Tasmanians are quite rowdy. The Tasmanian Liberal government have dropped the ball on this project. They didn't get the extra information in on time—or at all, from the sound of it. Cradle Mountain is one of Tassie's most important tourist attractions. Surely Labor doesn't think Tasmania should be punished because of the lazy state government. Senator McKenzie 207825 That's right; just not your favourite state government. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, I've called you a number of times. This is not your question. I am asking you to listen in silence. 14:39 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Tyrrell. I agree that Tasmanians shouldn't be penalised because of a lazy Tasmanian state government, and that's exactly why the Albanese government committed $2.2 billion towards infrastructure projects in Tasmania in this year's federal budget. I could take you through the details, but there are a range of different road projects, both new and existing, that we are contributing money for. The point about the project that you're talking about is that, as I've said, the department of infrastructure did not receive the required information from the Tasmanian government by 28 April 2023, which meant that we were unable to complete an assessment of the project. I think many of us in this chamber know someone who might be able to do something about that. He was well known to many people in this chamber, and his name is Eric Abetz. He's particularly well known to Senator Duniam. Senator Duniam knows former senator Abetz very well. Senator Colbeck knows former senator Abetz very well as well. Maybe they could pick up the phone to Eric Abetz, if he will take their phone call, and get this fixed up. (Time expired) New Vehicle Efficiency Standard 27 14:40 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Senator Watt. With the government passing the new vehicle efficiency standard recently, I applaud its ambition to reduce emissions. However, according to industry, there is an unintended consequence that will result in fewer complying vehicles, not due to an unwillingness of the industry but due to the lengthy approval process that new vehicles must undergo to be registered on Australian roads. While I appreciate that the process ensures vehicles meet safety and environmental standards, it has proven to be too lengthy and cumbersome to support the ambitions of NVES. Will the government reassess the vehicle approval standards and processes so that the ambition of the new vehicle efficiency standards can be met when vehicles are purchased by Australian consumers? 14:41 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Van, and thank you also for joining with the government and other senators in this place to finally bring in the new vehicle efficiency standards that Australian motorists have needed for a very long time. Of course, these standards were opposed by the coalition, just as they opposed actually progressing them at any point in the last 10 years. I remember Senator Sharma had a bit to say in favour of new vehicle efficiency standards when he was over on the other side of the building, but he underwent some kind of weird transformation as he drifted across to this chamber. He was put into re-education by all the conservatives in the Liberal Party, whom he's now joined. I actually don't know what he thinks about this anymore, and I'm not sure if he knows what he thinks either. But Senator Van knows what he thinks, and he supported these new vehicle efficiency standards, which are obviously important from an environmental point of view but are also vital to ensure that Australians don't pay more for their petrol than they have to do in the future. What we saw very clearly was there were some senators, including Senator Van, Labor senators and other crossbench senators, who thought what we needed to be doing was driving down petrol costs for Australians by making it cheaper for them to get low-emission vehicles—or making it possible for them to get low emission vehicles. We know that there still are two parties in this chamber, the Liberals and the Nationals, that want Australians to keep paying more for petrol, even those in the regions, who have to travel longer distances and rack up bigger petrol bills. Senator Van, I'm very happy to have a chat with the minister, Minister King, about the issue that you've raised. It hasn't been raised with me before that there are any issues when it comes to the approvals process for new vehicles, or however it was that you described it. I'm happy to have that conversation with Minister King, but I do think that it is very important for Australians going forward that they will have more choice in the future and will be able to choose lower-emission vehicles, which is good for the environment but very good for their household budgets as well. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Van, first supplementary? 14:43 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria Thank you, Minister. I have indeed raised it with Minister King, and she said she'd look into it, but I think it's worth raising here. So the question is: what can the government do to be able to facilitate the process so that more efficient vehicles can come in in a timely manner, because there is a very short timeline to be met with this? Can the minister tell us— (Time expired) 14:44 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Van. I have been informed that it is the government's intention to undertake a review of this legislation to assess how it's proceeding. Of course, if there are amendments or tweaks that need to be made to that system to address the issues that you've raised, or any other issue which may arise, then we would consider doing so. I think the most important thing here, though, is that at last Australia does have a system to bring our vehicle emission standards into line with those of the rest of the developed world. My recollection is that we were previously right up there with Russia when it came to allowing the dirtiest vehicles, the most expensive vehicles to run, and the most fuel-demanding and heavy vehicles. Of course, all that does is put household budgets under further pressure. So this measure is very important to reduce the emissions of vehicles in Australia, bringing them into line with those of most of the rest of the developed world, and also to assist households to reduce their petrol bills at a time when they need that most. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Van, second supplementary. 14:45 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria Australians have shown a keen appetite to drive electric vehicles and also, especially, plug-in hybrids. Because of the greater range and the price disparity, with the sunsetting of the FBT occurring in a few months, will the government back my bill to extend that sunset of the FBT on plug-in hybrid vehicles? 14:45 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Van. I can't say I'm familiar with the exact details of your bill, but I'll undertake to go and have a good look at that. I certainly am not aware of any plan from the government to support that bill. Technically it does fall under another minister, being the Treasurer. I'm happy to get you some advice on that. But it's very clear that this government wants to support the introduction of as many low-emission vehicles into the Australian fleet as possible. Obviously we already have a range of tax incentives in place to assist Australians to take up lower-emission vehicles more than we've seen in the past. That will be good for household budgets, as I was saying. It'll also be good for the environment in terms of bringing down emissions. It is unfortunate that, even after all this time, we still see the coalition refusing to support those kinds of things. They had a failed go at it when they were in government. They continue to fail on this matter now that they're in opposition. They're not serious about helping Australians with cost-of-living pressures. We see them vote against initiative after initiative, including this one. Afghanistan 28 14:47 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, Senator Wong. There is ongoing anger and resentment among former and current serving members of the Australian Defence Force because senior command has failed to take responsibility for policies or decisions leading to the alleged war crimes in Afghanistan. The Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan has created practical difficulties for investigators, yet the government continues to pursue alleged war crimes at the expense of current and former members of our ADF. These matters have been handled as though the accusations have already been proven true. A presumption of guilt prevails, not innocence, due to the way this has been handled by generals and by the government. When will the government collectively accept responsibility and accountability for what went wrong in Afghanistan? 14:47 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank Senator Lambie for her question. She has been consistent and persistent in her advocacy for defence personnel and the veterans community on many issues, including this one. By way of background, the Afghanistan inquiry was initiated in 2016 to determine whether there was any substance to rumours and allegations relating to breaches of the Law of Armed Conflict by Special Operations Task Force over the period 2005 to 2016. The matter was dealt with through the IGADF and is also being dealt with through the Office of the Special Investigator, and I'm advised that the next court mention for the first charge brought by that office is scheduled for 2 July 2024. I'm also advised that the defence department has implemented the required actions to close 139 of the 143 inquiry recommendations and that the Office of the Special Investigator is continuing its work. In relation to the IGADF—and I don't know if the senator wants me to go to this, but I know she has raised this also publicly, including today—I know that the senator has sought an audit of the efficiency and effectiveness of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force. I'm advised, as the senator is aware, that there was a review initiated of the IGADF, conducted by former justice Duncan Kerr, and the matter is currently before the government. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, a first supplementary? 14:50 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania To date, how much taxpayers' money has been spent from the start of this to where we are today? 14:50 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I don't have the detail of that. But, in order to get advice on that, can I clarify that you mean from the commencement of the inquiry or are you suggesting in relation to the Office of the Special Investigator? Perhaps you could clarify that. I don't have those full details in front of me, but I'm very happy to ask the defence minister's office to provide you with an answer to that. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, a second supplementary? 14:50 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania The Chief of the Australian Defence Force, Angus Campbell, provided advice to the minister last year about the issue of command accountability, including the possibility for senior commanders to be stripped of honours and awards. However, the government is dragging its feet and refusing to take action to restore integrity and trust in the Australian Defence Force. In the last 12 months, how many letters has the department received from current and former members of the Australian Defence Force demanding to revoke Chief of the Defence Force Angus Campbell's Distinguished Service Cross? 14:51 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia There are two aspects to your question. The first is in relation to command accountability. It is the case that commanders can be held criminally responsible for being directly or indirectly or knowingly concerned in or party to the commission of a war crime. This would be a matter for the Office of the Special Investigator. Command accountability action may be considered where it is found that a commander is morally responsible for the actions of their subordinates, regardless of their involvement in the specific acts. With respect to the Afghanistan inquiry, the Inspector-General found the alleged criminal behaviour was conceived, committed, continued and concealed at the patrol commander level. Above that level, the inquiry found commanders were not recklessly indifferent to whether their subordinates were allegedly committing war crimes and did not fail to take reasonable steps to discover the behaviour, although the inquiry does find that commanders bear moral responsibility and accountability. In relation to the second part of your question, I do think that's been canvassed in estimates. As you know, the decision to grant an honour can be referred to the tribunal. (Time expired) Housing 29 14:52 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Housing and Homelessness, Minister Farrell. I refer to the Albanese Labor government's recent budget and its new investment in housing measures. How is the government, through its Homes for Australia Plan, working to address the nation's housing challenges? And how will the focus on boosting housing supply help put downward pressure on house prices and rents and provide relief to households facing cost-of-living pressures? 14:53 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator O'Neill for her ongoing interest in the issue of housing and homelessness. Our government understands that too many Australians are facing serious cost-of-living challenges, and many are struggling to buy a home or afford the rent. After a decade of inaction by the Liberals and the Nationals, it's clear that Australia doesn't have enough homes, and we haven't for a very long time. That is why the government has a goal of building 1.2 million homes by the end of the decade through our Homes for Australia Plan. That's a plan which experts say will improve affordability and reduce cost-of-living pressures for renters and homebuyers. Senator FARRELL I0N I'm just about to tell you, Senator Cash. The budget includes $6.2 billion in new investment to build more homes and support Australians, bringing our government's new housing initiative to $32 billion. I will repeat that—$32 billion. And as a part of this, we have committed $1 billion to get homes built sooner. Homes for women and children fleeing family violence— Senator Cash I0M How many houses have you built? Senator FARRELL I0N and, Senator Cash, for young Australians. We know we need more tradies to build more homes, so we're investing in more fee-free TAFE places in the construction industry. We're also boosting the supply of social and affordable housing through our Housing Australia Future Fund, the Housing Accord and the Social Housing Accelerator. Together these investments will build more homes for Australians who need them and reduce cost-of-living pressures for renters and homebuyers. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Neill, first supplementary? 14:55 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Thank you, Minister, for giving such a hopeful answer to Australians. It always surprises me how upset they get about that. Thank you for outlining what the Albanese Labor government is doing to improve housing affordability through its Homes for Australia plan and outlining the more than $6 billion in new investment in the recent budget. Can the minister please outline what is standing in the way of further support for the government to get housing prices down and help more Australians purchase an affordable home of their own? 14:55 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia Again, I thank Senator O'Neill for her interest in this topic and for her first supplementary question. Our government believes that Australians should be able to realise the dream of owning their own home. We have expanded the Home Guarantee Scheme, which, under our government, has already helped more than 110,000 Australians into homeownership. We're now working with states to deliver our Help to Buy shared equity scheme. Sadly, of course, the coalition and the Greens have once again teamed up to delay legislation that will help 400,000 low- and middle-income families stop paying rent and purchase a home of their own. For the coalition and the Greens, it's always about the politics but never, ever, ever about the people. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Neill, second supplementary? 14:56 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Thank you for outlining how the Albanese Labor government's new budget investment is actually boosting housing supply and how measures like the Help to Buy scheme will help more Australians achieve the dream of homeownership. Can the minister outline what the budget is doing to help Australians in need of social and affordable housing and Australian renters struggling with cost-of-living pressures? 14:57 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator O'Neill for her second supplementary question. We are delivering significant new action to help Australian renters. We've led the way on renters' rights, securing a better deal for renters. We're easing cost-of-living pressures in the budget with the largest increase in rent assistance in decades. We're also offering new incentives to boost the supply of rental housing by encouraging build-to-rent accommodation, and once again, the coalition and the Greens are standing in the way. They stood in the way of more social housing by delaying the Housing Australia Future Fund. Now they're standing in the way of more help for homebuyers, and they know they are standing in the way of more help for renters. North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency 30 14:58 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Minister Wong. In recent weeks, we saw shocking revelations that the man appointed as the chair of the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency, Mr Hugh Woodbury, stood on his pregnant partner's stomach, slammed her in a door and repeatedly yelled derogatory slurs at her in front of their toddler. So far as we can tell, the only action taken by this government is to ask the board to participate in a discussion, without taking any concrete action. Does NAAJA continue to receive Commonwealth funding? 14:59 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you to Senator Nampijinpa Price for the question. I first start by saying that violence is unacceptable, and the sort of violence which was described in her question and which has been reported is completely unacceptable and is very disturbing. The first point I would make is that the government—and, I know, Minister Burney—expects all organisations funded by the NIAA to uphold high standards of governance and financial management. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator WONG 00AOU Obviously, the government is very concerned by the situation at the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, I called for order. Senator WONG 00AOU The advice I have is that—I'm sorry; I'm just trying to work out where this brief is from. Minister Burney and the Northern Territory Attorney-General have met with the board. It is critical that the board ensure that Aboriginal people that need services from NAAJA get them. We do agree that it is time for the board of NAAJA to show leadership when it comes to family violence. We all have a responsibility to lead by example. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I've called you to order. Senator McKenzie and other senators, order! Senator Nampijinpa Price, first supplementary? 15:00 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory The board continues to defend the chair. However, does the government agree with the Territory Labor domestic violence minister, Kate Worden, who said that it was totally inappropriate for Mr Woodbury to lead NAAJA and said that it was a matter for the federal government to intervene? 15:01 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia First, if I could correct something I said in my first answer, what I should have said is that the Attorney-General has met Ms Burney and the Northern Territory Attorney-General in relation to this matter. The advice I have is that the view of the Attorney-General is that the board needs to show leadership when it comes to family violence and that we all have a responsibility to lead by example. Senator WONG 00AOU In relation to funding—I'll take Senator Ruston's interjection—the expectation of the government is that all organisations funded by the NIAA are to uphold high standards of governance and financial management. Senator Ruston 243273 Are they? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston! Senator WONG 00AOU I think the question that the NAAJA board should answer is whether or not they are doing so. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! The senator is on her feet. I invite other senators to make a contribution at some other time, not question time. Senator Nampijinpa Price, second supplementary? 15:02 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory NAAJA is an organisation that's been badly mismanaged. It's failed to deliver. It's stopped taking criminal cases in Alice Springs. It's an organisation that repeatedly took a taxpayer funded trip to Darwin against legal advice. It is an organisation that has had its most senior female executive resign, and, as we learned last week, it's an organisation that was found by the Federal Court to have unlawfully sacked its former CEO after she raised allegations of corruption. Will the government step in and take responsibility for an agency that receives federal funding? (Time expired) 15:03 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The advice I have is that the Attorney-General did take action to divert Commonwealth funding to the NT Legal Aid Commission to ensure that Aboriginal people in Central Australia would continue to have legal representation. The advice I also have is that, as soon as concerns about financial management and governance at NAAJA arose, the NIAA put a grant controller in place. Since December 2023 the grant controller has been receiving all NIAA funding to NAAJA to ensure it is used appropriately. I'm also advised that the NIAA has issued NAAJA with a breach notice under its funding agreement, with a response required by mid-July, which I think deals with the issues you raised. On that basis, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. BUSINESS 31 BUSINESS Rearrangement 31 15:04 The PRESIDENT 112096 Senators, Senator Hanson-Young asked me privately to review the tape on the giving of leave to Senator Ayres shortly before the two-minute statements, as Senator Ayres sought leave to move a motion about the routine of business. I have checked the tape and can confirm that I did initially indicate that leave was denied. It was my mistake to then take a subsequent call of 'yes'. For that, I apologise. Because leave was not properly granted, the Senate should take it that Senator Ayres was not authorised to move the motion. There is therefore no deferred division in respect of the matter proposed by Senator Ayres. Rearrangement 31 15:04 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I again seek leave to move a motion relating to the consideration of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024. For the information of the Senate, this is substantively the same matter Senator Ayres attempted to move prior to two-minute statements today. If the substantive motion is passed it would have the effect of bringing on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024 immediately, and questions on all remaining stages being put. Leave not granted. Senator WONG 00AOU Pursuant to contingent notice, I move: That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to allow a motion relating to the consideration of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024 to be moved and determined immediately. I move: That the question be now put. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the question be now put on the motion to suspend standing orders.    

The Senate divided. [15:10]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 35 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Wong, 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.

 15:12 The PRESIDENT 112096 Senators, I am advised there may be further divisions and I intend to use standing order 101(3) for one-minute bells. The question now is that the motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [15:13]
(The President—Senator Lines)

35 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Wong, 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.

15:15 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I move: That a motion relating to consideration of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024 may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate. I also move: That the question be now put. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the question be now put.    

The Senate divided. [15:16]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 35 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Wong, 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.

 15:19 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the procedural motion moved by Minister Wong be agreed to.  

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

 36 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Wong, 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.

 15:21 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I move: That (a) the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal of Amalgamation) Bill 2024 be considered immediately and have precedence over all other business until determined; (b) the questions on all remaining stages of the bill be put following the passage of this motion; and (c) paragraph (b) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142 The PRESIDENT 112096 Senators, the procedural motion just agreed to requires that the substantive motion be put without amendment or debate. The question is that the motion be agreed to.  

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

37 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Duniam, J. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Wong, 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.

 15:24 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia President, can I indicate that the opposition are willing to grant leave for a two-minute statement from the Greens if they clarify to the chamber why they've just spent division after division after division voting in defence of John Setka, and whether they can confirm they will never take a cent from Mr Setka and whether there is some nefarious reason behind this strange voting pattern we have just seen from the Australian Greens. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Birmingham. No-one has stood to seek leave. I'm sure, if they are inclined to, they'll take up your offer. BILLS 34 BILLS Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024 34

Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024

Second Reading 34 15:25 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The time for the debate on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024 has expired. I will now put the question before the chair and then put the questions on the remaining stages of the bill. The question before the Senate is that the second reading amendment on sheet 2694, circulated by the opposition, be agreed to. Opposition ' s circulated amendment— At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate calls on the Government to amend the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 to ensure that anyone convicted of more than 10 criminal offences cannot be appointed as an officer of a registered organisation".    

The Senate divided. [15:29]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

30 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. 29 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Stewart, J. N. A. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E.(Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 15:32 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question before the Senate is that the bill be now read a second time.    

The Senate divided. [15:32]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

45 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Van, D. A. 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.
Bill read a second time.

 15:35 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I will now deal with the Committee of the Whole amendments on sheet 2677 circulated by the opposition. Opposition's circulated amendments— (1) Title, page 1 (line 1), omit "certain". (2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (after line 27), after the definition of CFMEU in clause 1, insert: Division means a Division as defined in the rules of the CFMEU at the commencement of this clause. (3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (lines 1 to 3), omit the definition of new organisation in clause 1, substitute: new organisation means the organisation that is registered pursuant to section 110 of the old Act as a result of the withdrawal of a Division from the CFMEU. (4) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (line 19), omit "the Manufacturing", substitute "a". (5) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (line 22), omit "Manufacturing". (6) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (line 26), omit "Manufacturing". (7) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (line 35), omit "Manufacturing". (8) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (line 36), omit "Manufacturing". (9) Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (line 4), omit "Manufacturing". (10) Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (line 19), omit "Manufacturing". (11) Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (line 26), omit "the Manufacturing", substitute "a". (12) Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (lines 32 and 33), omit subclause 3(3). (13) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 5), omit "by deadline". (14) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 7), omit "on or before 30 August 2024". (15) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (lines 25 and 26), omit subclause 4(3). (16) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 28), omit "by deadline". (17) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 30), omit "on or before 30 August 2024". (18) Schedule 1, item 2, page 7 (line 19), omit "the Manufacturing", substitute "a". (19) Schedule 1, item 2, page 7 (line 21), omit "the Manufacturing Division is taken to be the", substitute "a Division is taken to be a". (20) Schedule 1, item 2, page 7 (line 30), omit "the Manufacturing", substitute "a". (21) Schedule 1, item 2, page 8 (lines 2 to 35), omit subclause 5(7), substitute: Eligibility rules of new organisation and CFMEU (7) If a Division proposing to withdraw from the CFMEU is the Manufacturing Division, subsection 95A(4) of the old Act has effect as if that subsection were omitted and the following subsection were substituted: "(4) The eligibility rules of the new organisation must reflect the following rules of the CFMEU as at 2 December 2023: (a) 2(C); (b) 2(F), but must exclude: (i) persons who are engaged in Queensland, the Australian Capital Territory or the Northern Territory; and (ii) floor covering layers in Queensland or Western Australia; and (iii) persons who are engaged in the plate, sheet or ornamental glass industry in New South Wales or Western Australia and persons engaged in or in connection with the following industries or trades in New South Wales or Western Australia: plate and sheet glass in warehouses, shops, factories or stores, glass bevellers, glass benders, glass workers (excepting those on spectacles, lenses or frames and employees in firms where such employees are engaged on work connected with the manufacture or repair of scientific, precision or other instruments such as binoculars, microscopes, military, aircraft and naval instruments), glass lampshade workers, safety glass workers, glaziers, glass polishing, cutting, painting, cementing, leadlight glaziers and cutters and plate-glass factories and luxfer glazing; (c) 2(P)(D); (d) 2(P)(G); (e) 2(R).". (7) If a Division proposing to withdraw from the CFMEU is not the Manufacturing Division, subsection 95A(4) of the old Act has effect as if the words "immediately before the application was made" were omitted and the words "as at 2 December 2023" were substituted. (7B) Subsection 95A(5) of the old Act has effect as if that subsection were omitted and the following subsection were substituted: "(5) The eligibility rules of the CFMEU, as proposed to be altered, must not overlap with the eligibility rules of the new organisation when the withdrawal from amalgamation takes effect.". (22) Schedule 1, item 2, page 9 (line 3), omit "Manufacturing". (23) Schedule 1, item 2, page 9 (line 16), omit "the Manufacturing", substitute "a". The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question before the Senate is that the amendments on sheet 2677 be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [15:36]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

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

Question negatived.

 Third Reading 38 15:40 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question now is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.    

The Senate divided. [15:40]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

46 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Van, D. A. 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.
Bill read a third time.

 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 38 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Interest Rates 38 15:42 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to questions without notice asked by Senator Bragg today relating to interest rates. Senator Gallagher was asked by my colleague Senator Bragg about the level of mortgage stress seen in Australia. Findings in the last few weeks demonstrate just how acute this mortgage stress is. A Finder survey found that 13 per cent of mortgage holders have extended their home loans in the past 12 months in order to lower their repayments. That's 429,000 people across Australia who have extended the term of their home loan, which will lower their monthly repayments but increase the amount of interest they pay over time. Roy Morgan Research from the last quarter shows 1½ million mortgage holders are at risk of mortgage stress—that's some 30 per cent of mortgage holders altogether. Since May 2022, that figure is up by 707,000. It's no wonder. We have seen 12 consecutive interest rate rises under this Labor government. That's four percentage points in interest rate rises. That means that, if you have a mortgage of, say, $750,000, you're paying an extra $30,000 a year in interest alone, which is $2,500 per month. On top of that, living expenses have gone up drastically. Last week, the inflation figure for the month of May came out and showed that prices are increasing at a four per cent annualised rate in Australia. We are the only advanced economy where inflation is growing at four per cent or above. We saw that the inflation figure has actually accelerated. In the month of April, it was 3.6 per cent. Earlier in the year, it was 3.2 per cent. In the United States inflation is at 3.4 per cent, in the Eurozone it's 2.4 per cent, in Canada it's 2.9 per cent and in the United Kingdom it's two per cent. Australia's inflation is at four per cent and getting higher. We've seen, for instance, over the past two years the prices of food, the stuff you buy at the supermarket to feed your family, go up by 11 per cent. We've seen housing prices go up by 14 per cent. We've seen rent go up by 14 per cent. And we've seen the price of electricity go up by almost 22 per cent. We've seen the price of gas go up by 22 per cent. If you couple the increased cost of life's basics with increased mortgage repayments, it's little wonder that Australians are feeling worse off. And they're not wrong to feel that. If you look at the figures, real net disposable income per person—which is really the best measure of how well off you're feeling—has fallen by almost nine per cent over the past 18 months. Real living standards in Australia are effectively back to where they were in 2017. If you're an average full-time earner on $95,000 a year, you've seen your real disposable income fall by $8,000 per year, or about $150 per week. Householders are being hit by a triple whammy. They're being hit by higher interest repayments. And, as we've seen, the Reserve Bank are now concerned that the next move in interest rates might be up. People are being hit by higher personal income taxes, because high inflation is pushing them into higher income tax brackets, meaning that they're paying more tax but their living standards have not improved. And they're paying more for life's basics. This week we've heard a lot of crowing, really, from those opposite about how much better off Australians are going to be—indeed how thankful Australians should be—because of these tax cuts they're getting and because of electricity bill relief. Well, if you're on $95,000 a year, the tax cut you'll get from these amended stage 3 tax cuts is about $2,000 a year, or $40 per week. As an electricity rebate you'll get about $300 per household, spread over the course of a year. But, as I said before, we've seen real disposable income for an average full-time earner fall by $8,000, or $150 a week. So, the government is giving you back a very small amount of what they've taken from you in a higher tax take by pushing you up into a higher income tax bracket and what you're paying in terms of higher interest repayments and what you're paying out of your pocket for life's essentials. The RBA's minutes from their last board meeting were released earlier today, and they said that if inflation expectations were to rise materially it would require significantly higher rates to bring inflation back to target. Well, since that Reserve Bank board meeting we have seen inflation expectations rise materially. We've seen a monthly inflation figure of four per cent, which is significantly higher than the markets expected, significantly higher than last month's figure and significantly higher than in advanced economies around the world. You would now have to think that government's fiscal policy is only making the Reserve Bank's job harder and making it more likely that they will have to raise interest rates. 15:48 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria We know on this side of the chamber that household budgets are under real pressure and real strain right now. We know that, broadly speaking, cost of living is front of mind for lots of Australians. That is why it is our No. 1 focus, too, as the Albanese Labor government. Australians and certainly the people in my home state of Victoria are concerned about the cost of living. They're concerned about their ability to keep a roof over their heads and put food on the table. We know that these cost-of-living pressures are felt right around the country. That's why on this side of the chamber we believe in supporting all Australians, not just some. That's why we're supporting hardworking Australians to earn more and to keep more of what they earn. As of yesterday, all 13.6 million Australian taxpayers have received a tax cut, thanks to the Albanese Labor government, and I will come back to that a little later. There are a number of things that go to reducing the pressure on household budgets right now. We are providing energy bill relief, with $300 credited towards household energy bills over the next year and an additional $325 for small businesses. We are freezing the cost of PBS medicines for every Australian. We have supported a third consecutive pay rise for 2.6 million workers. We've supported funding to build more homes in every part of this country. We are working to deliver a future made in Australia. The list goes on. Labor is supporting Australians with cheaper child care, fee-free TAFE and—in the biggest ever investment—the expansion of bulk-billing as of 1 July. Families can also access an extra two weeks of paid parental leave as of 1 July. All of this is part of our longer-term economic plan: helping Australians right now, working to bring inflation down and supporting women's economic participation. I said I would come back to tax cuts. As of yesterday, the average Australian, earning $73,000 a year, got a tax cut of $1,504. That is $804 more than under Scott Morrison's plan. These tax cuts will ensure that hardworking Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn. We know that tax time can be stressful and complicated, and we know that folks are busy juggling multiple things at any one time. So, we've automatically applied the tax cuts so that Australians don't need to take any action. You will just get extra pay, thanks to the tax cuts. That's what the Albanese Labor government believes in. We believe in supporting Australians and in making life better for everyone. That is especially true for Australian women. We know that our cuts support women, who are overrepresented in the low- and middle-income tax brackets. Our tax cuts will help women keep more of their hard-earned money. All 6½ million women taxpayers in Australia are receiving a tax cut this year. The average tax cut for women will be around $1,650. That is $1,650 of hard-earned money that women taxpayers can now keep in their pockets. We know that 90 per cent of women taxpayers will receive a bigger tax cut this year than they would have under Scott Morrison's plan. It comes as absolutely no surprise to anyone that almost every woman in Australia is better off under an Albanese Labor government. It's clear from our budget that women are absolutely a priority for our government, whereas those opposite have neglected and underinvested in women. We also support younger Australians. Our tax cuts are supporting young people to thrive. Young Australians are doing it tough, and we're committed to helping them. All 1½ million Australians aged between 18 and 24 received a tax cut yesterday, with an average of $1,007. 15:53 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland It was seven weeks ago, to the day, that the Labor Party and Jim Chalmers delivered a budget. Their budget was based on the premise that inflation would be less than three per cent by Christmas. That's the promise they gave to the Australian people. In seven weeks, the entire premise of the government's budget has effectively been blown out of the water; it's past its use-by date. This year's budget has lasted about the same amount of time as a bottle of two-litre milk on the shelf; it's now stale and out of date. It's clearly not fit for purpose for the economic conditions that we face right now. The government were delivering a budget banking on inflation trending down. That's the advice they say they got from the Treasury. The government were shocked by the inflation figures that came out a couple of weeks ago. The whole premise of the budget—the state of the spending in our budget—has been proven to be totally wrong and not appropriate for the massive economic battle that every Australian family is facing right now. All Australian families are on the front line, struggling to put their budgets together. It's tough to plan what they can spend and what they can scrimp on to make sure ends meet. They have to make changes. Sometimes they have to make changes every month, when interest rates go up and when the electricity bill is higher than expected. Then there are the grocery bills. It's amazing these days when you go to the shops and you look at your trolley and you look back at the register and have no idea how it is costing that much. But it is and so people have to make changes. I think now the government really has to make changes. They have made the decisions on a $500 billion budget. It's a much bigger budget than that of the average mum and dad. They are spending $500-odd billion a year of your money, and they got it wrong. They should now adjust that budget. They should issue a new budget. They shouldn't go home for six weeks. We're about to go on a break from parliament, but they shouldn't go on holiday. The government need to work harder now because they got it so wrong and they need to redesign the entire budget. It is only making things worse for the Australian people. Seven weeks ago, the government made big hay of the fact that they were going to give us all $300 of your money. That's $300 they raised by taxing you and they'll give it back to you over the year through electricity rebates. They wanted a big pat on the back for giving people some of their own money back. To put this $300 in context, if interest rates go up in August, as the market now expects, if the Reserve Bank lift interest rates in about a month's time, then the average Australian mortgagee will be facing an increase in their repayments of $1,000 a year. The government made big hay of giving people this $300, but, if the interest rates go up 25 basis points—they've gone up 12 times in the life of this government and they may go up another tick—there's $1,000 again the same families will have to find. That $300 rebate won't mean that much at all. The reason for that increase, if interest rates do go up, the government has to take responsibility for. It's because they have let spending get out of control. They keep saying they deliver surpluses. But the surpluses are because of the mining sector and the massive boom we've had there. It's nothing to do with them. You can go to a table in the budget. On about page 90 of every budget there's a table which outlines what the government has done what effect the government's decisions have had on the budget. In this year's budget, they increased spending. Their decisions increased spending by more than $20 billion. Last year it was exactly the same—more than $20 billion. Those two budgets together, the first two full Labor government budgets, have been the biggest spending budgets on this metric, outside of COVID, since the days of Kevin Rudd and the global financial crisis. That's the decision they made. They pumped in an extra $40 billion through our nation's economy while it was overheating. At least Kevin Rudd had the excuse of the global financial crisis. Spending some money made some sense. He went too far and for too long, but it was in the right direction. This is the complete opposite direction. We've been saying for over a year now, since their budget last year, that they were adding fuel to inflation fire. Now those fires are raging out of control in this country in a way that no other developed country is having to experience. As my friend Senator Sharma said earlier, in Europe and North America their inflation rates are much lower than ours and trending down. We're going in the opposite direction because of this government. I would say the government really needs to not have a break. It needs to keep working and a bit harder because Australians are having to work very hard to pay for the economic mistakes of this government. 15:58 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania We recognise that Australians are under pressure right now. But, more than that, we're actually doing something about it. That's why we are helping all Australians with the cost of living. From 1 July, we are delivering a tax cut for every Australian—not just some, not like what was proposed from over on the other side. It's for every Australian. We are delivering $300 energy bill relief for every Australian household and $325 for eligible small businesses. We are putting a freeze on the cost of PBS medicines for every Australian. Every Australian who has a Medicare card will get a PBS freeze on their medication for 12 months. For pensioners and concession card holders, that will apply for five years. So $7.70 will be the cost of the medicine for five years. That is a huge assistance for people who we recognise are doing it tough out there right now. We are also delivering a third consecutive pay rise for 2.6 million workers. We know those on the other side don't like workers. Their DNA is to keep wages down. We know that. We've heard it. It's part of their economic plan. But ours is to try to lift people up and recognise that they are doing great work out there. We're providing more funding to build more homes in every part of the country. In relation to the tax cuts, I want to recognise that there are over 45,000 taxpayers in my duty seat of Braddon who will get a cut from 1 July. From yesterday, 45,000 taxpayers in the seat of Braddon in Tasmania will get a tax cut, and about 48,000 residents in my duty seat of Braddon will be beneficiaries of PBS medicines. We are delivering cost-of-living relief in many ways. If we're talking about the tax cuts, I can say that miners will get an average tax cut of $3,729 a year. That's $72 a week. Construction workers will get an average tax cut of $1,879, or $36 a week. If you're a healthcare worker—these are the people who look after us when we are unwell and need help—you'll get an average tax cut of $1,354, or $26 a week. Again, it doesn't matter where you live or who you are, you will get a tax cut under the Albanese Labor government. As I said, that comes on top of all the other relief that we're providing. But those opposite aren't happy, are they? They're not happy that the government gave every Australian a tax cut, not just those on the highest of high incomes. That's what they wanted to do. They have said they would absolutely roll these back. In fact, today Mr Angus Taylor, who is in the other place, described our cost-of-living relief as handouts that are ultimately going to make it worse. Honestly, handouts? We are assisting people. He has let the cat out of the bag. He has confirmed that the coalition oppose all of the cost-of-living relief that's being rolled out this week to try to help Australians. They don't not want every Australian to get a tax cut. They don't want every household to get energy bill relief. They don't want millions—literally millions—of Australians, among many of whom are pensioners and people on healthcare cards, to get cheaper medicine. Why wouldn't you want that? Why wouldn't you want to help people and give them a hand up? But, no, they don't want to do that. What about extra paid parental leave? Why wouldn't you want to give that to people to encourage them to get back into work? We're doing all of that around making things here in Australia, our Future Made in Australia policy. All of these budget measures are part of a longer-term economic plan that is helping Australians right now. But it is a longer-term economic plan. It's working to bring down inflation and it's planning that future made in Australia. Those on the other side push manufacturing and 'made in Australia' out the door, overseas, on a boat—ta-ta, see you later! But, no. Senator Stewart 299352 Shame! Senator URQUHART 231199 Yes, shame on them, Senator Stewart. But, no, what we are doing is investing in Australians right here, in a future made in Australia, to provide jobs for our kids and our grandkids so that they have some security in their future. 16:03 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania We all know that Australians are doing it tough right now. If there is one issue that Tasmanians continue to raise with me each and every day, it is that they are struggling with the cost of living. They want to see a government that has a plan to tackle that and to tackle the drivers of what is creating these economic circumstances that we currently see for ourselves. Those Tasmanians and, indeed, all Australians might have been listening in to Senate question time today and they might have seen the usual ebullient performances from government ministers. But there's a lot of substance there, and there are no answers for those Australians who want to know what plan this government has not just to tackle the cost of living but to drive those pressures down on an ongoing basis. They want to know what plan this government has for the future of this country's economy so that we are not going to continue to see inflation rising, we are not going to continue to see mortgage rates going up and we are not going to continue to see increasing energy bills for all Australians at a time when we know they cannot afford them. Sadly, as I said, there were no answers for those Tasmanians and those Australians listening in today, and frankly I don't think they're surprised about that anymore. It's been two years, and I think Australians know that they can't trust this government to deliver that solution. They cannot trust this government to have a plan. This is the government that, during the election campaign back in May 2022, promised not once, not twice, not even thrice—they promised 97 times that Australians' power bills would be reduced by $275. We haven't heard much about that since the election, but those now on the government benches promised 97 times during the election campaign in April and May 2022 that Australians' power bills would go down by $275. That is what they promised Australians, and that is what Australians are yet to see. This government also promised that, under it, the cost of living would be easier to manage and that mortgages would not go up so quickly. But, as my colleague Senator Canavan said, we have seen interest rates go up 12 times under this government, and that has an impact on what's in the back pocket of every mortgage holder in this country. That means, on average, in every second month of this government's term the RBA has put interest rates up. Every eight weeks, Australians have woken up to find out that they are once again going to be paying more on their mortgage. We also know of course that inflation is continuing to impact Australians. We know that each time Australians go to the supermarket they are paying more now than they were two years ago. They are paying more for bread, paying more for milk, paying more for eggs and paying more— Senator Duniam 263418 For foie gras. Senator CHANDLER 264449 They are paying more for whatever it is they might be purchasing at the supermarket, Senator Duniam. Australians are paying more each and every time they go to the supermarket. Yes, the government will sit here and reel off the little bits and pieces that they're doing to try and make life better for Australians—and they're noble efforts—but they're not actually trying to change what is driving inflation. That is because they will blame everyone but themselves for this. They will blame the war in Ukraine, they will blame the Reserve Bank of Australia and they will certainly try and do as much as they can to blame the previous government, without recognising that they've been on the government benches for two years now and it is their responsibility to come up with a plan to tackle inflation and get this country's economy back on track. But they are shirking their responsibility. This is a desperate, calamitous government that is more focused right now on backgrounding out to journalists about when it's thinking of calling the election than on making life better for Australians. Quite frankly, I'm sick of coming in here after every question time and again taking note of answers from this government that has failed to provide answers for everyday Australians. Question agreed to. International Students 42 16:08 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister representing the Minister for Education (Senator Watt) to questions without notice I asked today in relation to international students. The Albanese government is delivering blow after blow to international students, and the latest one is the doubling of the cost of student visa application fees. This cruel blow will first and foremost punish the most financially disadvantaged of potential applicants. Australia student visa application fees will now be the highest in the world. Expecting international students to fork out even more money reinforces this myth that somehow all international students are wealthy. Sure, that may be the case for some students, but many parents have saved every penny or taken out loans to finance their children's education. Once in Australia, too many international students have to settle for exploitative cash-in-hand jobs or gig economy jobs to make ends meet, whether it be delivering food or cleaning toilets. International students are exploited, used as cash cows and then made scapegoats. The government's plan to cap international students is a divisive conflation of international students and the housing crisis. It punishes international students for a problem that they did not cause, and it will do nothing to fix the housing crisis or the higher education sector for that matter. It will significantly tarnish Australia's international reputation as a destination for higher education. So it's no wonder that there is so much opposition to the bill. The Group of Eight universities recently slammed the government for this policy. They note that there is no evidence the approach will work and significant evidence that it will fail. After years of sustained underfunding of universities by both the Labor and the coalition governments and thousands of job losses during the COVID-19 pandemic because they were locked out of JobKeeper, now the government wants to micromanage universities to make things even worse. Governments who treat housing as a market investment rather than a human right are solely to blame for the rental and housing crisis, not students from India, Pakistan or Malaysia, whose parents have spent their lives saving up for their children to get the best possible education and opportunity in life. International students aren't causing the rental or housing crisis; they are victims of it, and particularly vulnerable ones at that. They don't owe us housing solutions. It's the other way around. Governments and universities have a duty to protect international students, and they are currently doing an abysmal job, with many ending up homeless and hungry. We need a government willing to take bold action to tackle the housing crisis by capping rents, phasing out unfair tax breaks for property investors and establishing a public developer. I have heard too many horror stories just in the past year of international students sleeping in tents, couch surfing and paying exorbitant amounts to sleep in someone's garage or bathroom. Their current predicament reminds me of the neglect, abandonment and discrimination they were subjected to during the pandemic. International students, especially those of Asian appearance, suffered horrific racism during the pandemic. My office was inundated with hundreds of stories of international students experiencing unemployment, financial stress and precarious living situations during the pandemic. So many of them spoke about their distress of being completely abandoned by the government, and that's how they are feeling right now. Much is often said about the economic benefits of international students. International students drove the value of Australia's education exports to an all-time record of $48 billion in 2023. But they actually bring incalculable benefits, adding to the diversity and vibrancy of our local regions, cities and campuses. International students do the heavy lifting on university funding and work in often precarious and exploitative conditions while contributing billions to the economy and society. Yet they are often left high and dry, often used and abused. International students deserve so much better from governments and universities, who must take seriously the responsibility to ensure their welfare and protect them from discrimination and exploitation. It's high time for the government to recognise and fix their policy failings rather than continue the never-ending commodification, dog whistling and demonisation of international students. Question agreed to. NOTICES 43 NOTICES Presentation 43 Postponement 46 COMMITTEES 46 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 46 DOCUMENTS 46 DOCUMENTS Visy Industries Holdings Pty Ltd 46 Order for the Production of Documents 46 16:14 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Science and the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than 10 am on Monday, 22 July 2024, any written communication between representatives of VISY, VISYFLOW, VISY Asia-Pacific, VISY INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS PTY LTD (and related subsidiaries) and: (a) the offices of the Minister for Industry and Science and the Minister for the Environment and Water since 21 May 2022; and (b) the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water since 21 May 2022. Question agreed to. BILLS 46 BILLS Truth and Justice Commission Bill 2024 46

Truth and Justice Commission Bill 2024

First Reading 46 16:15 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I, and also on behalf of Senator Shoebridge, move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to establish a commission of inquiry into historic and ongoing injustices against First Peoples in Australia, and for related purposes. Question agreed to. Senator COX 296215 I present the bill and move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 46 16:16 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill. Leave granted. Senator COX 296215 I table an explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. The speech read as follows— Today I commend this Bill to the Senate, a Bill to establish a Truth and Justice Commission to record historic and ongoing injustices against First Peoples in Australia. As the Australian Greens First Nations portfolio holder, I have heard calls from First Nations people and allies right across our diverse and vibrant country. They are asking for the establishment of formal truth telling processes to record and reconcile our nation's pre-colonial, past and current stories and history. In my first speech to this parliament three years ago, I addressed the urgent need for change in how we understood our nation's history. I said that we needed to go further than a debate or a conversation in this place. In 3 years, my sentiments have not changed. The Greens are leading this work as Australia's new chapter for the healing of our nation and charting a positive future for all. Building Truth and Justice as a central tenet of the way we see and shape our next generation's knowledge and understanding. For us as First peoples this story has existed for time immemorial, before the seas rose and we became an island nation. We are Australia's First Peoples, people who have the world's oldest living continuous culture—over 65,000 years of connection to land, waterways, language and people that have survived the evolution of the world's harshest conditions and circumstances. As a proud Yamatji Noongar woman, names are given to my tribal groups through the legislated native title process, but they are in fact the Wajarri and Bibbulmun—my language groups. My Indigeneity comes from the Amangu, Wajarri, Yued and Kangiyang clans in the South West and Midwest/Gascoyne regions of Western Australia. I was raised to be a proud and strong Yamatji Noongar woman by my household, community and extended family. My identity was always reaffirmed through the exchange of knowledge, protocols and responsibilities, that continued to be the foundation of my connection to country, language, kin and culture. This has not always been the story for First Peoples in our country. Before the tall ships arrived here in 1788 and introduced policies and legislation that removed our rights, our people celebrated a strong and vibrant culture and connection to lands, waterways and kinship. My family has survived 5 generations of this legislative regime that strived to break these fundamental connections of our identity, removal from country and kin, introduction of English language and the restrictions of our movements and economic independence. Therein lies the story which Australian systems have chosen to tell, that Terra Nullius framed to erase any evidence of our existing land over which no previous sovereignty has been exercised, which was found to be untrue. We have never ceded these rights. This triumphant moment was the work of Torres Strait Islander man Eddie "Koko" Mabo, and this work continues today as we fight to prove our connection to our traditional lands, waters and sea country through the Native Title Act. These important processes of the Truth and Justice Commission will allow us to formally record, teach and reinforce that we have strong and proud indigenous peoples who were the first chapter of our nation's story. We are stranded as a nation, suspended in time—waiting for action. Through the yearning of wanting peace and harmony that form the pillars of our values as a nation, this story continues to cast doubt over our true "discovery" and therefore shapes Australian history taught in our schools, on show in our museums and reinforced through our media and democracy. In this place we are the nation's leaders. We can not just simply acknowledge the country we live and work on as a token gesture, stand at our press conferences, make speeches, use campaign slogans and make hollow statements that have never translated to outcomes or action to challenge the systems and structures which are the consequences of historical injustices for First Nations people. We've all heard this Government and successive governments who have spoken about truth telling through Royal Commissions, inquiries and debates. We've also seen so many declarations, bark petitions and many other generous offerings given by First Nations people all remaining largely unfulfilled, and which, to many of us are the stark representation of failure and lost opportunity, which amount to a lack of political will. We all come to this place, with purpose, vision, commitment and determination to deliver change and I have heard this in every first speech since joining the Senate in 2021. My question still remains largely unanswered—why are we not listening to the voices of First Nations people and the 5 million Australians who through the referendum last year voted for change. What I heard from those who voted no in this referendum, they did so on the abstract idea of a Voice to Parliament, maybe some were unaware of its purpose or relevancy to the work we do to ensure laws in Australia are debated to improve the lives of our First Peoples based on their lived experiences and to ensure the ongoing legacies and past mistakes are not repeated. This is why these truth telling processes must be led by First Nations people and communities, to tell our truths in our native tongue, through our worldview and the experiences of our old people. The recording of these experiences must be through trauma-informed and culturally safe processes that address misinformation, that seek to reframe our systems and commence our collective healing journey. The Greens were one of the first political parties to pledge our commitment to implement the Uluru Statement from the Heart. I would like to honour the work of my predecessor WA Greens Senator Rachel Siewert who through her leadership as a former portfolio holder for First Nations issues in our party, paved the way for this incredibly important work to continue and for it to be reflected in this Bill. I would also like to thank the Co-chairs of the Statement from the Heart—all those who have worked and all other contributors. This week, our new Governor-General mentioned Mr Pearson in addressing the "three-part portrait" which frames who we are as a nation. But let us not forget that Noel Pearson also said the following: "We demand after 65,000 years that the events of the last 200 do not erase the old Australia that was ours." One year on from the referendum, it is now time for us to build the pathway forward to create a formal independent body for Truth. Our vision for this work is grounded in the key principles of self determination and sovereignty. This work builds on our work in the referendum campaign in which we harnessed the goodwill of approximately 6 million people nationally who supported the quest for First Nations voices and rights. Having Australia's first Truth and Justice Commission—an independent, trauma informed and culturally safe body—to collect and record the range of diverse experiences of Australia's First Peoples reaffirms our commitment. Through this Bill we are bringing an important national conversation to the Parliament and are engaging Australia to boldly move us forward collectively as a nation and build a pathway to a Federal Treaty. There are important personal and collective actions that Australians take that include understanding the starting position we take as First Nations people, from a direct quote shared by a participant in the "Coming to terms with the past" report: "I try to get people to understand that it's coming from the heart, what I'm telling, and I charge non-Aboriginal people with a responsibility of listening and learning… We don't make this stuff up." I extend the invitation for all Non-Indigenous Australians to join us on this journey to deeply connect and listen, to work with First Nations people to respectfully understand our shared history and to create an intergenerational project of change. We all have a role to play when it comes to truth-telling, which is also not possible without truth listening. This is supported by recent polling conducted by the UNSW and Reconciliation Australia "Coming to terms with the past" report "which states that 94 percent of non-Indigenous Australians are motivated to participate in truth-telling to learn about the ongoing impacts of the past on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples today." In order for this work to be successful there will be some uncomfortable conversations, but these are crucial in informing systemic changes required for healing and justice, including education—this a powerful and transformative legacy. "The Uluru Statement also shares the knowledge of Makarrata, a word from the Yolngu people of Arnhem Land. As Noel Pearson says: 'The Yolngu concept of Makarrata captures the idea of two parties coming together after a struggle, and healing the divisions of the past. It is about acknowledging that something has been done wrong, and it seeks to make things right.'" The unfinished business of Australia's nationhood must include recognising the ancient jurisdictions of First Nations law and we must recognise the fight of our old people. The continuing connection between language, the culture, the land and the enduring nature of First Peoples' law are fundamental to First Nations sovereignty. Senator COX 296215 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Tax Laws Amendment (Incentivising Food Donations to Charitable Organisations) Bill 2024 48

Tax Laws Amendment (Incentivising Food Donations to Charitable Organisations) Bill 2024

First Reading 48 16:17 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to taxation, and for related purposes. Question agreed to. Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 I present the bill and move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 48 16:17 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill. Leave granted. Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 I table an explanatory memorandum and I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— This Bill proposes a straightforward solution to a growing problem affecting millions of Australians, across the breadth of the country and its many different communities. It does exactly what its title suggests: incentivising companies to donate surplus food to food relief charities by providing them with a tax offset in relation to the expenses they incur. We know too well that the nation is grappling with a protracted cost-of-living crisis, driven largely by inflation, which has seen a sharp rise in household expenses—from rising rents and mortgages to energy and groceries. Food is, of course, among the most pressing of these issues for Australian families struggling to manage their financial commitments. As a result, Australians who have never before experienced food stress are joining what is now a deeply concerning statistic. The most recent Foodbank Australia Hunger Report found that in the 12 months to July 2023, 3.7 million households in Australia experienced moderate to severe levels of food insecurity. Many Australians are experiencing this significant challenge for the first time, with Foodbank reporting in 2022 that 59% of those presenting to the charity for food assistance had a job, and nearly a quarter had a mortgage—neither had previously been a characteristic of their clients. This spike in food insecurity is, unfortunately, taking place amid a culture of widespread food dumping and wastage. Australia domestically produces enough food to feed the country three times over, yet it is reported that 7.6 million tonnes of food are being wasted each year. This both costs the economy an estimated $36.6 million annually and deprives those in need of what is largely edible food. In fact, about 70% of discarded food is fit for consumption, but is generally being thrown away because it is cheaper than finding other alternatives—including donating it to food relief charities. That is precisely why this Bill, which makes relatively minor amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and Income Tax (Transitional Provisions) Act 1997, is being introduced. The model was initially developed by Foodbank Australia and its partners and was subsequently modelled for its economic impact by KMPG, whose recommendations were published in reports from 2020 and 2023. It has subsequently been built upon in close consultation with Australian charities and other impacted sectors, but still closely resembles the original model with a view to efficiency and simplicity. To be eligible for a tax benefit, companies must be constitutional corporations engaged in donating or selling food to registered charities, or providing services to charities in relation to food donation, and have a receipt from the charities concerned. Where payment is received by a company for its food donation activities, only the shortfall between the payment and costs incurred is claimable. The tax offset covers the costs incurred by the company in its food donation activities in an income year. The tax offset is capped at the lower of $5 million or a percentage of the food donation costs. The percentage is based on the company's aggregated turnover. For those with a turnover of less than $20 million, it is a refundable offset of 45% of costs incurred. Companies with a turnover of $20 million or more but less than $50 million are eligible for a non-refundable offset of 40% of costs incurred, while those with a turnover of $50 million or more are eligible for a non-refundable offset of 30% of their costs. The Bill is specific about what can be claimed regarding food donation-related expenses, including food production, storage and transport costs—and what cannot, including business overheads, insurance, visas or work permits, and marketing for the food donation activities. It also contains a suite of integrity measures, among them limiting the claimable amount for goods and services purchased from entities not at arm's length from a company to their market value. Importantly, this is a temporary measure, capable of being extended if needed based on both economic circumstances and efficacy. It contains a sunset clause at three years, at which time an independent review of the benefit of an extension or not must be ordered by the relevant Minister and tabled in Parliament. There is a genuine need for an incentive of this type that presents suppliers with a viable option to donate food, rather than disposing of it. Unsurprisingly, it enjoys wide support across all relevant sectors. Foodbank Australia has received endorsements from the other major Australian food relief services and 58 other prominent food and grocery producers, sector groups, charities and companies—among them the National Farmers Federation, Australian Food and Grocery Council, National Retailers Association, Anglicare and Catholic Social Services Australia. This is a simple, proactive policy, introduced on behalf of Australian households struggling with food insecurity and the food relief charities working to support them through the cost-of-living crisis. It is a Bill for our times and circumstances, representing a practical solution to a crisis presenting very real challenges for many Australians. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. NOTICES 50 NOTICES Withdrawal 50 16:18 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I withdraw general business notice of motion No. 316 standing in my name for the next day of sitting. DOCUMENTS 50 DOCUMENTS National Disability Insurance Scheme 50 Order for the Production of Documents 50 16:18 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme by Monday, 22 July 2024, documents relating to the Information, Linkages and Capacity Building (ILC) grant program for 2024-25, including the following information: (a) the name of each successful applicant and reasons for successful application; (b) the name of each unsuccessful applicant and reasons for rejection of application (including programs that were funded until 30 June 2024, but did not have funding renewed); (c) the positions of persons on the Expert Advisory Group who supported the ILC grant process; and (d) the positions of persons to whom decision-making powers over the grant were delegated. Question agreed to. National Disability Insurance Scheme 50 Order for the Production of Documents 50 16:18 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Minister for Government Services, by no later than midday on 12 August 2024: (a) briefing notes, file notes, emails, operational reports, correspondence or other records produced from 1 May 2024 to date by Services Australia for the information, consideration and/or action of the Minister and their office with respect to customer demand for services produced over the past five months; (b) the latest 5 iterations of Services Australia's Executive Committee enterprise risk watchlist; (c) the latest iterations of the program status reports of each major program and major project; (d) briefing notes and correspondence produced from 1 May 2024 to date by Services Australia for the information, consideration and/or action of the Minister and their office which concerns the budgetary and health status of the Health Delivery Modernisation Program; (e) briefing notes, file notes, emails, operational reports, correspondence or other records produced from 1 May 2024 to date by Services Australia for the information, consideration and/or action of the Minister and their office with respect to the agency's administration of the Crisis Payment, Age Pension and Disability Support Pension; and (f) briefing notes, file notes, emails, operational reports, correspondence or other records produced from 15 May 2024 to date by Services Australia for the information, consideration and/or action of the Minister and their office with respect to the MyGov Incubator. Question agreed to. Productivity Commission 50 Order for the Production of Documents 50 16:19 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer by no later than midday on Friday, 5 July 2024, the final report of the Productivity Commission inquiry into philanthropic giving in Australia, the draft report of which was released on 30 November 2023. 16:19 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 The government does not support the motion. As Senator Smith knows, the government received the Productivity Commission's final report on 10 May this year, but his motion refers to the date the commission released its draft report in November 2023. It's a pretty clear tip-off to other senators that this isn't actually a serious ask. According to standard protocols, the final report is embargoed from public release until tabled by the government, and the government needs to do this within 25 sitting days of receiving the final report. We're still well within that window. The government will table the final report at the best time to support the future work that is planned in this space. We look forward to working with the sector on our response to the review over coming months. I'd remind the Senate of how the previous coalition government approached the last major review of policy settings affecting charities and philanthropic funds, the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission five-year legislative review, where they only responded two years after it came down in 2020. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 547, standing in the name of Senator Dean Smith, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:25]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question negatived.

 MATTERS OF URGENCY 51 MATTERS OF URGENCY Housing 51 16:27 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 Senator McKim has submitted a proposal under standing order 75 today: Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today the Australian Greens propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Senate to call on the government to end the tax handouts for wealthy property investors that deny renters the chance to buy their first home." Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 16:27 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Senate to call on the government to end the tax handouts for wealthy property investors that deny renters the chance to buy their first home. The housing system in this country is completely and utterly broken, and there's a range of reasons for that, but the simple political reason for the housing system being in such crisis in this country is that our political landscape has been dominated by establishment political parties for many, many decades, and that status quo, the political establishment in Australia, has abjectly failed to build enough homes and has consistently incentivised property investors and property speculators and their interests over and above the interests of homeowners and of renters in Australia. The approach of this government, that we can fix one of the biggest problems facing this country without taking on entrenched power structures and without changing the direction of the political establishment, is a barefaced lie. Suggesting that small reforms and faffing around at the margins can actually solve these deep seated issues is a deceit, and it's a deceit perpetrated to ensure that the political establishment stays in power in this country. Now, let's take a closer look at the housing crisis. This government oversees budget decisions that result in a staggering $165 billion over the next 10 years going in as direct subsidies through negative gearing and through the capital gains tax discount to property investors and speculators. These tax breaks overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest people in this country. They let them buy—encourage them to buy—multiple properties, in some cases hundreds of investment properties, while everyday Australians struggle to buy their first home or struggle to pay their fortnightly rent bills. The tax system in Australia rewards speculative investment over real homeownership, and it rewards speculative property investment over the interests of renters. The capital gains tax discount means that investors pay half the tax that they should on property profits, which pushes home prices even higher and makes it harder for first-home buyers to compete. Ultimately, if we want to solve the housing crisis in Australia, we need to be prepared to take on the causes of that crisis. We need to build more homes and make sure they are affordable homes. We don't support the position articulated by Labor housing minister Ms Collins that property should be an asset class in Australia. Property—a home—is a human right. Everyone has a right to a safe, affordable, warm, dry home. That is a human right. We should not be treating homes as an asset class. The Greens want to see an end to these obscene discounts, these obscene tax conditions, these direct public subsidies to wealthy property speculators. We want a fairer tax system whereby the big corporations and the ultra-wealthy pay their fair share of tax and those taxes are used to help people who need support—by doing things like putting dental and mental health into Medicare, by doing things like raising income support, by doing things like wiping student debt. We need to stop the tens of billions of dollars every decade in handouts to wealthy property investors, and we need to use that money to build affordable housing, put a cap on rents and support first-home buyers. 16:33 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia I too rise to speak on this matter of urgency submitted by the Greens. To some extent I agree that it is urgent we have a discussion on housing policy in this country, because the alliance we have seen form between the Greens political party and the opposition in this chamber has had what I believe to be a disastrous impact on the ambition of this government to advance housing policy in Australia. We've seen the Greens and the opposition team up to stand in the way of the Housing Australia Future Fund, the single biggest investment in social and affordable housing in more than a decade, which the Greens party delayed for six months so they could keep campaigning on housing affordability rather than trying to fix it. We've seen this alliance team up to stand in the way of Help to Buy, a national shared equity scheme designed to help more Australians into homeownership, which the Greens have voted against in the other place and which has been delayed for four months so far. And now we're seeing this alliance of the opposition and the Greens standing in the way of more help for renters by holding up Build to Rent. Time after time, as our government is determined to do meaningful policy reform to address housing supply in Australia, our efforts have been hampered by this alliance between the opposition and the Greens in this chamber. Time after time, as we've brought measures to increase supply to this chamber, the Greens have stood in the way, joined by the opposition. Let's be clear: the motion we have before us does not deliver another home in Australia. It does absolutely nothing to ease the cost of housing for Australians. It does absolutely nothing to assist Australians with the cost of their rent. This is just another political stunt on the floor of this place. It delivers nothing in the real world. It delivers nothing for the people in Australia who are desperately seeking action on housing supply, who are desperately seeking help with rent and who are desperately seeking to be able to afford to buy their own home. Time and time again, the only party in this place actually bringing anything to this chamber that would make any difference to housing supply is the Australian Labor Party, and, time and time again, the major roadblock to that has been the alliance between the Greens and the Liberals and the Greens and the opposition party in this place. The fact is that, when it comes to housing, we have a supply issue in this country. That is what our government is solely determined to address. We know this is having an impact on young Australians, in particular. It is millennials—my generation—and the younger generations that feel most let down and locked out by the issues in housing supply in Australia. It is our generation that feels like this dream, this aspiration, is beyond them. It is this generation that needs us to do something in this place to have a meaningful impact and take meaningful action on addressing supply so that they, too, can own a home, so that's not only an aspiration or a dream of their parent's generation but something they can hold. We have the Greens political party constantly come into this place and prevent meaningful action, meaningful reform, or delay that reform, because it suits their political agenda and their political purpose of the day. But you don't get more houses in Australia through memes; you don't get more houses in Australia through motions on the floor of this place that don't deliver legislative change, that don't increase funding and that don't do anything to enact agreements made by National Cabinet that would actually deliver houses. From the opposition's perspective, I fundamentally reject the idea that young Australians, millennial Australians and the generations that come after have to make a choice between a dignified retirement through superannuation and owning a home. I reject that containment of aspiration for millennial Australians and for gen Y Australians. It is not what their parents were told, and it's not what they should be told either. Every young Australian deserves to have the aspiration to have a safe and secure home. The Australian Labor Party is the only party in this place doing anything that will deliver that for them. The Liberals want to contain the aspirations of young Australians. The Greens think they can meet that aspiration through memes. Frankly, I believe those two positions are absurd. What is urgent is getting the Labor government's reforms on housing through this chamber. That will make a difference in housing supply. 16:38 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator McKim for bringing forward this motion and for the opportunity to speak on it. When we talk about housing, we often jump straight into the details of the HAFF and Help to Buy and all these other things. We need to sit back and ask: what is housing for? Is this something that is fundamental to human wellbeing, to human flourishing and to communities doing well? Or is this something that we want to set up as an investment vehicle and have a tax structure that rewards people to invest in property? I'm hearing from the people I represent that they want this as a fundamental human right. If we can agree on that as a parliament, we will take very different policy solutions forward. One of them that can no longer be taboo is to talk about our tax system and the very generous capital gains tax discounts and negative gearing on investment properties. There are sensible ways to turn this around. Senator Jacqui Lambie and I got PBO costings to look at a range of options, from grandfathering to different rates of incentivising to new supply with a reduced capital gains tax discount. There are options going forward, if the major parties will be a part of this conversation. To date, I haven't heard anything that indicates that they are willing to take this on and act in line with what I am hearing that the vast majority of Australians want, and that is for them to take the housing crisis seriously as a crisis. When you are in a crisis, all options are on the table. Currently we hear a lot about the HAFF. Just to address some of the accusations which were levelled at the Greens—probably levelled at the whole crossbench—let's go and look at what was delivered as part of the HAFF negotiations. The Jacqui Lambie Network secured a minimum of 1,200 homes per jurisdiction to ensure that, regardless of how small your state or territory is, you get a cut of the HAFF, given it's only 30,000. The Greens managed to get $2 billion extra in the Housing Australia Future Fund. That's a not insignificant amount of money. I managed to get an agreement to have it indexed, which is $6.5 billion over the life of the availability payments, which is in line with what the sector was asking for. On top of that, there was the equal remuneration order for the sector of $70 million. So let's tell the whole story to Australians—that, when you have a crossbench that is standing up for the communities they represent, you get better outcomes. I welcome more debate going into this next election so that we can actually put some action to the rhetoric of saying that we want young people to be able to afford to buy a home or to be able to rent and have renters' rights and not see their rent jacked up. 16:41 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I am happy to be able to make a contribution today and to put on the record the work that this government has done over the last two years since we came into government. But it is a bit galling to have the Greens come into this chamber and bring a motion like this to level criticism at the government when they are the ones that have done a deal with the opposition to delay the future fund and the creation of real opportunities to provide housing for those who need assistance to be able to access affordable and social housing. This is on the eve of legislation that will pass this chamber, the help to buy bill, that will be life changing. It is a piece of legislation that will help young people and first homeowners get ahead. Senator Pocock is right: everyone deserves to have access to a secure home. A lot of the issues that we face in our community now stem from the fact that there is not safe, secure housing available for everyone. That is why we have such a housing crisis in terms of homeless people. But what you need to do is work with the government of the day, not do dirty deals on the side to hold things up so that you can make political mileage to campaign around the issues where you put your own political party above those people that you decry as being a warrior for and wanting to do something about access to housing for young people. Of course, it's a fundamental right for young people to have that access. It doesn't really matter what age you are. If you don't have your own home and you aspire to have one then it is up to the government and the parliament to ensure that people have that opportunity to have that secure home. We know that the regional first home buyers guarantee and the expanded Home Guarantee Scheme have already helped more than 110,000 people since 2022 to buy a home for the first time. We have brought in the Housing Australia Future Fund, putting in $10 billion to sustainably create social and affordable housing over the coming decade. That's more than any other government in history has invested in social and affordable housing. That's the Labor government. We have actually put our shoulder to the wheel, and we actually want to bring about opportunities for people to have a secure home. The Housing Australia Future Fund is projected to deliver over 20,000 new social homes and 10,000 new affordable homes over the next five years. Not only are we investing in that but we're also investing, very importantly, in the infrastructure that is going to help state and local governments to be able to develop new land opportunities for these new homes to be built on. But this has to be done with the states and territories, along with local government, working with the Commonwealth government to bring this about. Labor is investing in housing because we know—it's in the fabric of who we are as Labor people—how fundamentally important it is for the Australian dream to be able to own your own home. Not everybody is able to achieve that, so they need a helping hand. What they don't need is for people in this place to do their dirty deals to ensure that they can campaign to put their own self-interest and political interests ahead of those people who aspire to have access to their own home. We have been in government for two years. We're cleaning up the mess of those opposite. We've brought down three budgets. The last two have been in surplus, and we're heading to another one. You can't do everything overnight. We cannot—and we don't believe in trying to—create utopia, which is where the Greens like to live all the time. But the one thing you can always be guaranteed about the Greens is that they will always put their self-interest first—anything for a social media grab. 16:46 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland The Greens are moving for the Senate to call on the government to end the handouts for wealthy property investors, which are denying renters the chance to buy their first home. House prices have gone up stratospherically everywhere. In my home town of Brisbane, or Meanjin as it's also known, they've gone up 16 per cent in the last year. In regional Queensland, it's over 11 per cent. It is getting harder and harder for people to buy their first home, because our tax settings make it cheaper for someone to buy their fifth home. It's like a dragon hoarding gold, and taxpayer dollars are being allocated to it. This is on top of the fact that it's getting harder to save to buy a home, because rents are going up. Rents have gone up in Brisbane by 8½ per cent in the last year, and nationally they're forecast to go up by another 10 per cent in the coming year. For renters, one more rent rise could mean eviction into homelessness, but for property investors, who have already got $39 billion in tax handouts from the government, that $5 billion—that 10 per cent increase in rent—is just a drop in the ocean. They might not even notice it. We had that figure costed. If Labor were to implement a freeze on rent, Australia's seven million renters would save about $2,500 per household in the next year or $5.3 billion in total. Labor needs to find the guts to stand up to the wealthy property investors. Labor's Help to Buy legislation is before the parliament, and a budget analysis that we asked the Parliamentary Budget Office to do found that negative gearing and capital gains tax for residential property investors will cost $165 billion from the public purse over the next 10 years. Two-thirds of that goes to the top 20 per cent of income earners—no surprises there—and the capital gains discount alone would see 83 per cent of the benefit go to the top 20 per cent of income earners. These people don't need the help. We are in a housing crisis, and housing is, was and should always be considered a human right. We have said that we will help pass your Help to Buy legislation if you agree to move to phase out those negative gearing and capital gains discounts that are making homes further and further out of reach for first home owners. But we've got a property investor Prime Minister, who's trying to ram through a bill that will actually drive up house prices while refusing to scrap the massive tax handouts for investors that are denying millions of renters the chance to buy a home. Every day that your government refuses to find the courage to phase out these unfair tax handouts is another day that a potential first home buyer gets screwed over at an auction by a property investor. Pouring fuel on the fire of an already raging housing crisis is $165 billion worth of public tax handouts. Until we scrap those deeply inequitable tax perks that have seen house prices skyrocket, we're never going to get the housing crisis under control. I know you guys love the polls, but published polling now says that a majority of Australians actually want to phase out negative gearing and capital gains tax. What is stopping you? Why are you choosing wealthy property investors over millions of renters? We stand ready to work with this government to phase out those unfair tax handouts and to finally give an entire generation some hope that they might one day be able to own a home. The Labor government rails against us trying to improve their housing legislation, but they need to start bowling up legislation that will actually help fix the housing crisis. We were criticised for holding out on passing the HAFF, the Housing Australia Future Fund, but we held out and got $3 billion for social housing, so we're holding out on your other two bills so you can fix them as well, and so we can actually work together to address the housing crisis. In brief, the build-to-rent plan is another really weird piece of legislation that will actually funnel yet more dollars into the pockets of wealthy property investors. Private developers are going to get subsidies to build apartments and homes, only 10 per cent of which have to be considered affordable. I'm sorry, you're just pouring money down the drain at this point. It's about time that people actually have a government that delivers on measures to address the housing crisis. Stop tinkering around the edges. We need a rent freeze and a cap. We need to scrap the handouts for property investors, and we need a public developer to actually build homes that people can afford to rent and buy. 16:51 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland When will this government actually care about Australians? For most people, the Australian dream of buying a home is dead. This government would rather have people as housing slaves: either debt slaves to the banking cartel, with unaffordable mortgages, or rent slaves, with overseas investment funds like BlackRock and Vanguard as landlords. In their motion, the Greens criticise property investors. Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, or, rather, those with housing portfolios shouldn't throw Senate motions. Greens Senators Faruqi and McKim reportedly each own four properties. Remember Senator Faruqi's native tree clearing in koala habitat to build luxury rentals in Port Macquarie. Yet the Greens property investors say they're the enemies of property investors and the saviours of koalas. The old saying seems true: every accusation is actually a confession. I've got nothing against property investors. In well-balanced housing markets, investors play an important part in housing supply, yet successive governments pushing record immigration destroyed the dream of owning a home in Australia. In 2023 alone, 547,000 immigrants arrived. For arrivals alone, we were short 120,000 homes. That's not counting the housing shortfall for natural population growth. The extraordinary demand for housing for new arrivals must be turned off. One Nation is the only party that can be trusted to make the tough decisions on cutting immigration to reduce housing demand, getting more houses built and putting Australians first—no more immigrants until Australians can afford a roof over their head. Send some visa holders back to their countries until house construction catches up. Our building codes are distorted with overly complicated nonsense to comply with the United Nations and World Economic Forum demands. That stops our tradies building more houses. We'll get rid of it. We'll bring the banking cartel into line. For first home buyers, One Nation's five per cent fixed mortgages will be more than $800 a month cheaper. To get people into their own homes, put Australians first. 16:53 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I'm grateful for the opportunity to make some comments on this matter of urgency raised by Senator McKim. I wish it was that easy that you could just make a couple of changes to the tax code and we would solve the nation's housing problem. The reality is this: when I look at negative gearing and capital gains tax measures and proposals to increase the amount of taxation, I don't see how increasing taxation is going to result in more houses being built. That is the point made by Peter Tulip, who is a former Reserve Bank economist, at the Centre for Independent Studies. He's made the point that playing around with these things would be dangerous and that, if you did it, there would be a very small change to prices, in fact. He says the change to prices would be between one and three per cent. If people look at the information that has been published by the tax office, they will know that 70 per cent of the mums and dads who invest in property, thereby providing supply, own one property. In many cases, these are people on average or median incomes doing frontline service roles. This is what they have decided to do. The idea that the government will disrupt them from providing supply and, indeed, their own investment is, I think, very misguided. As I say, if only it were that easy and we could solve the housing crisis by fiddling around with negative gearing and CGT! I wish it were that easy. The government have now had more than two years, and I would say the central problem with their housing policy is that they are obsessed with what's good for institutions, not what is good for individuals. The last time I looked, the Australian dream was not a dream of big super funds or foreign fund managers; it was a dream of an average worker being able to purchase a house, take on a mortgage and pay the mortgage back. That is what is getting out of the grip of the average worker. The average worker now can't get access to that dream because they can't get a mortgage, and that is something you never hear the government ministers talk about. That is the saddest piece here. The fact is we are stuck with the government, for now, that is only going to make this problem worse, not better, as you will see if you go through their supply policies—the Housing Australia Future Fund and their housing targets, both of which have failed—and then you go to their only demand-side policy, Help to Buy, which just last week was abolished by the state government of New South Wales. You are not going to solve the supply piece or tilt the scales in favour of first home buyers with a Help to Buy program. Minister Farrell talked about this in question time today, and he actually said that he thought Help to Buy was going to help 400,000 families. They should read their own legislation, because the proposed bill would help 40,000 people over the forward estimates. In a country that needs to build more than 1.2 million houses, 40,000 is not a lot of people. So these are tiny and often misguided solutions. The other policy the government have developed during this term is what I call their perpetual renting plan. There's nothing wrong with renting, and we should always look for ways to support renters, but we want to give the Australian people opportunities to buy their own homes. The perpetual renting plan is underpinned by giving tax concessions to foreign fund managers. As Senator Waters pointed out in her contribution, the idea that the Australian taxpayer would be giving a tax concession to foreign fund managers so they can build houses in Australia and then rent them out to people, as if we were serfs, is fundamentally misguided. This is where the Labor Party's housing policy all comes together. On one hand, you've got the Housing Australia Future Fund and the Help to Buy program, all designed to work with the super funds, and then you've got the build-to-rent plan, which is designed to help foreign fund managers. My dream for the short term would be that the government have a housing plan which is about people, not about institutions. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question is that the motion moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [17:02]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

 12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 26 NOES Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Duniam, J. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Nuclear Energy 57 17:05 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 The Senate will now consider the proposal from Senator Duniam. The President has received the following letter, dated 2 July 2024, from Senator Duniam: Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Albanese Government to drop its ideological opposition to nuclear energy and agree with other left of centre political parties across the world, such as UK Labour leader Keir Starmer who describes zero emissions nuclear energy as "critical" to lower household energy bills, create jobs and energy security." Is consideration of the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 With the concurrence of the Senate, the Clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 17:05 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Albanese Government to drop its ideological opposition to nuclear energy and agree with other left of centre political parties across the world, such as UK Labour leader Keir Starmer who describes zero emissions nuclear energy as "critical" to lower household energy bills, create jobs and energy security. The motion, just to remind the chamber, is a very important one about a very important issue, and that is, of course, the intransigence, based on nothing other than ideology, around this energy debate we're having in this nation. Our motion calls on the Albanese Labor government to drop its ideological opposition to nuclear energy in this country and to agree with left-of-centre parties in other countries that are adopting this approach to energy generation for two reasons. The first one is the most important one, which we'll spend most of our time talking about today, and that is the cost of energy. The second one is the Holy Grail that has often been talked about, and that is the pursuit of net zero. Chief amongst those centre-left political parties pursuing nuclear as a form of energy generation that will assist in achieving both of those goals is the UK Labour Party, set to romp it in in the polls not too long from now. To that end, I remind anyone who happens to be unfortunate enough to be caught listening to this debate that 97 times before the last election a promise was made to Australian households that energy prices would drop by $275 per household per year by the year 2025. Since that promise was made, energy prices have gone up, on average across the country, by about $1,000 per household. If you add those two numbers together, we're about $1,275 away from where we should be based on that promise, which rather does put into perspective and paint as very insignificant what the government has done, as opposed to what it promised. So it is a fail on that count, and it's not just a political failure. It is a failure that is hurting Australian households and businesses. The reason we are in this situation is that this government has put all of its eggs in one basket when it comes to energy generation, and that is because it is a pursuit of renewables at the expense of any other form of energy generation. Before we have the howls—or the calls, rather—that we are anti renewables, the fact is that we believe renewables are an important part of the mix—the mix, because renewables, when it comes to wind and solar, are only an intermittent source of energy. It is not baseload. It is not dispatchable. It is not there to flick on with the flick of a switch. It is, unfortunately, something that only operates when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. So this policy approach being taken by this government, to pursue renewables with dispatchable baseload energy generation coming offline—90 per cent of it by the year 2034—is a recipe for disaster. The proof is in the power prices Australian households are paying now and in the blackouts and gas shortages that energy market operators and other experts are predicting will occur. The proof is there. We're behind our target when it comes to emissions reduction, despite this ideological pursuit of an emissions reduction target and transitioning to renewables completely. We're not meeting our promises when it comes to power price reductions, yet we won't change the plan. The government will not change course and will not adopt any different policy when it comes to how we deal with these problems. Why are we being so bloody minded about this? I do not understand. Why do we not say yes to something instead of just saying no? If it's not working, why wouldn't you try something new? And I look forward to hearing whoever the first Labor speaker is in this debate as to what justification there could possibly be to continue doing what isn't working. As I said before, it's got nothing to do with political failure, as embarrassing as that might be—and you will be judged on election day against the promises you made. But the fact is, Australian households are hurting. So, instead of doing anything different, this government is doubling down and ignoring what other leaders, who are going to romp it in across the world, are doing. You only have to listen to what Keir Starmer, the leader of the opposition, the Labour Party, in the UK said. He said, 'My government will lower household energy bills, create jobs and ensure Britain's energy security.' Nuclear is a critical part of the UK's energy mix, and it's a once-in-a-generation opportunity now to seize the jobs of the future. Why this government refuses to heed the call of other labour leaders around the world and adopt a solution that they're currently blindly ruling out is a mystery to me and to all Australians. (Time expired) 17:10 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia Well, what's a mystery to all Australians are the details of the coalition's plan. I spoke on a misconceived urgency motion about this last week and raised questions about the missing details in the coalition's nuclear mud map, and none of those details have been revealed since. What are the type and size of the nuclear reactors to be used? How many reactors will there be at each site? How much radioactive waste will be produced? Where will the waste be stored? How much will it cost? How much time will it take? And will local communities have a real say about whether they have to live next to one of these reactors? Those questions need to be answered urgently, but they have not been. Rather than bringing these vague and performative urgency motions to the Senate, the Liberal Party should urgently work out the details of its policy and urgently reveal these to the Australian people. Months on, they have no detail in their plan. Last time I spoke about the cost of nuclear energy and the Lazard Levelized Cost of Energy analysis, which says that nuclear energy is between three and six times more expensive than renewable options. We could also talk about time. In the absence of the details referred to earlier, it is difficult to know when any Australian nuclear power plant would be able to be brought online. There are estimates being provided, but they are necessarily speculative. In circumstances where Australia has no substantial nuclear power production industry, there are legislative impediments to this plan at a state and federal level. Significantly more expertise in nuclear energy production will be needed, and there is already a shortage of people, materials and expertise around the country. Any estimates currently in the public debate may be quite far wrong. Indeed, there is reason to believe, logically, that this is going to take quite a bit longer. But I want to talk about economic feasibility as well. Again, in the absence of details, it is impossible to be precise. Mr Dutton initially speculated that the plan would use small modular nuclear reactors. There's no detail on what reactors are going to be used, but small modular reactors are not currently in widespread commercial production. Where are the reactors coming from? Although they may have lower up-front capital costs, their economic uncompetitiveness or viability is neither established nor refuted. In the context of either smaller or larger nuclear reactors, how do they work in relation to existing power grids across the country? Just today, Steve Edwell, who is the chair of the Economic Regulation Authority in Western Australia—that's the independent umpire tasked with keeping utility prices down in WA—observed that he struggled to see how nuclear would ever be cost competitive. He also observed that nuclear reactors were not designed to be turned on and turned off to match demand and thus would not work with existing renewables feeding into the Western Australian grid. So while my colleague opposite says this is designed to augment or supplement renewables, that's just not possible in the WA grid. So, there's a kind of furphy going on here. To get nuclear into the grid, the coalition basically has two options. It either puts on hold existing renewable projects and hobbles existing renewable power options that are currently feeding into the grid, or it accepts that it's got nuclear power plants that are going to be severely underutilised, as they are in many of the examples that they and some colleagues opposite cited last week. How do they deal with underutilisation of nuclear power plants? The difficulty there is that, because these will be state owned nuclear power plants that the coalition has to pay for, you're effectively saddling Australia and the Australian taxpayer with uneconomic assets—assets that will become stranded in the short to medium term once they're brought online. Put simply, this government has an alternative that involves commitment to renewable energy and using gas as a firming fuel in the interim. Since coming to office the Albanese government has seen a 25 per cent increase in renewable energy in Australian grids, has greenlit 50 Australian renewables projects which, when completed, will power three million Australian homes, or the equivalent, and continues to invest in battery and storage technology and infrastructure. The other point is: if long duration battery technology comes online, these nuclear power plants will not be economically viable, so either the Australian taxpayer pays through the energy bills or they pay because they've underwritten an uneconomic asset. 17:15 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales It's hard to know whether to laugh or cry when the coalition points to the UK as the example of cheap nuclear power. The Hinkley Point reactors would have to be the global test case for the economic insanity that is nuclear power. I think it's worthwhile remembering that, when the UK first decided to build this nuclear power station at Hinkley, the now former—very former!—CEO of the entity said in 2007 that the Hinckley project would be cooking Christmas turkeys in England by 2017 at a cost of nine billion pounds. Talking about turkeys—and the coalition are obviously keen for a bunch of Australian turkeys—what's the current cost of that same reactor? If you have a look at the current cost, it's coming in at more than A$90 billion—not nine billion pounds, but A$90 billion—and the only turkeys that are being cooked by that Hinkley reactor are the fools in government who thought that that nuclear power station would produce anything like reasonable power. It is extraordinary. Iin fact, it beggars belief that the coalition has had a look at Hinkley and looked at the UK nuclear industry and said, 'We want a bit of that!' You couldn't make this stuff up. Talking about turkeys, whilst the coalition wants us to join the UK nuclear turkey hunt, the Labor government has gone really strangely quiet about their naval nuclear propulsion bill. Do you remember how it was really urgent that we had to get this new naval nuclear propulsion safety bill up? The Labor government suddenly wanted to go hot to trot on naval nuclear reactors. And, whilst the Labor Party jumped out with a bunch of weird memes against the coalition's nuclear strategy—do you remember the three-eyed fish?—maybe Labor was thinking about a three-eyed Port Adelaide kingfish or a three-eyed Fremantle redfish, because that's where Labor wants to put its nuclear reactors. Worse than that, that's where Labor wants to have toxic nuclear waste dumps. They've got legislation in parliament right now to put a toxic nuclear waste dump in Port Adelaide, to put another toxic nuclear waste dump on Garden Island, just off Fremantle. So, when Labor comes in here and says, 'Oh, nuclear is terrible,' they seem to have suddenly forgotten that Labor wants floating nuclear reactors—five or more in Port Adelaide and five or more in Fremantle. Maybe when they're talking about three-eyed fish, they're talking about themselves. 17:18 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland What I really like about nuclear power is that, when you turn it on, it works and it's dispatchable. Compare that to wind power, which, in the last quarter, produced the same amount of energy as it did three years ago, despite the fact that an extra 2,400 gigawatts of capacity has been installed in the system. That extra 2,400 gigawatts of capacity cost billions of dollars to install. And what did we get for that money? Nothing, nada, zip—and that is the problem with unreliables. You don't know if they're going to turn up for work that day. You cannot run a country hoping and praying that the wind's going to blow or the sun's going to shine. When that side of the chamber accuses this side of being Luddites and of not believing in technology, nothing could be further from the truth. I do believe in technology, but I happen to know that if you want to unlock the energy of a molecule, you've got to go high up into the atomic numbers. That's where the real energy is. If you look at the probes that NASA sends out to Mars, they have plutonium batteries that last for years and can send a vehicle into outer space. Imagine the day when we can tap into nuclear power in such a way that we have batteries in our cars or semitrailers that don't have to recharge for years. We may be a long way away from that today, but that is the technology of tomorrow, and that is why we desperately need nuclear technology in this country, because we cannot continue to rely on unreliables. We cannot continue to sink billions of dollars into an energy grid and get nothing for it. Should I mention the words Snowy Hydro? Should I mention the words green hydrogen? You criticise us about a pipedream of building nuclear power plants when there are over 400 already installed around the world and another 60 being built and 110 slated to be built by over 30 countries, including the biggest countries in the world like the USA, France and China. No, no, no—you criticise us for that, but you've got your own pipedreams with some of this green hydrogen stuff that has never worked. The idea that you can somehow export this energy overseas is just a pipedream. The other thing we need to talk about is waste. When I questioned the CSIRO about their costs in terms of building renewables—and I did just that yesterday morning—they couldn't tell me what the capacity factor of a windfarm was. Of course, the capacity factor that they use in their assumptions is 50 per cent. The real capacity factor over the last five years has been 30 per cent. The highest capacity factor of any energy source, as stated by the energy commission in the USA, is actually in nuclear energy, and that's on par with coal. But the CSIRO assume the capacities of those energy sources are only 60 per cent. Why? Because they always give first dibs to the unreliables, solar in particular, in the middle of the day. When people say renewables are cheaper, it may be correct that in the middle of the day it is cheaper to sell solar, because you have to unload 32 terawatts of solar in order to meet the Renewable Energy Target that was set up years ago. So energy companies sell this stuff at a loss throughout the middle of the day, and then the zealots will take that and say, 'Look how cheap it is,' but those losses made through the middle of the day are then recouped by coal at night-time, when coal power stations are running. So what you're actually doing is increasing the costs of energy all around to basically subsidise renewables in the middle of the day. The other beautiful thing about nuclear power is you won't have hundreds of kilometres of transmission lines and you won't have all that toxic sludge from lithium batteries and all the niobium, copper, nickel and everything like that that goes into them—not that there are enough rare metals in the earth to actually build this stuff. Let's get back to reality. Let's look forward for the future and embrace nuclear. (Time expired) 17:23 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales It's always interesting following a contribution of that kind, where there is just so much spitballing of a range of ideas at the wall and no coherence. That's why Australians need to be very careful about what they accept from what those opposite are putting forward. The fact is this simple: renewables are the cheapest source for new-build electricity. That is the reality. We do live in what I would consider the most beautiful country in the world, and we have an incredible asset in terms of our renewable energy, and that makes us quite different from other places. Today I want to make a very clear contribution to awaken Australians to how totally incorrect some of the rhetoric of the opposition leader is with regard to nuclear. Australians are feeling cost-of-living pressures and they are concerned about energy costs. When you're under pressure you cast about for somebody to give you an automatic, quick new solution. It is that fear that Mr Dutton is responding to with incorrect information. I cannot imagine why you would want to mislead the Australian people. Mr Dutton is the leader of the potential alternative government, the Liberal and National parties, and should be telling the truth. To do that he has to get his facts right. Talking about nuclear energy is no small thing. We know that, overall, while the radioactivity falls after the use of nuclear fission to process any form of nuclear energy, overall radioactivity falls below that of natural uranium after about 10,000 years, so this is nothing to muck around with. This is serious, serious technology, so there should be serious, serious truth telling. The truth is that there are two main types of nuclear plants. Some of them are in existence; they're the large-scale ones. Then there's these other ones that don't even exist in operation yet. They are the ones that we keep hearing about from those who think that nuclear is our solution in 20 years. Small modular nuclear reactors don't even exist, though there's some information you can get about them if you're interested. You can go to the Rolls-Royce website and it'll tell you about their plans for what they are developing. But they don't yet exist. To pretend that this can be put into the grid and that there'll be some immediate change to the cost of electricity is not only a lie, it's grossly misrepresenting the hope that Australians should have about a proper and sophisticated debate on this matter. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, has held a Coke can in his life many times, and he's decided to put into the public record his version of reality, where he says that the waste per annum from one of these small modular reactors—remember that they don't exist yet—will be one Coke can. Well, he's got his number very, very wrong because if you go to this document from Rolls-Royce, they describe very clearly that the technology they're producing generates about 285 cubic metres of spent nuclear fuel in the course of its 60-year life. If you split 285 cubic metres across 60 years you get 4.75 cubic metres per year—not just a centimetre, not just a square centimetre and not just a cubic centimetre. If we go from centimetres, which are tiny units, to what we're talking about, which is cubic metres—not a normal flat metre, not a square metre, cubic metres, which are like big blocks of concrete to stop cars proceeding. The reality is that on five occasions Mr Dutton has told the Australian people that a small modular reactor will produce one can of Coke of waste. The reality is that he's 12,499 cans of Coke out in his calculations. You cannot trust a word that he says on this nuclear debate if he gets those basic facts wrong. Do not trust Mr Dutton. He is a master of deception. (Time expired.) 17:29 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Despite the coalition claiming nuclear energy is in the national interest, nothing about it is in the national interest. It might be in the Nationals' interest, but the risk, costs and waste are certainly not in the interests of future generations nor are they in the interests of my people. First Peoples in this country have a long history of continuous resistance against nuclear proposals of all kinds, including 30 years of successfully fighting against proposed nuclear waste dumps. In two weeks time it will be the 20th anniversary of the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta's win against the federal government's trying to put a nuclear waste dump at Coober Pedy in South Australia, with Coober Pedy in 2000 being declared a nuclear-free zone. Billa Kalina in South Australia, Muckaty in the NT, and Woomera, Yappala and Kimba, all in South Australia, were targeted for nuclear waste dumps. Isn't it strange that it was First Nations communities there were being targeted every time? Just put it in the blackfellas' backyard—which is the whole country, mind you. Yet we fought back successfully every time. On 18 July it will be the one-year anniversary of the Federal Court determination that the former federal resources minister Keith Pitt was way out of step when he used ministerial powers to declare Kimba as the site for a federal nuclear waste dump. Just as the former coalition government was out of order on nuclear then, they are certainly out of order on nuclear power now. It is time governments upheld First Peoples' rights in this country, including self-determination and free, prior and informed consent, because you have no consent for nuclear waste or reactors ever on these lands. It is stolen anyway. 17:31 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales What we're getting into today is this massive thing around nuclear, but what we need to get down to are basic facts. What Australia needs is an energy mix. It needs to not have all its eggs in one basket, because we all know how that can go. Senator Ayres 16913 Cost it, man! Just cost it. Senator CADELL 300134 We heard the previous speaker talking about 2,400 gigawatts of power coming on with new wind in the last two years and not a single bit over what we were doing two years ago actually going into the grid in the last month, because they are transient, they are flexible and they do not always deliver what they should. In fact, the best rate of plate capability to actual delivery of power comes from one windfarm in Australia that delivers 43 per cent of what its plate rate says, not the actual rate that it says, because that is what it does. Up my way we have the Tomago aluminium smelter, which currently uses 950 gigawatts of actual, firmed power. They're in the market for renewables, because that's what they have to do to meet so many of these compliance things. They're after three gigawatts, which is more than three times the plate rate of power, because it is no longer dispatchable; it is no longer firmed. This is where nuclear comes in. If we're going down this path of emission-free power—let's get down to it—under this government's policy, what we're going to see is coal plants going longer. We'll see more emissions from older and older coal plants as they stretch them out, like the Labor government did in New South Wales. Senator CADELL 300134 We'll see gas peaking plants needing to be built to fix this gap, because they won't be getting to the 82 per cent goal by 2030. They're going to be nowhere near it, let's be honest, because they're playing with unicorn technology. They're talking about floating offshore wind. Let's go there. They want to talk about things that don't exist. Show me a floating offshore substation anywhere in the world. I know those on the other side cannot show me, because it does not exist. Senator CADELL 300134 The only floating offshore wind in the world is 11 floating turbines from Hywind and five that are powering gas and petrol extraction plants off the coast of Norway. How long did they last? Let's go back to that. They're being pulled out after seven years of operation. That is the length of energy security. They are coming in for long-term maintenance after seven years. That is what renewables gets you. It gets you a short-term, non-commercial rate of return. So what do we want to do? We want to put 300 of these off the Port Stephens coast. We want to put 300 of these off the Illawarra coast. We want to put them around. So, if these things don't work, what do we do? We go to the only non-emission— Senator Ayres 16913 You're worse than Barnaby! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Senator Cadell, please be seated. Senator Ayres, it was very quiet in here before you came in. If you could, please allow the speaker to continue to speak. Senator Cadell, you'll be heard in silence. Senator CADELL 300134 Thank you for your protection from those opposite. Here we go. So we have nuclear as the only emission-free firmed power that can do this. It has to be in the mix because, of all of the countries in the world, none has a plan to get to zero emissions on wind and solar alone. They don't, because they can't do it. I'm standing here ready to take an interjection as to what country has. A government senator interjecting— Senator CADELL 300134 Oh: now we hear gas coming in. But we're going to hear about coal. We're hearing more and more. We're not talking renewables under this. Gas has emissions. We're hearing from Labor now, with that interjection, that their plan will have emissions if they're relying on gas for that firming. That is what they're saying. I'm happy for gas; I'm happy for coal. Senator Hughes 273828 Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: it was very easy to hear every other speaker, prior to the entry of Senator Ayres into the chamber. I just wonder if he might lower his tone so I can hear Senator Cadell. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Thank you for reminding Senator Ayres of the point that I'd already made as Acting Deputy President here. Senator Cadell, you will be heard in silence. Senator CADELL 300134 So, we get down here. Nuclear has to be part of the mix. Nuclear can give you power when you turn the switch on. Nuclear can always be there. If we're going down this hydrogen path for vehicles—and I think we will be using hydrogen—it doesn't have to be green hydrogen; it can be hydrogen that comes from nuclear power plants when they're always running. And you can have your Hyundai N74 car. We can have trains running on these things. You have to have power that is firm, that is real, that is dispatchable, that is ready for industry. You have to have it always there. And battery technology is not evolving. We've just heard from those opposite, with an interjection, that their plan knows they can't get to a zero-emissions energy grid; they need gas. That was their admission. They're going to have to sweat coal. So, nuclear is the answer here. When you're talking about the AP1000, there are nine of them being built. There are six in existence. And those energy technology powerhouses like Bangladesh can do it. Bangladesh has us covered in the technological area when it comes to nuclear. These are the things we're talking about. These people don't believe in nuclear, because they don't believe in Australia. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion moved by Senator Duniam be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [17:41]
(The President—Senator Lines)

26 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 31 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 PETITIONS 62 PETITIONS Duggan, Mr Daniel 62 17:43 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales by leave—I present a non-conforming petition signed by some 24,720 Australian citizens seeking the release of Australian citizen Dan Duggan, and I table the petition. DOCUMENTS 62 DOCUMENTS Consideration 62 COMMITTEES 63 COMMITTEES Economics Legislation Committee 63 Additional Information 63 17:44 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the chair of the Economics Legislation Committee, Senator Walsh, I present additional information received by the committee as shown at item 14 on today's Order of Business. BUDGET 63 BUDGET Consideration by Estimates Committees 63 17:44 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania At the request of the chairs of the respective legislation committees, I present reports in respect of the 2024-25 budget estimates. COMMITTEES 63 COMMITTEES Public Works Joint Committee 63 Report 63 17:44 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the committee's fifth report of 2024. BUDGET 63 BUDGET Consideration by Estimates Committees 63 17:44 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania In respect of the budget estimates report of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I will speak on the report very briefly, particularly in relation to cross-portfolio Indigenous estimates, which occur as a part of the Finance and Administration Legislation Committee's work, at the tail end of the finance and administration estimates. The coalition has taken the slightly unusual step of filing additional comments to the committee's report. We support the broader report of the committee but, in respect of the time that's allocated by the Senate for consideration of Indigenous cross-portfolio matters, what's become apparent in conducting those hearings over the period of this parliament is that we clearly don't have sufficient time to adequately support conduct of estimates in relation to those matters. This government has said that Indigenous matters are a major focus for it. It has gone from promising almost everything to Indigenous Australians to delivering effectively no change, and we genuinely do need to do justice to reviewing the expenditure of government in relation to cross-portfolio Indigenous matters. We've had to conduct spillovers, but in particular we've had to truncate our efforts in interrogating the matters that relate to cross-portfolio Indigenous matters So, in that sense, what the coalition has recommended in its additional comments to the report is that additional time be allocated for the consideration of cross-portfolio Indigenous matters at both additional and supplementary estimates and also budget estimates so that we can actually do justice to this very important element of government policy and do what we can collectively, as a parliament and as a chamber, towards improving the outcomes that we all seek for Indigenous Australians. So the recommendation from the coalition senators in the report calls for the equivalent of two 9 am to 5 pm days for additional estimates and supplementary estimates hearings and, for budget estimates, for two full estimates days—that is, 9 am to 11 pm—so we can actually do what we should be doing: properly scrutinising the expenditure and supporting the reform and improvement of the circumstances of Indigenous Australians. This is something that coalition senators have been considering for a period of time. There have been conversations, I can say, within the committee about the time that we've allocated. But what we've done at this point in time is to take the initiative to make the recommendation, and I trust that the Senate will consider that recommendation seriously so that we can appropriately deal with the issues that we want to deal with—that we need to deal with—to improve circumstances for Indigenous Australians in Australia. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 63 DOCUMENTS Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 63 17:49 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia by leave—I move: That the Senate take note of the document. This 19th biennial report is full of lots of facts and figures, some of which cause some hope and some of which continue to be very, very discouraging. I am someone that's worked within government policy, in NGOs in the community and even in research at the local university in Western Australia, and we constantly refer to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's statistical data to guide and reaffirm some of our policy positions. Although there have been some improvements in health and social indicators for First Nations people, the so-called health gap continues to narrow slowly. We know that there are only four of the 19 Closing the Gap targets that are on track, that a couple of them are in fact going backwards—really critical targets—and that we can contribute more too. The disparity is very clear in this report, and it remains the fact that most of the measured health outcomes for First Nations people show that the health gap that's represented through the statistics continues to be glaringly obvious. My contribution is: are we measuring this all wrong? We are putting statistical data for First Nations people up against data for non-Indigenous people who have different factors, which, in fact, have a significant impact on their health gap and their wellbeing. One of the things that jumped out at me from this report is that 35 per cent of the gap comes down to the social determinants of health such as education and employment; 30 per cent was due to the difference in the health factors; and 35 per cent is probably due to the factors for which the data is not available, such as discrimination and the difference in access to health services. The thing that I know from working in frontline health services, particularly in public health, is that access to health services, education and discrimination cannot and should not be off the government's agenda in relation to closing the gap. What I haven't seen is how we've shifted the dial on that. In all these years, we continue to do things in a vacuum. This report concludes: 'If First Nations adult had the same average equivalised household income, average employment rate and hours worked and the same average smoking rate as non-Indigenous adults, the health gap would be reduced by more than one-third.' Isn't that a perfect world! But we don't live in a perfect world; we live in a world where there are 65,000 years of history and culture, and people who are being denied access to their rights in this country. It's having a detrimental impact on their wellbeing through the intergenerational trauma. We don't measure the resilience of our communities, we don't measure the strength of First Nations communities, and we certainly don't look at the social infrastructure that actually exists in some of those communities. It's striking that one-third of the gap would be reduced in relation to the health disparity that currently exists. Everything that we do in this place to address discrimination and bring economic justice for First Nations people will actually save lives: having access to country, having access to caring for country, having justice responses that don't involve the criminal justice system and, in fact, involve restorative justice, and making sure that we are looking after our children, our women, our men and our old people are important in how we are going to shift the dial on this. I urge the government to use this piece of statistical data against the Productivity Commission's report on Closing the Gap to show that we can and should do better. I posed the question at the last Senate estimates directly to the Productivity Commission: should we be looking at how we are measuring those targets and, more so, at how we are evaluating alongside the community? I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 64 DOCUMENTS Cashless Debit Card 64 Order for the Production of Documents 64 17:55 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I table documents relating to the order for the production of documents concerning the Cashless Debit Card. BILLS 64 BILLS Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024, Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024 64

Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024

Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024

First Reading 64 17:56 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Pursuant to order agreed to on 27 June 2024, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024 will now be divided into two bills: the Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Build to Rent) Bill 2024. Pursuant to standing order 115(3), further consideration of the Treasury Laws Amendment (Responsible Buy Now Pay Later and Other Measures) Bill 2024 will be an order of the day for 2 August 2024. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Build to Rent) Bill 2024 stands referred to the Economics Legislation Committee. Further consideration of that bill and the Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024 will be an order of the day for 4 September 2024. Creative Australia Amendment (Implementation of Revive) Bill 2024, Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024 65

Creative Australia Amendment (Implementation of Revive) Bill 2024

Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024

First Reading 65 17:58 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 65 17:59 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— CREATIVE AUSTRALIA AMENDMENT (IMPLEMENTATION OF REVIVE) BILL 2024 Last year, under the Creative Australia Act 2023, Creative Australia was established as a modernised and expanded entity; a one-stop shop for arts investment, research and sector support at arms-length from the government. Two new parts of Creative Australia—Creative Workplaces and Music Australia—were also established to support Australian artists, arts workers and organisations. Through its activities to date, Creative Workplaces is fostering positive collaboration between government, industry and the community; and is establishing itself as a central resource for promoting fair, safe and respectful workplaces within the sector. Music Australia has provided direct support to the music industry through initiatives such as providing funding for 32 contemporary music projects as well as 33 international music projects. The purpose of this Bill is to make the final amendments to Creative Australia which were announced in the Government's cultural policy Revive. Having established Creative Workplaces and Music Australia, this Bill establishes First Nations Arts and Writing Australia within Creative Australia. Creative Workplaces and Music Australia started in August last year. First Nations Arts will start as soon as possible after the first of July this year following the passage of this legislation. Writing Australia will start on the first of July next year. The phased approach to implementation has allowed for a period of thorough, genuine consultation with both sectors. First Nations Arts Extensive consultations were led by Creative Australia were held with First Nations communities in 2023 and the beginning of 2024 and self-determined decision making was seen as a priority. First Nations Arts will be established as a new part of Creative Australia, with specified responsibilities including supporting and promoting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander arts practice. This Bill will also establish the First Nations Board which, exercising a number of functions, will oversee the work of First Nations Arts. The Board will consist of two Co-Chairs and eight other appointed members with relevant skills and experience. All Board members will be Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander peoples and the Board will have autonomy over the allocation of funds for investment in First Nations arts. While the Australia Council Board will have oversight of, and may give direction to, the First Nations Arts Board, it cannot give directions to the Board in relation to the making of a decision, in a particular case, relating to the provision of financial assistance. The Australian Government is committed to recognising and respecting the crucial place of First Nations stories at the centre of Australia's arts and culture. Consistent with this, it is intended that the legislation will enhance opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists, arts workers and organisations with funding decisions determined by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. It will include funding for arts projects, developed and delivered by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander artists, performers and companies within the prism of best practice cultural protocols and principles. As part of this commitment, First Nations Arts will look towards a future with more sustainable career pathways for the arts to thrive, it will develop a First nations Creative Workforce Development Strategy, to not only enter the arts and cultural sector, but to thrive in a sustainable career with enhanced professional and personal development opportunities. None of this diminishes the general responsibility of Creative Australia to be supporting the telling of all Australian stories, including First Nations stories. Writing Australia The Government also recognises the importance of telling Australian stories through literature, while noting that our national reading rates are currently falling. Much like the music sector, new technologies are disrupting the landscape for writers and modern approaches to supporting careers in literature need to be found. Writing Australia, to be established as a new part of Creative Australia through passage of this Bill, will support and promote the Australian literature sector. The Writing Australia Council, chaired by the Chief Executive Officer of Creative Australia, will have eight appointed members with appropriate qualifications, knowledge, skills or experience to oversee the important work of Writing Australia. It is the Government's intention that Writing Australia will become a hub for the sector, to build expertise and partnerships, to support writers and publishers. The Writing Australia Council will support this work and provide informed advice to the Australia Council Board about the responsibilities of Writing Australia. Conclusion This Bill continues the work begun by the Creative Australia Act 2023, which established Creative Workplaces and Music Australia, by establishing a further two new bodies: First Nations Arts and Writing Australia. This is in line with the Government's priorities, which are set out in Revive. In addition, the Bill also amends the Creative Australia Act 2023 by allowing the Chief Executive Officer to delegate the roles of Chair of the Music Australia Council and the Writing Australia Council to a senior officer of Creative Australia or an Australia Council Board member. This Bill marks the completion of legislative changes to Creative Australia to enable the delivery of commitments under Revive. It is consistent with the Government's strong commitment to our First Nations art and arts workers and to ensuring our Literature sector is world class and sustainable. DEFENCE AMENDMENT (PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON DEFENCE) BILL 2024 I am pleased to present the Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2024. The Albanese Government is committed to transparency and accountability. In a Westminster style democracy such as ours, the Parliament plays a crucial role in providing this by scrutinising and debating the decisions of the Executive Government and the implementation of them by departments and agencies. This scrutiny is important in ensuring the best decision-making, the most efficient and prudent use of taxpayer funds, along with a more informed Parliament and, by extension, public. The Senate Estimates process has provided useful and necessary scrutiny of Defence—particularly major capability projects—over the years, and it will continue to do so following the establishment of the PJCD. But in the challenging and complex strategic circumstances we find ourselves in, it's necessary to ensure the Parliament can also examine these projects and Australia's defence strategy in greater detail and in a classified setting, with the appropriate safeguards in place. This Bill addresses that gap, injecting greater parliamentary transparency, accountability and oversight of the Defence portfolio by establishing a Parliamentary Joint Statutory Committee on Defence, or PJCD. The establishment of the PJCD implements a recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's Inquiry into international armed conflict decision-making, following a referral from the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence. The Inquiry was initiated to deliver a commitment in the Australian Labor Party's National Platform. The Government acknowledges and thanks the Chair of the Inquiry, the Member for Bruce for his tireless work on the Inquiry and in helping bring the PJCD into existence. This is not the first time a committee recommended the establishment of a statutory committee dedicated to Defence, but it is the first time a government has taken it up. The PJCD is modelled on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. It will supersede and enhance the Defence related functions currently undertaken by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. The PJCD will be able to receive and consider classified information in carrying out its oversight functions, ensuring it has the information it needs to conduct effective scrutiny of Defence and its portfolio agencies, and strengthening government decision-making on defence and strategic policy. Importantly, the Bill establishes appropriate safeguards that balance the Government's commitment to greater public accountability and transparency for Defence, and the necessary protection of information provided to the PJCD to ensure Australia's national security, and that of our international partners, is protected. The PJCD will have oversight of the Australian Defence Force, the Department of Defence, the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and certain Defence portfolio agencies, including the Australian Submarine Agency, Defence Housing Australia and the Australian War Memorial. The Bill sets out its functions, including: considering publicly released documents dealing with Australian defence strategies, planning and contingencies, such as the biennial National Defence Strategy; scrutinising Australia's defence capability development, acquisitions and sustainment, including the Integrated Investment Program; examining and being appraised of war or warlike operations and ongoing conflicts, in the event of a decision by the Executive to enter into armed conflict, and; monitoring the involvement of Australian defence agencies in significant non- conflict operations domestically and internationally. The Committee can receive referrals on matters from Ministers and either House of Parliament. It can also inquire into any matter it might determine relevant to its oversight functions on its own initiative. In recognition of the significance of establishing a Royal Commission, the Committee will be responsible for monitoring and reviewing on an ongoing basis the Australian Government's response to the findings of any Royal Commission inquiries relating to Defence. To ensure the independent regulators in the Defence portfolio are able to fulfil their statutory functions, the Committee will also consider the operations, resources, independence and performance of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force, and, once established, the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Regulator. This is modelled on the relationship between the Australian National Audit Office and the Joint Statutory Committee on Public Accounts and Audit in the Public Accounts and Audit Committee Act 1951. The Committee is not able to direct the regulators, nor review their activities or investigations, in carrying out this function. The new Committee's functions will not extend to matters that fall within the purview of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security within the Intelligence Services Act 2001. This includes oversight of the Australian Signals Directorate, the Australian Geospatial-Intelligence Organisation and the Defence Intelligence Organisation, which will continue to report to the PJCIS. The existing arrangements for Defence oversight by the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, including the examination of legislation and of the Defence budget through the Senate Estimates process, remain unchanged. Similarly, the establishment of the PJCD doesn't prohibit other Committees, such as the Joint Statutory Committee on Public Accounts and Audit, from examining Defence matters as part of its functions. Instead the PJCD will complement these existing arrangements by scrutinising matters such as the Integrated Investment Program in a classified setting. As with the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, the Prime Minister, in consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, will appoint up to 13 members to the Committee, comprised of no more than seven Government and six non- Government members from both Houses of Parliament. The arrangements for information handling are closely modelled on those that apply to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. Committee proceedings will be conducted in a private and appropriately secure setting, unless the Minister has authorised public hearings, with the exception of the Committee's consideration of the annual reports of defence agencies. The Committee will be able to request and receive classified information and briefings in order to perform its functions. For certain categories of protected information- for example, specific information about highly sensitive military capabilities, tactics, techniques or procedures- the Minister would need to authorise the production of the information to the Committee. The Minister would also need to authorise any subsequent disclosure by the Committee of that information, including in reports to the Parliament. If necessary, to prevent a witness from disclosing operationally sensitive or other protected information, the Minister can issue a certificate to prevent the provision of such evidence or documents. Given the protections in place to facilitate the provision of information to the Committee, it is not intended that these powers be used as a routine matter of course. Rather, the intent is that they are used in rare circumstances to protect the most sensitive information and capabilities, of which disclosure to the Committee would cause significant harm. This Bill sets out a range of criminal offences intended to deter members of the Committee, their staff, staff of the Committee, and other persons who receive protected information in connection with the performance of the Committee's functions, from disclosing or publishing information without specific authorisation from the relevant Minister. There are also offences to ensure the protection of witnesses requested to give evidence or documents to the Committee. The offences and penalties in the Bill are reasonable, necessary, and proportionate, ensuring the Committee can obtain the information necessary to apply proper scrutiny and oversight to the Defence portfolio, while helping to ensure the protection of this information. Where relevant, the offences are consistent with principles set out in the Review of Secrecy Provisions conducted by the Attorney-General's Department in 2023, and the Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences. This Bill and the establishment of the PJCD represents an important step forward in Parliamentary accountability and transparency for Defence, and I commend the Bill. Debate adjourned. Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day. Communications Legislation Amendment (Regional Broadcasting Continuity) Bill 2024 68

Communications Legislation Amendment (Regional Broadcasting Continuity) Bill 2024

First Reading 68 17:59 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 68 17:59 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— The Communications Legislation Amendment (Regional Broadcasting Continuity) Bill 2024 will amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the Radiocommunications Act 1992 to support continued access to television broadcasting services in remote and regional Australia. The Albanese Government is committed to ensuring that all Australians have equitable access to media services and content, regardless of financial means or location. This includes through access to quality television broadcasting services. Free-to-air broadcasting services keep Australians informed through news and current affairs and support the effective operation of our democratic institutions. They tell Australian stories with the creative sector, and provide a trusted source of entertainment for all Australians, including children. However, the sector faces significant headwinds, and these are most acute in remote and remote Australia. Operating in these markets has always been difficult, but the pressures have risen with the fragmentation of the advertising market and the growth of online services. Commercial broadcasters are having to make some very hard decisions. In May 2024, the Board of Mildura Digital Television—a commercial broadcasting licensee that provides Network Ten content to residents in Mildura—decided to cease operations from 1 July. This is a disappointing commercial decision that will leave audiences in Mildura without access to Network Ten content via broadcasting services. Audiences with an internet connection and internet-connected device will be able to access Ten content via the 10 Play app. While this is ultimately a commercial matter for the Board of Mildura Digital Television (and its shareholders Seven Network and WIN Television), the Government will act to enable residents in Mildura to access Network Ten content via broadcasting. Part 1 of the Bill will make amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act to ensure that viewers in Mildura will have the option of accessing the commercial television broadcasting services provided via the Government-funded Viewer Access Satellite Television—or VAST—service, should they choose to do so. The VAST service operates as a safety net, providing access to free-to-air commercial television broadcasting services for viewers in remote areas and those in other areas who cannot receive an adequate terrestrial signal for digital television services in the area in which they live. There are existing provisions in the Broadcasting Services Act that enable the Australian Communications and Media Authority to declare an area to be 'service-deficient' and therefore enable viewers in the affected area to get access to VAST. However, these provisions are out of date and not operating as intended. This means that in Mildura, viewers will not be entitled to access VAST, even though a commercial television network (Mildura Digital Television) will cease to provide services from 1 July. This is a perverse outcome that is not consistent with the intent of the service-deficiency provisions or the role of the VAST service as a safety net for access to free-to-air television broadcasting services. The Bill will address this anomaly by amending section 130ZH to enable the Australian Communications and Media Authority to declare an area to be service-deficient where there has been a material reduction in the reduction in the number of commercial television broadcasting services provided terrestrially in a given area. Audiences that wish to continue to watch Network Ten content via broadcast television in Mildura will be able to do so as a result of these changes if and when a service-deficiency declaration is made by the Authority. By expanding access to VAST, the Bill will ensure that viewers may have the opportunity to access VAST, should they wish to do so, in the circumstance where a commercial television network is no longer provided terrestrially in the relevant area. Notwithstanding the challenges they are facing, remote and regional broadcasters are responding by finding new and innovative ways to provide their services. In April 2024, WIN Television 'consolidated' the broadcasting services it provides under the authority of two commercial television broadcasting licences onto a single set of transmitters in the South Australian licence areas of Mount Gambier/South East TV1 and Riverland TV1. This is a positive development for industry and consumers. It would enable WIN to reduce the costs of its transmission network by operating fewer transmitters. Audiences in these markets would continue to receive the same suite of services, broadcast to the same areas. Over time, the use of a more efficient compression technique as part of this new arrangement would provide the opportunity for WIN Television to enhance the range and quality of services provided, while using less spectrum. Despite these benefits, the current licensing framework is inflexible and doesn't permit this type of innovation. There is currently a strict requirement that a broadcaster must hold a single transmitter licence that authorises the provision of the service or services of a single broadcasting licence. While this 'one-to-one' relationship remains appropriate in many cases, it unlikely to be compatible with the transmission consolidation arrangement being pursued by some regional commercial television broadcasters. This creates a number of anomalous and unintended outcomes, potentially placing the broadcaster in breach of specific licence conditions and other regulatory obligations under the BSA, while also distorting the intended application of other provisions. This is despite the fact that the number of services being provided under new consolidated transmission arrangements is the same as those previously provided. The Bill will address these issues by inserting a new section 102AE into the Radiocommunications Act, and making a range of related amendments to support its operation. This section will allow the Australian Communications and Media Authority to declare that a specified transmitter licence is taken to authorise the operation of one or more radiocommunications transmitters for transmitting the services authorised under two or more broadcasting licences. The Bill will also make related reforms to allow the Authority to make rules to set the scope and application of this process, and to allow it to implement changes to Television Licence Area Plans that are consistent with consolidation declarations. Conclusion The Communications Legislation Amendment (Regional Broadcasting Continuity) Bill 2024 reflects the Albanese Government's commitment to the provision of high-quality broadcasting services across Australia. The Bill responds the developments in regional and remote television markets and supports audience access to commercial television broadcasting services. The Bill does so directly, by expanding access to VAST, and indirectly, by enabling broadcasters to operate more efficiently in terms of the transmission of their services. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 69 COMMITTEES Economics References Committee 69 Reference 69 18:00 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I move: That the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation GenCost 2023-24 report be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 10 October 2024, to explore assumptions and costings made in the report, including but not limited to: a. asset lifecycles; b. capacity factors; c. energy type costings; d. financing costs; e. fuel costs; f. augmentation requirements of transmission systems; g. data standards techniques; and h. other related matters. This motion and this potential inquiry present a very genuine and specific test for the government. The GenCost report prepared by our revered organisation the CSIRO is being used extensively as part of the government's rationale in relation to its overall energy plan and, of course, has implications for the work that the opposition is doing in presenting its alternative plan. There are a number of pieces of commentary, and I have taken the opportunity to read a number of those, particularly the assumptions that are made in the GenCost report and the impact that those assumptions and those costings have on the broader debate. I think it's quite reasonable that, given the weight that this document is being provided in the current national debate in respect of where we go in the balance in our energy system, the Senate Economics References Committee has the opportunity to consider and test a number of those assumptions and costings. We know that the GenCost report is not science, as has been touted, but a statistical data-gathering exercise and financial modelling. There is nothing wrong with that. There is no criticism in that. But, as a part of that process, there are assumptions that are made. Some of those assumptions have been questioned by experts in the energy field. This is an opportunity for this place to ask those experts to come forward and put their rationale for the reasons that they might question the assumptions that are in the GenCost report and then test those with the CSIRO. The one thing that we do want—and I don't think that any of us could dispute it—is to provide to the Australian community the most reliable and low-cost energy mix and system that we can possibly achieve. This is about a system. It is about the energy mix that is delivered to the Australian people. So I think it's more than reasonable that some of the assumptions that are made by the GenCost report are appropriately tested. If the questions that are asked by that process mean that we end up with a better report next year, good on them. For example, with respect to nuclear—and I'm not just going to talk about nuclear in this discussion because GenCost covers a range of energy types—the GenCost report includes financing costs for small modular reactors but does not include them for renewables. Yet GenCost report purports to calculate the cost of different energy technologies from the perspective of an investor. GenCost also only uses one data point to price SMRs, and in doing so has chosen a project by a start-up that's fallen over due to cost. It doesn't cost other elements in relation to nuclear either. GenCost assumes coal and gas plants built in 2023 will always face Ukraine War induced fuel price spikes. We know that's not going to be the case. We know there are debates and argument over the volume of gas available in the market. The coalition has been arguing that there should be more gas in the market—and I think the government has finally coming to that realisation—because supply and demand are impacting on price and cost. There needs to be the appropriate supply of gas in the market to ensure that we have an effective, reliable and cost-effective electricity system. The government talks about it's Made in Australia campaign, but none of that will happen unless we have affordable, globally competitive energy prices. It just won't happen. I recall looking at global energy prices back in 2004, and we had the third or fourth cheapest energy prices in the world. We now have some of the highest. When we look at why our energy companies aren't competitive, there is a prime reason. All of us should be doing what we can to ensure that our energy system is as reliable and cost-effective as possible because it's not productive to have large industry having to shut down because there's not enough energy in the system. It's just not viable to do that. An investment won't come here if that's the problem. We just cannot be putting ourselves in the situation where our energy system isn't reliable for industry or they won't invest. One of the other things that GenCost doesn't do—and this goes to the point I make around total system costs—is that the CSIRO has confirmed they do not factor in augmentation of the distribution system to accommodate widespread rooftop solar and behind-the-metre storage. Australia has the highest concentration of rooftop solar in the world, but there is a cost for putting that energy back into the system. While we're using GenCost and the assumptions made in that to cost our system and as the core of our argument, it may be that we are better to move to a systems based costing mechanism for our discussion around energy. That's not where we're at right now. Where we are out right now is that the CSIRO's GenCost report forms the centrepiece of our energy system. There have been a number of conversations, and I think for a period of time nuclear wasn't considered as part of GenCost because it wasn't mature or tested or—particularly SMRs—available technology. But if we look at where we sit with, for example, hydrogen—and we've had the Prime Minister and the Minister for Climate Change and Energy out there saying that coal-fired power stations could be replaced with hydrogen-fuelled power stations—that technology is nowhere near where it needs to be for intense industrial energy utilisation. There's no-one in Australia producing hydrogen for less than $10 a kilogram right now. It needs to be $2 to be competitive. Either we have to develop the technology to get the price down to $2 a kilogram or we're being told that the price of generating energy has to increase to the extent where $10, or perhaps $7 or $8, becomes competitive. That's taking things in exactly the opposite direction to where we want them to go. We want the most reliable and cost-effective energy system that we can possibly have, and I think it's quite reasonable that we, as a parliament, test the assumptions and the costings that have been included by CSIRO in their GenCost report. A number of them are openly disputed, including even using the levelised cost of electricity as a mechanism within the report. As I said before, there are some economists out there who say that we should be costing what we're doing on a system cost basis rather than on individual elements of the system. Quite frankly, an overall system cost would be much better, because it would take into account the actual variations, fluctuations and demands of the overall system to make it operate in a way that we think should be appropriate. I think whether the government is prepared to support this reference or not is a test for them. Are they up for a genuine debate in respect of the energy future of this country, or are they stuck in their own paradigm where they just trot out the memes, yell at us across the chamber and make extraordinary claims about what might happen with the utilisation of nuclear energy? Are they prepared to participate with the rest of the chamber in a rational debate in looking at this report, what it contains and the information it provides to the Australian people? I was really disappointed when the CSIRO refused to engage with shadow minister Ted O'Brien in relation to some of the assumptions in the report. I feel it would have been a mature thing for them to receive his request, consider it, engage in a conversation and perhaps even provide a rationale as to why they'd chosen the assumptions that they made. Instead, they just said no. I think that's disappointing. This report is being presented to us as science. Genuine science and scientists are very happy to engage in that sort of exchange, because that's how the science improves: a question gets asked, an assumption is challenged, the challenge is explored, and the science progresses. But that's not the way that we've been treated as part of this debate. We're told: 'This is the document. This is it.' I think it would behove everyone if a much more mature discussion could be held, and I'm proposing that this is the vehicle to do it. 18:14 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The government does not support this motion. This motion is another blatant attempt by the Liberal and National parties to politicise science and reignite the climate wars. We do not believe a committee of politicians is better placed than experts from Australia's independent national science agency to form a view on scientific conclusions. There have been several opportunities at Senate estimates for senators to examine the GenCost report and ask questions of the CSIRO. We believe that is the most appropriate forum in which to consider this important piece of work. 18:15 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I am glad the minister made that last comment, because as somebody with a background in science and a qualification in science, and as a former experimental test pilot in the military—in fact, having commanded Australia's flight test centre and worked in a systems engineering environment where we were very much based on facts, data and engineering, but with a good dose of modelling in there as well—I'm actually very familiar with the sort of approach that the CSIRO has taken. As the minister indicated, we do have things like Senate estimates, and I did take the opportunity to go to Senate estimates to speak to the CSIRO about the GenCost report. It may come as a surprise to the minister that, when I asked the head of the CSIRO to speak about the GenCost report, having made it clear to the committee that I intended to appear at those estimates hearings to ask about the GenCost report—therefore, the expectation is that the agencies that are being quizzed will bring the appropriate officials in order to be able to answer detailed questions at estimates—I was told that the appropriate officials were not there, and the only responses that I got to some reasonably detailed questions were very generic. So, contrary to what the minister has indicated, estimates actually proved completely useless in terms of interrogating the CSIRO over the GenCost report. I can't speak to the motivation of CSIRO in not bringing those officials, but what it meant was that members of the Senate, on behalf of the taxpayers of Australia, were not able to scrutinise them in any detail. If we took the minister's contention that he just outlined then and applied it more broadly, there would be no point in having committees of the parliament at all. In matters to do with health, for example, we might ask the AMA to draft our policy and scrutinise it. In matters to do with defence, we would rely on the defence department and perhaps defence industry, and there would be no point in having any scrutiny on behalf of the Australian taxpayer. Yet the minister knows full well, because he has been a member of committees in this place, that the whole function of committees and the Senate committee process—getting a range of witnesses who are stakeholders affected by policy or who are subject matter experts who understand the technical details, whether in health, in economics or in defence; you name it—is so that we can unpack and understand what is behind a policy or a piece of evidence. The last point I'll make on this, since the minister has so kindly given me this introductory runway to approach this issue, relates to the 2019 House of Representatives inquiry into the possibility of a nuclear power industry. This is going back to the 2018 GenCost report. I will look at the Hansard records from that, from Wednesday 16 October 2019. I respect the CSIRO, as somebody who has a science degree; I respect the whole discipline of science, which is observation, measurement and proof. But when the CSIRO were quizzed in this parliamentary inquiry about the GenCost report—and I'll paraphrase here, but those of you who would like to read it can pull up the Hansard from Wednesday 16 October 2019 for the House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment and Energy—essentially the narrative went like this: CSIRO said, 'We don't have any expertise in electricity generation by nuclear energy,' so the committee asked, 'Well, where did you get the figures that you used in your report, then?' They said, 'Well, we contracted an external consultant to provide those figures for us.' If you look through the Hansard you'll see the committee met on a sequence of days. Why did they do that? Because, as each piece of evidence unfolded, they dug a bit deeper. They had that consultant come in and they said, 'Describe for us where you got the information from.' What the consultant said was, 'Well, we don't have any expertise in nuclear power generation, so we went to the website of the World Nuclear Association to find information.' The following day there was another hearing, this time with a representative from the World Nuclear Association, and the committee asked them, 'Did you have this figure on your website?' They said, 'No, we didn't have it on our website, and, more to the point, we think it is grossly inflated and unrepresentative of what the true costs would be.' To the CSIRO's great credit, they took all that on board, and I think they have been far more robust in how they've approached it since. But, to directly address the minister's point, the benefit of a committee process with a range of witnesses that were able to challenge the assumptions that have been made was that it highlighted that the 2018 GenCost report was not based on any robust analysis of the facts of the cost of electricity generation, let alone any analysis of the likely price to the consumer. I will leave that there, but I'm hoping that that completely debunks the minister's assertion that there is no value in a parliamentary inquiry. Estimates has not worked—and he proposed it would—and a parliamentary committee did highlight that, in this particular domain, the CSIRO did not have expertise in the paths they went down and that they delivered figures that were proved, on the public record, to not be robust. Why do I support this? Partly it's because I believe in that committee process, but it's also partly that, as someone who has worked in an engineering environment using modelling and as someone who has a qualification in science, I recognise that the GenCost report is largely a modelling activity, as opposed to science. If you search the PDF of the latest GenCost report, the word 'assumption' appears some 54 times, and, like in most modelling, they've had to make assumptions. There are a range of assumptions in GenCost that the CSIRO themselves identify as not necessarily representative of the complete suite of factors to be considered. I have some empathy for them; it's a complex problem, but there are a few things that the Australian public need to be aware of. When Mr Bowen and others cite this as the be-all and end-all—the gospel according to the CSIRO that shall not be challenged—it needs to be said that it is a modelling exercise with assumptions based on an incomplete set of data. There are other expert bodies in Australia and around the world who have also done modelling and come up with quite different answers to the same questions. That's why we should give the Australian people the opportunity to have different experts in the field address their modelling, their assumptions and, more importantly, their lived experience so that the Australian people can decide whether this is something that we should be moving towards. The first point is that this modelling is not designed to understand the most effective way to get cheap and reliable electricity to the Australian consumer, whether that be mum and dad at home, a small business or an industrial sector that will probably go offshore if the power prices continue to increase. In paragraph 1.1.1 of the latest GenCost report, which describes the roles the CSIRO and AEMO had in the report, it says 'to provide an update of current electricity generation and storage cost'. It's not about highlighting the cheapest way to get electricity. That paragraph also talks about the levelised cost of electricity, which is all about the factors affecting the cost to generation, as opposed to the full system's costs. The third point I would make is that they highlight, in paragraph 1.2 on page 16 of the GenCost report: As discussed in Graham (2018) it is not possible to undertake spreadsheet type modelling to create a transparent but accurate estimate of the cost of integrating renewables. This is one of the significant factors that affect the analysis of whether a renewables based approach can be comparable in terms of delivering reliability and low cost to the consumer versus baseload type approaches, whether that be high-flow rivers providing hydro or things like nuclear power. So they're saying here that they can't provide a transparent and accurate estimate costs of integrating renewables. The report states: If it were, this would have been the preferred method of implementation in GenCost. Again, they quote Graham: Graham (2018) concluded an electricity system modelling approach must be applied, where the details of the calculations are written in code that call on proprietary optimisation algorithms which unfortunately results in a loss of transparency. I'm not saying that the CSIRO is in any way being malign in how they're approaching this, but their chosen vendor, their chosen model, their chosen algorithms and their chosen assumptions are but one set that feeds into a model that gives an outcome of cost degeneration. Other equally expert bodies—and I'm talking here about bodies like the International Energy Agency, the OECD, or the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and their subsidiary, the NEA, the Nuclear Energy Agency—have worked together over a number of years to model not the cost to generate but the cost to the consumer. In terms of that simple measure, the levelised cost of electricity, which even GenCost recognises is not a suitable cost for this analysis and comparison, the OECD report that came out in April 2022 looks at a systems-wide approach and demonstrates very clearly that what they call 'long-run nuclear power', even on a levelised cost of electricity basis, is the cheapest form of electricity. If you run a plant for a long time, it becomes, over the life of that asset, the cheapest way to generate power. They also highlight in that analysis that even new-build nuclear is on a par with grid-scale renewables but is cheaper than others. For example, it's actually cheaper than rooftop or offshore wind et cetera. If people who are interested look at pages 35 to 37 of that OECD report, they then break down the elements into the generating costs, the systems costs and the broader environmental costs. They highlight that, as we seek to move to curb emissions, we will probably get to 2030 with rising, but not unaffordable, power prices. But, if we seek to get to net zero by 2050 just using variable renewables with firming by things like batteries, as more coal and gas comes out of the system in order to achieve net zero, prices will go up exponentially, and their conclusion is that it is unaffordable. This is not the coalition saying that. This is the OECD and the International Energy Agency. That is why people like the IPCC are saying we need to have nuclear power as part of the mix, and that's why so many nations around the world are looking to double or triple the amount of nuclear power generation they have. So another point I'd make is that, despite the government's claim that nuclear is the most expensive form of energy, the lived experience of people in countries like Canada says otherwise. If you look at some of the information coming out of Canada, you can see that nuclear is even cheaper than hydro and is certainly cheaper than gas, wind, solar and bioenergy, in terms of how the Energy Board in Ontario manages things. That's partly because of the broader costs that variable renewables have in terms of the additional infrastructure. My last point will be around the Net Zero Australia project done by three universities and a consultancy, which highlighted that the cost of all the additional transmission and firming as well as new generation is going to cost us in the order of $1.2 to $1.5 trillion by 2030, and $7 to $9 trillion by 2060. The nuclear option is actually far cheaper than the variable path the Albanese government has us on. 18:30 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Yesterday in question time I asked the minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Senator Wong a simple question: exactly how many wind turbines, solar panels, batteries and kilometres of transmission lines were built last month? You'd think that, as the cornerstone of the Labor Party's policy in government, the answer would be obvious and clear and given to me straightaway. To her credit—and I have a lot of regard for Senator Wong's capability and think she's one of the most capable senators in parliament—she said, 'I don't know.' It's the key policy for the Labor government, and they're flying blind. Here's what I told her in the second question. 'Minister, the government's own figures to meet your net zero target show that over the next eight years you need to install and connect more than 40 wind turbines per month, 22,000 solar panels a day, 48 gigawatt hours of batteries and 28,000 kilometres of transmission lines. I pointed out to her that the government is building nothing like that. The government's wind and solar pipedream is going to be a nightmare. We are being driven off a cliff by the energy minister, Chris Bowen— Senator Fawcett DYU Order, Senator Roberts. Remember to use the correct title. Senator ROBERTS 266524 Minister Bowen. This is a gargantuan task. This has been labelled by some people as the biggest transition since the start of the Industrial Revolution. It's fundamental because energy has primacy in our society. Labor cannot tell us the cost of this transition of dumping affordable, lowest cost, reliable, stable and secure energy independent of nature's vagaries and transitioning to an unreliable, high cost, unstable energy that is weather dependent and not secure. This is madness. But to do it without any costing is doubly mad. Think about it. We are giving parasitic billionaires and major corporations from around the world—many of them from China—subsidies for installing solar and wind. Those subsidies drive up the cost of electricity, and then we ship our manufacturing to China. China wins in two ways. We have got a National Electricity Market forcing out coal with unfavourable regulations—just driving coal out by making it impossible to feed the market. But it's not a market; it's a so-called market that bureaucrats control. It's a national electricity racket that was introduced by John Howard's coalition government. While they're driving out coal and subsidising solar and wind, they now admit they need to keep Eraring Power Station open. They were going to shut it. They're now offering subsidies to the owners and operators of Eraring to keep it open, so we're subsidising them to shut it and we're subsidising them to open it and then we're giving $275 relief in power prices to consumers across Australia. Why? Because the energy policy has failed. By the way, I need to mention that on the night of the incoming Minns government, the new energy minister said that they would have to look at the closure of Eraring. She was laying a signal there—a hint—that they'd keep it open. That's exactly what they must do because they're terrified. The Australian Energy Market Operator has identified severe blackouts around December this year. The No. 1 factor that has driven our standard of living for the last 170 years since the start of the industrial revolution has been relentless reduction in energy prices, the unit cost of energy. It's been a relentless reduction in the real cost of energy. That was until John Howard's government introduced the renewable energy target and other measures, and since then it has relentlessly increased. Australia has gone from having the cheapest coal and the cheapest electricity prices, thanks to our wonderful coal assets—high-quality, clean coal—to now having amongst the most expensive electricity. So let's have a look at the terms of reference for the inquiry that Senator Colbeck has proposed. I thank Senator Colbeck for his motion. It says: That the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation GenCost 2023-24 report be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report … to explore assumptions and costings made in the report, including but not limited to— the CSIRO has been criticised for every one of these things I'm about to read out— a. asset lifecycles; b. capacity factors; c. energy type costings; d. financing costs; e. fuel costs; f. augmentation requirements of transmission systems; g. data standards techniques; and h. other related matters. CSIRO has been belted by experts on every one of these. We badly need this inquiry. These are the fundamentals of the biggest transition since the industrial revolution. CSIRO used to be a highly respected organisation. It was internationally respected. It has now come to mean 'corrupted science is really obvious'. It lost its way distorting and omitting science to fabricate support for the UN's climate fraud. The CSIRO has never presented the basis of science which is empirical scientific data—measurements and observations—within logical scientific points that prove cause and effect. The CSIRO has been integral in working with the UN climate change body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in pushing distortions of science. I have had three meetings with the CSIRO at 2½ hours each and, under cross-examination, it has admitted that it has never said that there has been any danger due to human carbon dioxide. It has admitted that, even though climate change was based initially on global warming claims, temperatures are not unprecedented. It has claimed the rate of temperature change is unprecedented, but the rate of temperature change is almost negligible since 1995. It's almost flat. That's according to NASA's scientific satellite measuring temperatures. The CSIRO gave us not one solid paper to back up its claims. What it did give us was two papers we tore to shreds. Then they gave us another two, and we tore them to shreds. There are 24,000 datasets that I have access to that have been scraped from sites all over the world, including CSIRO's and BOM's case studies, and there is not one that shows any change in any climate factor—not one. It's just inherent natural variation with cycles superimposed. Not only that but the CSIRO has never provided bases for policy and neither has any department or the alphabet soup of energy agencies. They have all failed to answer my question: what's the specific effect of carbon dioxide from human activity on climate, on any aspect of climate or on any factor of climate? What is the quantified specific effect per unit of carbon dioxide from human activity? Ocean heat content, air temperatures, ocean temperatures, storm frequency, severity and duration—not one of them can give me any answers on those at all. That is the basis for policy. Without that, you cannot understand or evaluate the options for reducing human carbon dioxide, you cannot track the progress of the measures and you cannot cost the alternatives. This is flying blind over a cliff. Electricity prices in every country with significant solar and wind have increased dramatically. Labor is simply continuing the policy that John Howard started, Tony Abbott continued, Malcolm Turnbull accelerated, Scott Morrison continued and Peter Dutton now propagates by confirming net zero. Let's turn specifically to the CSIRO report, GenCost. CSIRO used to be a respected scientific organisation, advancing our country's technology. I refer to Senator Fawcett's speech a minute ago. Now the CSIRO is a blatantly political organisation. It's more interested in pushing the agenda of the government than in providing impartial, evidence-based research. Ideology is infecting most of CSIRO's work like a virus. The GenCost report is shocking evidence of just how biased this once-respected institution has become. The methodology used in GenCost is so flawed that there are multiple hours of podcast series explaining all of its deficiencies, and I give a compliment Aidan Morrison for some of his work. Let's start with the cost of wind and solar. Many people, including some politicians, think GenCost says what it costs for wind and solar to deliver a kilowatt of power today. It doesn't! It fundamentally doesn't tell us the cost. GenCost imagines some fairytale dreamtime half-a-dozen years in the future and projects what they think wind and solar will cost, with no accurate, solid assumptions underpinning that. CSIRO even admits that this prediction they come up with is not the actual cost, but this is what policy relies on. CSIRO completely excludes the cost of every single power project up until 2030. They're free! They're free, according to this mob. Just look at the tens of thousands of kilometres of transmission projects assumed to be free: EnergyConnect, $2.3 billion; Marinus Link, $3 billion. All are assumed to be free. Free, free, free! Santa Claus is giving them to us! There's Central-West Orana, $3.2 billion, and HumeLink, $5 billion. It doesn't sound like much when you rattle off a billion, does it! There are dozens more major projects. Let's look at the pumped hydro that's assumed to be free. There's Snowy 2.0, $12 billion plus and counting. That's not included. There's the Battery of the Nation in Tasmania, our biggest island. That's $3 billion. It's not included. There's the Borumba pump hydro, $14 billion. It's not included. There's the Pioneer-Burdekin pumped hydro, $12 billion. It's not included. The list goes on and on and on. Tens of billions of dollars is excluded from the cost of wind and solar, but we'll all pay for it—some people with their jobs when they're shipped off overseas, some people for whom the cost of living will drive these out of reach. Almost all of these projects, especially the pump hydro, are only being planned because of wind and solar, yet CSIRO excludes them from the cost of wind and solar completely. It's like saying a Ferrari is the cheapest car you can buy, as long as you take out the cost of the sunroof, the air conditioning, the wheels, the gearbox and the engine. Then there are their calculations on the cost of coal. They added an extra five per cent cost to the finance figures with no basis whatsoever. CSIRO just says, 'Well, no-one likes coal anymore,' and, whack, a completely unfounded hurdle is added on top. Then there's the capacity factor. That's the percentage of time the station is running. It has a huge impact on the calculated cost of power, if you assume a billion-dollar power station is running for only half the time it actually is on and can be on. They're destroying the viability of coal with lies. CSIRO also says: In 2030, we project forward including all existing state renewable energy targets resulting in a 64% renewable share and 56% variable renewable share … They just assume that we're going to press ahead with variable renewable energy, regardless of what happens and without any costings. They just assume it's going to go ahead. It doesn't sound like impartial modelling to me, because it's not impartial modelling. But the people of Australia will pay for this. They will pay for it with their jobs. They will pay for it with their livelihoods. They will pay for it with their family budgets. What sensitivities have been applied for political risk? Policy will almost certainly change and you may have a government elected that ditches false targets. What percentage of chance do they give that? The United Kingdom is abandoning net zero. The Prime Minister has said so. Japan is switching back to coal. It is already using a lot of coal. Germany is scrapping wind turbines to extend coalmines. It is tearing down wind turbines that were installed so that they can mine the coal underneath them. China is producing 4½ billion tonnes of coal. We produce 560 tonnes, and we export most of that overseas, and China is buying coal from us. Indonesia is now the world's largest exporter of coal. India has well over a billion tonnes of coal. This report, the GenCost report from CSIRO, isn't worth the paper it's written on, yet it's being used to justify one of the largest destructions of our economy in Australia's history. Even if you naively believe we need to run the grid on solar and wind, this GenCost report deserves scrutiny and the Australian people deserve transparency. CSIRO has repeatedly shown it is dishonest on climate and energy. We need an inquiry. In refusing or opposing, the government shows it fears its assumptions will be shown to be flawed. If I'm wrong, CSIRO would be vindicated. So CSIRO, if it had any courage, would stand up and say, 'Bring on the inquiry.' Thank you, Senator Colbeck. We support this motion. 18:45 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I too rise to support this motion moved by Senator Colbeck. I was tempted to stand up and just say that I associate myself with the remarks of Senator Fawcett, because his contribution really summarised where I was going to go as well. I won't delay the chamber any longer than necessary, but I do want to make a couple of remarks backing up, in particular, the line of argument Senator Fawcett put forward. I'll use a case in point from my own home state of Western Australia, where recently a wind farm project—I'm not sure if you'd describe it as a significant wind farm project—was green-lit even though the cost of that project went from $300 million to $500 million in less than two years. With all due respect to the CSIRO, how are the kinds of inflationary impacts we are currently seeing and the kinds of cost-of-borrowing impacts that we have seen over the period of this Labor government in terms of interest rate increases being factored into their calculations? Capital costs, particularly on these speculative renewable projects, are very significant. When the capital cost of a project goes from $300 million to $500 million in less than two years whilst being green-lit for development, the impact of that on the per-unit generation cost must be extraordinary. How are these things being accounted for? How are the poles and wires being accounted for? How is the storage capacity that is needed in firming up renewables or the additional capacity in things like rapid-on rapid-off gas turbines being factored into this calculation? These are econometric questions. They're questions of how the models are put together. It is not good enough to say, 'Here is a source of truth, and we are just going to blindly listen to it.' Our role in this place, as Senator Fawcett so eloquently outlined, is to test the assumptions. There's that old expression: junk in, junk out. We have the right in this place to test the assumptions to make sure that the modelling and the estimates of cost that are being put forward are fully inclusive of all the variables that should be considered, including the very important things like how much the poles and wires, the transmission infrastructure, are going to cost and where they are going to go. That brings me to my second point, and that is the blocking of committee inquiries purely on the grounds of ideology. No-one can argue that this reference from Senator Colbeck is not something that this place should be able to inquire into and should have, in fact, a responsibility to inquire into. But there is now a pattern forming. The ideological imperatives of those on the other side, in alliance with the Greens, are leading them to block inquiries that are perfectly legitimate. We've seen it 10 times in the poles and wires inquiry. Senator Colbeck and Senator Cadell have tried, on at least 10 occasions in this place, to try and get support for that inquiry across the chamber. It's a perfectly reasonable inquiry. It's not just reasonable. I would say that it's something that this chamber, if it's doing its job properly through the committee system, is actually honour bound to investigate. Anyone who thinks for one minute that communities being impacted by these significant rollouts of things like wind farms and the associated transmission lines do not deserve to have their voices heard, fundamentally, doesn't believe in democracy. That is what this place and its committee system is for. We saw last night—in my opinion, shamefully—the banning of live exports of sheep from Western Australia. Again, Labor and the Greens combined on ideological grounds to block the perfectly reasonable request from those communities across my home state of Western Australia to have an inquiry into a policy that is going to decimate their livelihoods and decimate an entire industry. We saw it with Senator Colbeck and Senator Cadell's poles and wires inquiry and now—well, I could be proven wrong. Perhaps Labor and the Greens will have a 'road to Damascus' moment. They'll sleep on it tonight. I believe we are not able to have further divisions this evening, but maybe tomorrow, they'll wake up and say, 'Yes, actually, it's the job of the Senate to inquire into the difficult issues where there are multiple points of view competing as to what the correct outcome should be.' But I fear this will be yet another inquiry that Labor and the Greens will block for purely ideological reasons. I think that is a great shame. I, for one, and, I know, my colleagues will keep calling out the Labor-Greens alliance, which is too frightened to have the committee system look into some of its ideological pet projects. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. BILLS 76 BILLS Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Assignment of Medicare Benefits) Bill 2024 76

Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Assignment of Medicare Benefits) Bill 2024

Second Reading 76 18:53 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I rise tonight to speak on the Health Insurance Legislation Amendment (Assignment of Medicare Benefits) Bill 2024. This bill makes a series of amendments to the Health Insurance Act 1973 to update the assignment of benefit process which underpins bulk-billed Medicare items and simplifies the billing system. The amendments will remove some of the current rigid paperwork requirements to allow for a more streamlined processing of MBS bulk-billing claims, particularly for telehealth consults. It will reduce the regulatory and administrative burden for healthcare providers who provide bulk-billed services, private health insurers and approved billing agents. Importantly, this will ensure the payment of Medicare benefits are aligned with modern practices and will reduce the administrative burden of health providers. The coalition welcomes the reduction in red tape that is achieved by this legislation, and we support these sensible amendments, which will streamline processes for healthcare providers and private health insurers. However, although we support this legislation and its intended purpose, we are concerned that the government believes this bill represents more progress on the government's commitment to strengthening Medicare. It has become clear that, under the Albanese Labor government, Medicare has only been weakened. The data shows Labor is overseeing a primary healthcare crisis that means it has never been harder or more expensive to see a doctor. In fact, bulk billing has collapsed since they came to government. In the minister's own words, 'Bulk billing is the beating heart of Medicare,' but it's currently more than nine per cent lower than when Labor came into government, falling from 88.5 per cent under the coalition to 79 per cent now under Minister Butler. This is the worst bulk billing data in over a decade. Recent data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has also shown Medicare is now covering the lowest percentage of GP fees on record. That means that Australians are paying the highest ever amount of out-of-pocket fees to see a doctor, and this is happening in the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, at a time when Australians are already facing skyrocketing cost of living pressures. We know that many families are forced to make a decision between seeing their doctor and paying their bills. In fact, last year 1.2 million Australians avoided seeing their doctor because they said they couldn't afford to do so. Since then, we know that costs have only continue to increase, and it's become harder and harder to see a bulk-billing doctor. Since the government's bulk-billing incentive came into effect in November 2023, there have been two million fewer GP bulk-billed services in comparison to the previous year. Australians simply cannot afford to have this primary care crisis continue. Not only is it pushing up out-of-pocket expenses for families, but we also know that a weakened primary care system is putting more and more pressure on our hospital systems, which are already overburdened. With less access to early intervention provided by primary health care, more and more patients will continue to be pushed towards emergency departments. This is particularly concerning given that in 2022-23 we saw the worst average ED wait times in a decade, while the wait times for elective surgery have almost doubled compared with 20 years ago. In my home state of South Australia, elective surgeries have been delayed indefinitely because our hospital systems simply can't cope. There's no doubt that Labor's primary care crisis is a significant contributor to the disaster that is unfolding in South Australia. The government must start taking real and urgent action to fix the state of primary care, because only that will take the pressure off our hospital system—real action like putting downward pressure on inflation, which we know is impacting general practice as it's impacting on every other business around the country, and real action like dealing with the severe GP workforce shortages that are underpinning the current challenges in primary care. For more than a year, the coalition has been calling for the government to implement an urgent and comprehensive national workforce strategy for the entire care sector, but so far they just continue to refuse to listen. They also could match our commitment of $400 million to securing a strong pipeline of homegrown GPs in Australia, but on this we have heard them say nothing. The coalition, if elected, will use this investment to incentivise more junior doctors to enter community general practice, providing junior doctors with direct financial incentive payments, assistance with leave entitlements and support for prevocational training. This will ensure junior doctors who pursue a GP career in a community setting are not financially worse off than graduates who remain in the hospital environment. Junior doctors who enter general practice earn about three-quarters of the salary of their counterparts in a hospital setting. This pay gap is one of the biggest disincentives to choosing a career in community general practice, along with the loss of paid leave. According to the RACGP, Australia's GP shortfall is expected to approach 11,000 doctors by 2031, as fewer medical graduates are choosing to take up general practice as their chosen speciality. We know that a strong pipeline of home trained GPs is critical to delivering essential health care to all Australians and addressing Labor's primary healthcare crisis. Until these workforce shortages are adequately addressed, Australians will not have timely or affordable access to GPs. So, once again, the coalition supports this legislation and the fact that it removes red tape and streamlines processes for healthcare providers and private health insurers. However we put on the record that the data clearly shows that the Albanese Labor government are weakening Australia's access to affordable health care; they are not strengthening it. To that effect, I move the second reading amendment circulated in my name: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that: (a) with the declining bulk billing rate across Australia since the Albanese Government came to power, despite all of Labor's promises and self-congratulatory press releases, it has never been harder or more expensive to see a GP; and (b) this government is weakening Medicare, not strengthening it". 18:59 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory The government does not support this amendment. In November 2021, six months before the last election, the financial viability of general practice was in serious trouble after the coalition's six-year freeze on Medicare rebates, which started when Peter Dutton was Minister for Health. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners took the extraordinary step of calling on every GP in the country to stop bulk-billing to maintain the viability of general practice. Dr Karen Price said, 'This is why, as a college, I am exhorting everybody, including my own practice, to move as many people as you can onto private billing.' At the time of the last election, Health Minister Mark Butler said general practice was in the most parlous state in the 40-year history of Medicare. Bulk-billing was falling off a cliff because of the six-year freeze on Medicare rebates, which is why we tripled the bulk-billing incentive from 1 November last year in the largest investment in bulk-billing in history. I'm pleased to say that investment is working. The numbers released by the health minister today show that, in the seven months since we tripled the investment, we've seen a turnaround in bulk billing: a national increase of 3.4 percentage points, from 75.6 per cent of all GP visits being bulk-billed in October to 79 per cent in May, around two million additional estimated visits. Bulk-billing has increased in every state and territory. Members of the opposition might like to grandstand on bulk-billing as though they didn't make cuts to Medicare throughout their entire time in office, the worst of which occurred under the now Leader of the Opposition during his time as health minister, but Australians know this is a government that is committed to strengthening Medicare, and that's exactly what we have delivered since coming into office. I commend the bill. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T The first question is that the second reading amendment put by the opposition be agreed to. Question negatived. Senator Ruston 243273 Could I have it recorded that the coalition supports our own amendment. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Thank you. The next question is that the bill be read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Third Reading 78 19:02 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T 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. 19:03 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Payment Times Reporting Amendment Bill 2024 78

Payment Times Reporting Amendment Bill 2024

Second Reading 78 19:03 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise to speak on the Payment Times Reporting Amendment Bill 2024. In commencing my remarks, I note that the coalition will be moving amendments. These amendments were foreshadowed by my colleague in the other place, the shadow minister for small business, the Hon. Sussan Ley, on 4 June 2024. At that time, the shadow minister rightly reminded the other place: It is critical that we balance the need for regulation with the need to maintain a dynamic and competitive marketplace for Australian businesses small and large— to flourish in. The shadow minister concluded her speech in the other place by promising that the coalition would: … work with all parties in the Senate to propose sensible amendments which better align the commercial incentives that operate within the bill with the amended objects of the act. That is exactly what the coalition has done. The coalition has engaged with 13 relevant stakeholder organisations to consider amendments, and it has drafted them through the Senate procedure office. Instead of seeking to oppose or to block this bill in the Senate, the coalition has worked constructively and in good faith to improve the operation of the scheme and, in doing so, improve the speed by which big businesses pay Australian small businesses. The cash flow of Australian small businesses is too important a thing to play politics with, and we in the coalition feel it is incumbent upon us as the party of small business to not leave small business short-changed. We know, as the shadow minister for small business has said, that, if cash is king for Australian small businesses, then cash flow is the kingmaker. Whilst well intentioned, the half-hearted approach of the government at this otherwise challenging time for Australia's small businesses would not move the needle by anywhere near the extent needed for a material improvement in small business payment times. The coalition saw the approach set out by the government in this bill to be confined to using a big stick to improve the small business payment time practices of big businesses. This bill permits the naming and shaming of large businesses that have a record of being slow to pay their small-business suppliers, service providers and contractors. The approach of the government is intended to improve small business payment times, and the government should be commended for its attempt to improve this scheme to achieve such an outcome. This approach, however, ultimately fails to recognise the reality that a big business, typically operating with considerable resources, is well practised at running from the big stick of government intervention. The coalition considers that, left unamended, this bill might have the perverse effect of reducing commercial engagement with Australian small businesses by big businesses, and that is not an outcome that we wish to see. Why? Because this of course would mean less opportunity, less growth and, in particular, less cash for small businesses, at a time when they need it more than ever because of the cost pressures they are under. There are some who might say that this bill does not go far enough in using the big stick of government and that more regulation and harsher penalties should be used to compel big businesses to pay Australian small businesses faster. We know that more and harsher regulation would only mean that a big business would run faster and further from being designated as a slow payer and, in all likelihood, without actually addressing the paramount challenge of improving its small business payment time practices. At the end of the day, that is what we want to see, as the coalition. We want to see big businesses actually recognising that, if you're doing the wrong thing by small business, guess what: you need to improve what you do and you need to ensure that our small businesses are paid on time. Quite frankly, anything less than that is not doing justice to small business. The coalition has therefore designed amendments which complement those contained within the bill and introduce the designation of a 'fast small business payer' to the Payment Times Reporting Scheme. Why is the coalition moving these amendments to this bill and introducing the designation of a fast small business payer to the scheme? It's because we know that, just as big business might be well practised at running away from the big stick of government, they are likewise well practised at running towards the big carrot when it is dangled in front of them. We on this side of the chamber know that it is only when a stick is coupled with the carrot approach that we can orient the incentives otherwise faced by big business towards a material improvement in small business payment practices and indeed a reduction in small business payment times. Again, that is what we are all about on this side of the chamber, the coalition side. We want to see our small businesses paid as quickly as possible. In designing the 'fast small business payer' designation, the coalition consulted with relevant and engaged stakeholder organisations which represent the interests of small business—yes, that's right, the interests, in particular, of small business. But we also spoke to big businesses and several industries where constituent companies are more typically required to report to the regulator as part of the scheme. It should be noted that, whilst the coalition certainly values enterprise and the opportunities created by the private sector more broadly, the coalition was prepared to engage with stakeholder organisations that had publicly stated support for the bill and the reforms contained therein. Indeed, many of these stakeholder organisations did not, and do not, reserve much of the scepticism that the coalition maintains with respect to many aspects of this bill—especially with respect to how and to what end ministerial discretion is promoted in this bill. The feedback the coalition received on what we are putting forward, which is the fast small business payer designation, was overwhelmingly positive. That is a good thing. People want to see this designation within this particular scheme, and that overwhelming feedback came to us despite, as I outlined, the broad cross-section of commercial interests that we consulted with in drafting the amendments that we will move to the bill. I want to take the Senate through a snapshot of some of the feedback that stakeholder organisations were prepared to put their name to as we sought to work across party lines to advance the interests and improve the cash flow of Australian small businesses. One said this: 'The work that you've done to find a way to reward those companies who can be identified as fast payers goes a long way to support more incentives for the larger businesses around payment times.' A second said, 'If there is a stick to name and shame businesses that meet the criteria under the legislation, it makes sense that there is also a carrot to incentivise faster payment times.' Again, isn't this what this bill is meant to be doing—incentivising faster payment times? It's one thing to name and shame people—okay, so now you've been named and shamed; now what do we do? It's another thing to say, 'Yes, we'll name and shame you, but at the same time we will incentivise you to become what we want you to become, which is a big business that pays its small businesses, and doesn't just pay them but pays them faster.' Hence, the fast small business payer designation. Now, this is what a third business said to us during the consultation: 'These amendments are a positive incentive for big businesses to meet minimum expectations for smaller businesses in the supply chain without presenting an overwhelming, negative burden for either. I have to say, I'm most disappointed that we're only talking here about minimum expectations. I thought, quite frankly, minimum expectations—as they well and truly are—are the least we should be expecting of big business.' A fourth 'called for the introduction of a fast small business payer designation to promote companies that pay small business suppliers promptly and to provide reporting entities with a goal to work towards'—and told the coalition that 'amendments to this effect are welcome'. A fifth said this: 'A fast small business payer designation would be a positive step towards incentivising and promoting faster payment times by a big business to small entities.' A sixth said this: 'This is a positive step towards improving payment behaviour across the economy.' Another said they would support the regulator being given the authority to explicitly name reporting entities with best practice payment times and practices. Another said, 'Whilst penalising slower payers is one strategy, we believe'—backing in the coalition's amendment—'that fast payers should be recognised effectively, adopting a two-pronged approach that includes a deterrent', as we talked about, and 'also the incentive that is going to incentivise big businesses to do the right thing by small businesses'. Senator Scarr 282997 Carrot and stick. Senator CASH I0M Exactly. The stick—naming and shaming—gets us so far. It is the incentive—the way the coalition is changing the legislation—that actually says to big business: 'Good on you. You're doing the right thing by our small businesses in this country, and you should be recognised.' Another stakeholder said that they're broadly supportive of the proposed amendments and see them as a step in the right direction to better incentivise faster payments to small business and to better meet the revised objects of the act. We believe that the act can enlighten the designation of a fast small-business payer with just three substantive amendments. The first of the three amendments, which we will seek to include in the new division 5 within part 2 of the act, clause 22J, introduces a 'fast small-business payer' designation to the scheme by defining and setting the threshold test for designation. A fast small-business payer will be a reporting entity or a reporting nominee that, without contrary evidence, has given the regulator payment time reports for two consecutive reporting periods, and both of those reports have a qualifying payment time of 20 days or less. That's a good thing. A qualifying payment time of 20 days or less—I prefer the 'or less'—will have the meaning given by the rules. The second substantive provision, clause 22K, will establish a framework for how the regulator and entities will interact with the 'fast small-business payer' designation. This will require the regulator to maintain and publish a list of fast small-business payers on the register. This amendment will also permit the regulator to exclude an entity from the list for a period in specific circumstances, and, if an entity is to be excluded from the list, this amendment will require the regulator to give written notice of this reviewable decision. The third and final substantive provision that we will be moving, to be included in the new division 5 of the act, is measures that seek to add integrity to the designation of a fast small-business payer. We will seek to include a new clause, 22L, which will prohibit false representations that a reporting entity or nominee is a fast small-business payer—quite frankly, shame on you if you are a business out there who would seek to do this—or has a qualifying payment time of 20 days or less by leaving such businesses liable to a civil penalty of 200 penalty units. Quite frankly, you deserve those 200 penalty units. Whether in government or in opposition, it is the position of the coalition—and I have been the relevant minister in this portfolio—that we feel an obligation to act on behalf of the mum-and-dad small-business owners, as well as the young people with the ideas and the drive to fire the engine room of the Australian economy but whom might not otherwise have their interests echoing down the corridors of our parliaments. Small businesses are the backbone of the Australian economy, and it is beholden on us, whether we are in opposition or in government, to do everything that we can to ensure that the small businesses of Australia are not just paid on time but paid as quickly as possible. I can assure you, as a former minister for small and family business, that a coalition government led by Peter Dutton will never take Australian small business for granted, and we will also never leave them short-changed. That is why we are moving the amendments that we have worked through in relation to this bill. It is one thing to name and shame a big business for not doing the right thing, but it is another to incentivise them into doing the right thing. The right thing is to ensure that our small businesses in Australia are not just paid but paid as quickly as possible. That is what you'll get under a coalition. 19:18 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I rise to speak to the Payment Times Reporting Amendment Bill 2024. I indicate that the Greens support this legislation. This bill increases pressure on big businesses that are slow to pay small businesses, and the 20 per cent of the slowest-paying big businesses will be reported on the Payment Times Reports Register. Senator Scarr 282997 Do you support our amendments? Senator McKIM JKM I will come to your amendments, Senator Scarr, in due course. The minister will also be able to direct a slow-paying business to state on its website, in procurement and in ESG related documents that it is a slow small-business payer. We're supporting this bill because we know that big business too often drags its feet when it comes to paying much smaller suppliers. In many circumstances, it is a concentration of market power that allows big businesses to drag their feet in such an unconscionable fashion. We heard abundant evidence about this in hearings of the Senate Select Committee on Supermarket Prices, which the Greens moved to establish and which I chaired on behalf of the Australian Greens. We heard abundant evidence from farmers and overwhelmingly from small businesses—in many situations, they were small, family businesses—about how the big supermarket duopoly used its concentration of market power to behave unconscionably with a distinct lack of ethics and a distinct lack of integrity towards its suppliers, who, as I've said, are overwhelmingly small, family businesses. We heard evidence about the supermarket duopoly charging farmers a fee if they want payment earlier than usual. Let's be clear about this: the big supermarkets will say, 'If you want to be paid earlier than usual, you have to pay us a fee, and then we will pay you earlier than usual.' Of course farmers, who are in many cases small businesses, are often cash strapped. They often have cashflow issues, and at times they would have to sacrifice some of the profits they've made—if in fact they were making a profit, and in some cases they weren't. But they effectively had to sacrifice a bit of their price to get payment earlier than usual. While some farmers and suppliers to the big supermarket duopoly did give evidence that they were afforded reasonable payment periods of around 14 or 21 days, we had evidence of other farmers waiting up to 120 days to be paid. Senator Scarr 282997 Four months. Senator McKIM JKM Yes, as Senator Scarr has rightfully pointed out, that is four months. That is just not okay. In some cases, that would have been longer than the spuds were in the ground or the apples were on the tree. That sort of thing is not okay, and it was allowed in the supermarket sector because of the concentration of market powers. I was very happy to see the announcement today from Mr Dutton and Mr Littleproud that the coalition are adopting a policy of supporting divestiture powers in the supermarket sector. It's on the record that the Australian Greens believe that divestiture powers should exist across our economy, and that was the framing of the legislation that we tabled and brought on in the Senate for debate and vote last week. I do note that not a single Nationals senator voted against our legislation last week, and I'm very pleased that the Liberal Party are now on board with divestiture powers, albeit with a more narrow scope to just apply them to the supermarket sector. I will make the point that the Greens would support such a provision were it ever to be put to the Senate, and what that means is that the numbers are there to pass such a bill through this place. That means, of course, that it would be only the Labor Party standing between Australian shoppers and lower food and grocery prices. We know from the chair of the ACCC that, in the ACCC's view, if there were greater competition in the supermarket sector, food and groceries would be cheaper in Australia. Ms Cass-Gottlieb has been abundantly clear about that during Senate estimates—on more than one occasion, I might add. So this is a moment of choice for the Australian Labor Party and for Prime Minister Albanese. Is he going to keep cuddling up to Coles and Woolworths, the giant supermarket corporations who've donated so much to the Australian Labor Party in dirty political donations over the years? Or is he going to actually take the side of Australian shoppers, who are being price gouged at the supermarket checkout? This is a moment of truth for the Labor Party. Right now it is only the Australian Labor Party that is standing between Australian shoppers and lower food and grocery prices because it is only the Australian Labor Party that is preventing divestiture powers scoped to the supermarket sector from passing this parliament and becoming law. That's where we find ourselves today post the announcement from Mr Dutton and Mr Littleproud. What this shows, just as the banking royal commission showed, is that if you get the Greens and the Nationals on a unity ticket on something, things happen in this place. If you get someone in an Akubra standing next to someone in a koala suit, things start to happen in this place, colleagues. That's how we got a banking royal commission, and that's how we're going to get divestiture powers, scoped at least to the supermarket sector, and I hope and trust that, over time, those powers, which are scalable, will ultimately be expanded to cover the entire economy because, whether it's the airlines, the banks, the supermarkets or some parts of the energy sector in this country, we need more competition. It is competition policy 101 that, if you increase competition, you will end up with better results not just for the consumers and, in the case of supermarkets, the shoppers but also for the suppliers into those sectors. I will tell you: if ever there was a sector ripe for divestiture powers, it would be the supermarket sector, although I have to say that I reckon the airlines are running neck and neck with them there. They are legitimately running neck and neck with the supermarket sector. Coles and Woolworths together have about two-thirds of the supermarket sector in Australia, and we know from Choice, who did really good work recently, that the choice between shopping at Coles and shopping at Woolworths is basically no choice at all. There was less than one per cent difference between Coles and Woolworths on the basket of 14 staple food and grocery items that Choice calculated the cost of. I welcome into the chamber Senator Canavan, who did support the Greens' divestiture laws, and I want to acknowledge that. And now we can be on a unity ticket once again, Senator Canavan, when, I hope and trust, this Senate can find it within its capacity to consider legislation that would create divestiture powers scoped to the supermarket sector. But, as I was saying, the choice between Coles and Woolworths is basically zero choice at all, as the Choice work clearly showed. We know that another significant supermarket player in Australia came in far, far cheaper than Coles and Woolworths, but the big tell was that, when you compared Coles and Woolworths on the basket of 14 staple items—and they used mystery shoppers to do this, so the supermarkets had no idea that the particular shopper was buying particular items at a particular time in a particular supermarket—there was less than one per cent difference between Coles and Woolworths. Colleagues, the choice between Coles and Woolworths is no choice at all, and that is because there is too much market concentration in the supermarket sector. Coles and Woolworths together have about two-thirds of the market share on a national basis. What we've got from Labor on divestiture is this weird fantasy from the Prime Minister that these are 'Soviet-style' powers. Of course, that renowned command-and-control economy, the United States of America, has had divestiture powers in place since 1890 and they've been used very successfully to bust up big corporations who were price-gouging customers and had too much market share. They broke up the monopolies that the robber barons held in many sectors in the late 1800s and early 1900s, and that's because divestiture powers deliver good outcomes for consumers. In fact, the Soviet union doesn't have divestiture powers—news flash for the PM. That's why the oligarchs are busy price-gouging the people in the Soviet Union. Where we do have divestiture powers—for example, in the US and in many countries in the EU—we are seeing them used in order to take on supermarket concentration, such as in some cases right now in the European Union. And they're doing that because they know it will put downward pressure on food and grocery prices. Australians are getting smashed at the moment, wherever they turn—whether it's rents, whether it's their mortgage payments, whether it's energy bills, whether it's school fees, whether it's GP visits or whether it's price gouging by the supermarket sector. We need to take action! Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 82 ADJOURNMENT Cost of Living 82 19:30 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania July is going to be the month that the Albanese Labor government is going to deliver new financial assistance for Australian families that are doing it tough through the cost-of-living crisis that we know they're experiencing. We have listened to them, and we delivered, as of yesterday—and it will come into your next pay packet—the biggest tax cuts that they are going to receive, because of the actions of the Albanese Labor government. Let's not forget that it was those opposite, when they first introduced these tax cuts, who left out a huge chunk of lower-income earners, who would have got absolutely zero. But under this government, we are delivering for 13.6 million Australians, who are all going to benefit from the tax cut. Let's also not forget that an energy rebate is being delivered—again, by the Albanese Labor government—to help with the cost of energy. And let's not forget, again, that it is those opposite who have voted against every single measure when it comes to helping families deal with the cost of living. They voted against the increase of their tax cut to Australian workers, they voted against the energy bill relief, and they stood against Australian workers—low-income workers—at every opportunity. As we know, and as I've said in this chamber and will continue to say, they have always had a policy to keep Australian workers' wages low. Under our government, as of yesterday, Australian workers on lower incomes are getting their third increase in the last two years, thanks to us. We are giving an energy rebate not just to every household across this country but also to small businesses. We know that those small businesses need that support, as do families. Yesterday, 1 July, was a very important day, but it doesn't stop there, because we actually believe in superannuation, unlike those opposite, who would allow young people to raid their superannuation to be able to put a roof over their head. We're saying that that superannuation should be there for the end of their working life. That's the difference between us and those opposite. For whatever reason, Mr Dutton, the leader of the Liberals, has come up with this strategy of nuclear energy and building nuclear reactors around the country, without any costing and without any evidence whatsoever that there is an expert that believes they will deliver cheaper energy to this country. Not only that—it's an ill-founded thought bubble or a mushroom cloud—there's not a financial institution that will finance them. So, what does he intend to do? Put that financial burden onto Australian taxpayers. We know that, when we came into government two years ago, they left us with a trillion dollar debt. They have been able to create this myth about how they're such good economic managers. The proof is in the pudding, ladies and gentlemen, because we were left with a burden of debt. We've had to clean up their mess. They did nothing at all about ensuring that the NDIS was fit and proper and was working. They failed miserably on aged care and had to call a royal commission into their own failings. So we had a decade of mismanagement and a government that went from one crisis to the other and left us with a mess. We've come in, we've been cleaning up that mess, we've provided cheaper child care, we're investing in Australian workers, we're investing in skills and we are bringing manufacturing back to Australian shores. We want to make things here in Australia. We want to skill-up our workforce, we want to ensure that child care is affordable for families and we want to give parents choice about when they return to work so we've increased paid parental leave. These are all good things that are going to be there as a very strong foundation for our Australian families. I'm proud of the record of the Albanese Labor government. Education 83 19:35 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia The state of education in this country at the moment is absolutely dire. When the national curriculum was introduced in 2010 we were told that it would be a world-class back-to-basics system. However, as with all centralised bureaucracies, it's failed. In between 2021 and 2022, the federal and state governments spent billions on primary and secondary school education, yet during the same period we saw a long-term decline in student achievement. Worryingly, just 15 per cent of Australian students are now exceeding expectations, and most of our year 9 students can't use punctuation at a year 3 level. Simply increasing funding for schools doesn't automatically lead to better educational outcomes. This is just another example of the welfare mindset that doesn't actually create improvement. Of course, the elephant in the room is the uptick in progressive ideology, as it is called, in the school system. Call it what you like—progressivism, leftism, wokeness, identity politics, intersectionality, political correctness or whatever—the parents that I speak with across Australia are fed up with their kids being indoctrinated by their school system. It is clear to them that schools are more concerned with social conditioning than with genuine education. Today the school system gives students the conclusions they're supposed to get to on their own in the modern world rather than helping them reach their own conclusions. We've allowed our school system to become a vehicle for indoctrination. It's not just primary and high schools that have become ideology factories. Australia's early learning sector is also kicking off the process of indoctrination by introducing infants and toddlers to radical concepts like gender theory and social justice theory, rather than simply allowing kids to be kids. The government's early learning framework called Belonging, Being and Becoming is now mandatory for early childhood learning centres. It mentions 'reconciliation' 96 times, while the words 'mother', 'father' and 'parents' have been erased from the guidelines and are not even mentioned once. Many parents have little choice but to send their kids to ELC because the system has forced dual incomes on society due to the cost of living. In South Australia, the state Labor government has celebrated its $715 million spending package to provide pre-schooling for three-year-olds. Why aren't we making the cost of living cheaper so parents can stay at home, or at least one parent can stay at home, with their kids rather than both being forced back into the workforce early? It's because this way the state gets its grubby hands on the kids earlier, which is another assault on the family unit. Parents tell me they want their schools to get back to basics and focus on the fundamentals of reading, writing and arithmetic. They want their children to be taught how to think, not what to think. They describe how their children feel pressured to agree with pre-approved opinions rather than engaging in genuine discussion. At the end of the day, it's the parents' duty to educate their own children. Instead of simply throwing more money at the failing schooling system, there are two approaches we can take as a society. The first is holding the schooling system to account for its poor outcomes by changing or perhaps even abolishing the national curriculum, and the second is promoting the home as the primary locus of education. Young people emerging from our school system are being indoctrinated. They're unnecessarily ridden with angst about the so-called climate crisis, they're gender confused and they're lacking basic skills. We owe the young people of this country a much, much better standard of education. We owe these young people a better future. Community Services 84 19:39 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria I rise to speak about deep and justified community concerns around the slated closure of the Shakespeare Grove Post Office in St Kilda, where I live. This vital community asset has long served as a hub for residents, businesses and older citizens in the local area. The intention to close this post office adds to a disturbing and disrupting trend of closures of essential services in our local area under this government's watch. In October last, year the Greens united with the local community to fight to stop the closure of the South Melbourne Centrelink office. Disappointingly, pleas from the community to the local member and the social services minister to retain this important local service were disregarded and the South Melbourne Centrelink office closed. Now, the community is facing the closure of yet another vital neighbourhood institution on 19 July: the Shakespeare Grove post office in St Kilda. If this closure proceeds, there will be significant consequences for local residents and businesses, who have relied on this essential service for over a decade. Already, I'm hearing from pensioners who make regular trips to this post office for their banking, monthly bill payments and postage needs and who are anxious about the closure of this local service and the disruption it will cause to their daily lives. I'm hearing from community members with mobility issues who are daunted by the prospect of having to travel further to pay their bills and safely receive their mail. One pensioner in my community who has limited mobility has had the same post office box there for over 15 years. Several times a week, she walks 250 metres to the St Kilda South post office to pay her bills and do her banking following the closure of many local banking branches. For this pensioner with limited income, the closure of this office comes as a real blow. This woman will be forced to walk 1.2 kilometres to St Kilda West or take a tram to Balaclava and will need to find extra money in their already stretched budget for transport to and from a different post office—all of this in the midst of a deep and unrelenting cost-of-living crisis. I'm hearing from local traders who have survived COVID related financial pressures but are now experiencing significant anxiety around the impact that the closure will have on foot traffic through Acland Court precinct and also their ability to conduct business locally. These traders continue to advocate to the government and Australia Post to reconsider their decision and to explore alternative solutions, such as finding a different site within the Acland Court precinct, in an effort to maintain essential pedestrian foot traffic within the area. To date, their calls and the calls of more than 4½ thousand members of the local community who signed a petition to keep the post office open remain unanswered. Of course, this isn't an isolated example. It's part of a pattern of postal service cuts and closures that I'm hearing about right across Victoria. Local councils across the state are advocating to protect their local post offices. They're essential parts of our social fabric that service the community and offer some of the most basic and necessary functions of day-to-day life: communicating with friends and family and keeping the electricity bills paid and energy connected. In a deeply worrying trend, between 1 July 2022 and 30 June 2023, Australia Post closed 15 post offices across regional Victoria and opened just two new ones. Of these closures, about one-third were in regions already lacking many essential services. Post offices are an important part of our civil and social fabric. We can't allow this social service to operate as just another for-profit business. Across the country, many of our essential services, whether they be the provision of early childhood education, energy or postal services, are increasingly being run for profit when they should be being run for us, the public. Australia Post is a publicly owned essential service that must truly service all Australians, whether they're in the city or the bush. The continued degradation of our public institutions by successive governments must end. By removing civic assets like post offices and Centrelink offices from our neighbourhoods, the government is gradually eroding our civic life. Our community deserves better, and I and the Greens will continue to fight for strong and reliable public and community services to keep our neighbourhoods active, accessible and vibrant. I call on this government to act to keep the St Kilda South post office open and for it to prioritise the benefit it provides to the community over Australia Post's financial bottom line. Social Cohesion 84 19:43 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I am grateful for the opportunity to make a few comments about where I think the nation is going. One of the main reasons I joined the Liberal Party was because I had a high conviction that there was great value and virtue in the individual. Having been wary of collectivism, I've also valued greatly the virtue of a good society being able to protect minority interests. That has always been, I think, a mark of liberalism but also a mark of Australia at its finest, when it can find a way to protect and, in fact, advance minority interests. That's why I was very happy to be heavily involved in the marriage equality campaigns back in 2017 and, in fact, to run one of the campaigns. And that's why I was happy to have voted yes in the referendum last year. It is important to keep in mind that minority interests, while very important, have to be balanced against the overall national interest. And I am very concerned that there is a degradation of our standards where people feel almost embarrassed to celebrate our country. I think that being patriotic is a great virtue. If we, the Australian people, cannot be patriotic, I don't know who can be. Since the Second World War, we have resettled millions of people in a harmonious way from all corners of the planet. We have amongst the highest living standards in the world. I worry that there is a sense in parts of the community, particularly in the very politically engaged community, that it is embarrassing to be proud of our country. Even just this week, in reflecting on some of the contributions that were made in relation to the defacing of the war memorials, it is sad to think that people can't come together on the fact that people in their hundreds and thousands—in fact, over a million in the last century—went to war to advocate for the way of life that we now enjoy. We have received a dividend from their sacrifice, and the fact that we can't coalesce around that is very troubling. I worry that there is more division ahead. The discussion around the creation of a Muslim party and our failure to agree to reasonable laws that defend the rights of religious institutions to conduct themselves in the way they wish while not discriminating on any individual basis against a student or teacher does worry me greatly. My sense is that it is very important that we are a society that can defend and protect minority interests. It has always been my view that that's the mark of a good society: how it defends minority interests. We also have to balance the fact that we live in the world's greatest country. We have unimaginable freedoms in this country. We have been able to deliver a harmonious and cohesive nation when so many other countries have failed at the very first hurdle. So I'm very proud to be an Australian. I'm very proud to be an Australian because we are a country where you can do whatever you want to do and say whatever you want to say as long as you're not breaking any laws. That's a very important principle for us to uphold. I want us to try and work together. I would much rather we be ambitious for what our country can do and how we address our challenges than descend into division and try to coalesce around the things that we know we can all agree on, which is that we are a great country and that we should always try and find a place to defend minority interests. War Memorials: Vandalism 85 19:48 Senator McLACHLAN 287062 South Australia As a man who has borne witness to the ravages that war has inflicted on all involved, soldier and civilian alike, and the impact on our soldiers long after the guns have fallen silent and they have returned home, I thought I would inform the Senate of my views on the desecration of the war memorials with the vile and hurtful antisemitic slogans. I am filled with very deep sadness, sadness because there are some in our society who seek to express their views in such a cowardly way. The memorials are a soft target. They're used because they will attract attention. These evildoers went further and vandalised these memorials with very hurtful statements that I think are acts of violence against the Jewish people. There are plenty of other forums where they could have expressed and debated their views. They chose to do it in darkness. They refused to argue in the light and they expressed their views on stones that could not answer back. I doubt in an open forum they could defend their own shibboleth, their own views. Memorials are consecrated, sacred places. They are sentinels to the inconsolable grief of mothers and fathers who have lost their daughters and sons at war. They are a constant reminder for us to remember the social compact with the dead—that is, we must live our lives with purpose, otherwise their sacrifice was in vain. To deface them shatters the social compact. It defies it. We should be rightly saddened, disappointed and angered. I urge the offenders to reflect on their behaviour. They can redeem themselves by turning themselves in. Only then can they journey, personally, on a road of understanding and redemption. Lest we forget. Cost of Living 85 19:50 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales Since I arrived in this place, the No. 1 issue that we have been dealing with is the cost-of-living crisis or the cost-of-everything crisis. The cost of everything has gone up, whether it's for simple things like bread, butter, milk or petrol or more expensive things like insurance. The most crippling increases are to mortgages and rent. These are things that people can't cut back on. You can't pay less of your mortgage and you can't pay less of your rent. Whether it be people reaching out because they are on the verge of homelessness or because they require crisis support, every single day my office receives call after call from people in some kind of crisis. Yet this government, which is distracted at the best of times, has lost sight of its obligation to improve the standard of living of all Australians. Labor was elected on the back of a number of promises, not the least of which was a promise to reduce electricity prices by $275 a year. The residents of my state of New South Wales are paying up to 39 per cent more for their electricity this year. On average, that's over $1,000 extra each year. These endless hikes to energy prices cripple family budgets and devastate small businesses and Australian manufacturing. The government's solution is what I feel is an insulting $75-a-quarter rebate paid to big energy companies. That's 80c a day. Yes, thanks for that! What's more egregious is that it's not means tested, so those with multiple homes get multiple rebates on their energy bills. Australians without holiday homes dotted across the country simply receive a single rebate. It doesn't seem fair. That's because it's not. Rebates won't fix the energy crisis looming; they simply can't mask its effects. Until this government get serious on the big issues to shore up our energy grid and provide long-lasting and cheap energy, Australians will continue to have to endure increasing energy costs—and that's not good enough. The flow-on effects of that only compound the pain. It costs more to keep the lights on, it costs more to transport goods, it costs more to manufacture, it costs more to refrigerate and so on. Do you know what that's called? That's called inflation. And who ends up paying? The Australian consumer. It's mum and dad Australians. We shouldn't be afraid of big ideas. We need to be serious about solving these problems by being technologically neutral and understanding that renewables are a key component of our mission to get to net zero. We should also leave the door open to new technologies and sources of clean energy. If those opposite think that nuclear energy is completely unviable then maybe they should lift the moratorium on nuclear. If it is an impossible feat then there is no need for legislation banning it. We want people and businesses who are struggling with the cost of everything to have all the possible tools, from solar panels to batteries and heat pumps, to bring down their energy prices and shield themselves from the back-to-back energy shocks that this government has thrown at them. This energy crisis is a part of the cost-of-living crisis and, as with mortgages, rent and groceries, this government doesn't have it under control. Aside from this poorly conceived 80c a day, this government hasn't done much but delegate the responsibility of managing inflation to the Reserve Bank. In turn, every Australian who has a home loan, who has a small business loan or is renting will pay. These are the Australians who are managing inflation for this government. Who doesn't bear the pain? Big companies, big institutions and people without a mortgage. They can and they do keep spending. Do you see the problem? It's pretty clear that this single blunt lever is not working. And it isn't the RBA's job to run the economy; it's the government's. While this government focuses on their own party room politics, more and more Australians are giving up the dream of homeownership, and more and more small businesses close down, and more and more irreversible damage is done. Renal Dialysis 86 19:55 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Recently I travelled to the remote outback town of Coober Pedy in South Australia, and I had the great honour of officially opening the renal dialysis clinic there. It was an emotional day for local families who have lost loved ones to kidney disease. But there was a genuine sense of relief for those in Coober Pedy who will no longer have to relocate to places like Adelaide and Alice Springs, many hundreds of kilometres away from family, community and country, for life-saving treatment. Dialysis and chronic kidney disease is a real scourge for First Nations people. First Nations adults are twice as likely as non-indigenous Australians to have chronic kidney disease and almost four times as likely to die from chronic kidney disease. Wherever I travel, right across the country, in my role as Assistant Minister for Indigenous Health, this is an issue that troubles me deeply. I see people on dialysis chairs in hospitals, in units across the country—and the patients are getting younger. The good news is that the Albanese government is delivering on our election commitment to improve access to renal dialysis services. The Coober Pedy clinic is the first to open under our $73.2 million initiative to see 30 units across the country. The Coober Pedy clinic will see approximately eight patients per week, with the potential to increase to 16 at times of high demand. I got to meet Tommy, who has been living in Adelaide for two years. He told me he'd not been coping too well with being down there. I was glad to be able to see him get home for this life-saving treatment. I also want to commend Sarah Brown and the staff and board of Purple House. They have worked tirelessly for two decades across so many communities in northern Australia, working passionately to ensure that those who needed these dialysis chairs had them. Thank you, Sarah, and thank you to your staff and the board for your guidance and your expertise in what we're trying to do in allocating these dialysis units across the country. Thank you also to the steering committee, through the Department of Health, and the work that every member on that is doing. On a personal note, I had to care for my mum for the 10 years that she was on renal dialysis. She had to move from Borroloola, which is around a thousand kilometres from Darwin, to be on dialysis. Mum always wanted to go home to country, and those visits home would be very limited, because she'd have to return to Darwin after three days, maybe four at a stretch, and she would be quite unwell, to receive the treatment. But at least she got home for a couple of days. I think it's places like Borroloola where we want to see more renal dialysis units. We've already announced one for there and certainly for Ti Tree and Harts Range, as well as a couple more in Western Australia and certainly one more at this stage for South Australia. I'm looking forward to seeing the decision of the committee about further dialysis units. Sadly, my mum passed away in Darwin and was never able to return home to officially dialyse on country, and there are so many patients across the country who do go through this same situation. I know that families who look after family members on dialysis know this story only too well. The good news is that those who have the opportunity to now dialyse on country closer to home with their families do have a better chance. We know that providing dialysis treatment closer to a patient's home increases the likelihood of regular treatment, and continued support and care, while remaining on country and connected to community and the love of family. Christian Medical College and Hospital Ludhiana, Toowoomba International Food Festival, Senate Standing Committees on Economics 87 20:00 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I'm sure, Senator, your mother would be so extremely proud of everything you've achieved. She must have been a remarkable woman. I was so pleased last Saturday night to attend a wonderful event. It was a fundraising dinner hosted by my friends, the Friends of Ludhiana Australia. This event was inspired by the medical college which they attended: CMC Ludhiana, or the Christian Medical College and Hospital Ludhiana, which is in the Punjab in India. This remarkable institution was established in 1894—130 years ago. It was the first medical college for women in Asia. It was established by a remarkable lady by the name of Dame Edith Mary Brown. What an amazing person she must have been to have established that institution! I pay tribute to Dr Jacob Cherian and his team for putting on this wonderful fundraising event. I also pay tribute to the dozens and dozens of doctors from CMC Ludhiana who practise medicine here in Australia. They've made their way from that medical college in the Punjab in India to Australia, and are providing medical services to Australians. I also give a special shout-out to the oldest and the youngest alumni of CMC Ludhiana, who were in attendance on Saturday night. The oldest graduate is Dr Patrick Seng Hee Tang, who graduated in medicine from CMC Ludhiana in1969—the year I was born! He then returned to Malaysia, and we are all blessed that Dr Tang decided to immigrate to Australia in 1989 with his three children. One of his children, Dr Kevin Tang, is now a very eminent gastroenterologist in my home state of Queensland. The youngest alumnus is Dr Sajeev J Jacob, who graduated from CMC Ludhiana in 2019, exactly 50 years after Dr Tang graduated. He worked in several rural mission hospitals in India before he came to Australia last year. Again, we're blessed to have Dr Jacob here in Australia. I will close, with respect to the wonderful doctors who have graduated from CMC Ludhiana and who are all over the world, with this quote from Dr Sajeev J Jacob, speaking about meeting Dr Tang, who was the oldest alumnus in attendance: This encounter beautifully illustrated how the spirit of CMC transcends generations and geographical boundaries, which I found connecting and empowering. I too found it connecting and empowering. It was a great privilege to be in your company last Saturday night. Last Saturday, I attended an event which was hosted by the Islamic Society of Toowoomba. It was the 11th annual Toowoomba International Food Festival, hosted by the Garden City Mosque during its open day in Toowoomba. It too was a wonderful event at which to be in attendance. From my perspective, the Garden City Mosque in Toowoomba represents the very best of Australian values. This was a mosque that was subject to two evil arson attacks in 2015. In response to those arson attacks, the Toowoomba community put its arms around the Muslim community in Toowoomba, gave it support and love, and made sure it was supported. It was an absolute privilege to attend the open day at the mosque last Saturday and to see the new, beautiful mosque which has been built in the Garden City of Toowoomba, a mosque that is open to all members of the community in Toowoomba. I'd like to give my tribute to Imam Dr Mohammad Aminul Islam, who made some beautiful remarks on the day; to the President of the Islamic Society of Toowoomba, Associate Professor Dr Mainul Islam; and to a gentleman who I would describe as a force of nature—anyone who has met him will understand what I mean by that—Emeritus Professor Shahjahan Khan, who was the founding president and spokesman for the Islamic Society of Toowoomba—a marvellous man who has done so much to promote social cohesion in Toowoomba. I'd also like to acknowledge my dear friend Trevor Watts MP, the state member for Toowoomba North, who first introduced me to the mosque, and also leaders of the Anglican faith and the Catholic faith who were in attendance. The honourable Bishop Cameron Venables, the Anglican Bishop of the Western Region, gave a beautiful musical rendition which I think summarised the feelings of all in attendance. I congratulate him on his words and his musical performance. I'd also like to acknowledge the honourable Bishop Ken Howell of the Catholic Diocese of Toowoomba for his thoughtful remarks. That mosque was subject to those arson attacks, and then the people of Toowoomba rallied, provided support to the Muslim community and built a beautiful new mosque in Toowoomba, open to the whole of the community. From my perspective, that represents the very best of Australian values. I was aghast to read comments from the current Labor government in response to two reports that the economics committee of the Senate finalised during the course of the last parliament. I was the chair of the Economics Legislation Committee and deputy chair of the Economics References Committee during the last parliament. From my perspective, the response that the Labor government has given to two extensive reports of the Economics References Committee shows an absolute disdain for the processes of this Senate, which we see again and again. The Economics References Committee did a report into the Australian manufacturing industry. That report was 142 pages. The committee held hearings all over Australia. It had dozens and dozens of submissions with respect to the future of the manufacturing industry in our country, a matter of key importance for the future of our country, its industrial capacity and employment opportunities for people. It made 19 recommendations and was 142 pages long, and the government's response is 48 words—48 words! To a report produced by a references committee of this Senate, the government has given a response of 48 words, including: … a substantive Government response to these recommendations is no longer appropriate. Oh, I didn't realise! All the issues facing the manufacturing industry in Australia have been fixed! But then, even worse, here's another one. I sat on the economics committee when it looked at Australia's oil and gas reserves. We have a problem with oil and gas reserves. We've had a chronic gas shortage in Victoria. AEMO is telling us about the urgent need to increase gas supply in this country. So I would have thought that this one at least would have gotten more than 48 words. Well, it did: it got 53 words. This report of the economics committee was 190 pages long. Again substantive recommendations were made, and again the same words were used: … given the passage of time since this report was tabled, a substantive government response to the recommendations is no longer appropriate. Really? I think the Labor government needs to reflect on this and show a bit more respect for the work that this Senate does on behalf of the Australian people. Westbrook, Eden Jayde 88 20:10 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I rise today to speak about the life and sudden death of 15-year-old Eden Jayde Westbrook in 2015. Many people around the world already know Eden's story better than most people in Tasmania and elsewhere in Australia. That is largely thanks to the podcast Our Little Edey—The Eden Westbrook Story and the dogged work of Amber Wilson at the Mercury. On Tuesday 18 June Channel 9's Under Investigation program brought Eden's story to a national audience. Getting Eden's story out there is thanks to unpaid advocates and especially the strength and persistence of Amanda and Jason, Eden's mum and dad, and their determination to find out what really happened to their beloved daughter. The night before Eden died, she had had a disagreement with her parents about using her mobile phone and went to cool off, sitting in a car outside her home. At 8.45 pm, Eden's sister went outside to check on her, but Eden was gone. Her family spent the night searching for her. Early the next morning, on 18 February 2015, Eden was found hanging by a rope from a limb of a tall tree in a public park on the main road in St Helens on the north-east coast of Tasmania. The police claimed Eden's death was suicide, and a Tasmanian coroner agreed. But in the days and weeks that followed, as the initial shock faded, Jason and Amanda simply did not believe that Eden had taken her own life. She had just come back from a holiday with her two sisters and was looking forward to a camping weekend. Eden was a bright and bubbly 15-year-old. She was doing exceptionally well at school. She had a lovely family and was looking forward to buying her first car. The coroner noted she was a sensitive person who cared for others. I believe—and I am not alone in this belief—that something awful happened and that Eden was probably murdered. Disturbingly, it appears that some members of Tasmania Police have for unknown reasons covered up the crime. I've always been a big supporter of the police, including the Tasmanian police. They must deal with situations that most of us would hate. They also are often understaffed, and many of them live with PTSD. This is not about giving those hardworking, honest Tasmanian police a hard time, but my concern is that a small number of rotten apples in Tasmania Police appear to have engaged in a cover-up. Eden's parents, along with the rest of her family, have fought for nearly 10 years to have the death of their daughter thoroughly investigated and made the subject of a public inquest. The family's investigation into Eden's death was assisted by a whistleblower who in early 2023 told Eden's mum and dad that her murder was covered up and staged to look like a suicide. Now a key witness, the person said to be the first to report the finding of Eden's body to police, is saying that she straightaway thought this was a murder staged to make it look like a suicide. The new witness made a front-page article in the Mercury only yesterday. The whistleblower said he had heard that Eden had been tied up in a tree with rope by an adult man and a younger female. He identified two people who he claimed he heard were involved. It looks like there are numerous gaping holes in the police investigation and reinvestigation, including the failure to interview critical witnesses and share relevant information with the Westbrooks. The police also failed to seize CCTV footage so a proper timeline of events prior to the death could be established. The police didn't ask Eden's parents for her phone, and it seems they didn't examine Eden's phone and social media. Unfortunately, the phone was cremated with Eden. The police didn't even investigate Eden's movements prior to her death. Witness statements obtained by the family and a previous lawyer helped fill out that critical gap. I have seen multiple witness statements taken by a criminal barrister who believes they prove beyond reasonable doubt that Eden did not commit suicide. There are simply too many inconsistencies and far too many unanswered questions. There is a possibility raised by the new witnesses, as reported in yesterday's Mercury, that Eden's hands may at some stage have been tied behind her back, and there is an unwillingness to share critical details with the family, including vital autopsy photos, which form an integral part of the post-mortem report. Police failed to seize and properly examine CCTV footage of the skate park; a now deceased police officer said to Eden's parents shortly after her death that the footage showed her arguing with an older female in the early hours of 18 February 2015. The investigation into Eden's death was conducted by Tasmanian police based at St Helens, but with oversight and input from a now deceased and alleged paedophile police officer, Senior Sergeant Paul Reynolds. A mere constable had primary carriage of the investigation. It also appears that no real forensic examination or analysis occurred. It seems a hasty decision was made to treat what should have been the highly suspicious death of a vulnerable child as a suicide. This seems to have occurred on day one, according to the new witness. Reynolds's possibly improper or undue influence on or possibly criminal conduct in any investigation is now the subject of a review commissioned in 2023 by the Commissioner of Police. The Weiss report is due to be released shortly. I understand that the Westbrooks have made detailed submissions to this review. The coroner, who was being advised by the late disgraced Paul Reynolds, handed down a three-page finding without investigation on 13 September 2016, in which she held that there was no reason to hold an inquest. The coroner found, based on several matters, including apparent incidents of previous self-harm and suicide attempts, that the death of Eden Westbrook was a suicide. The coroner found that Eden had died of asphyxia and hanging. She was satisfied that there were no suspicious circumstances surrounding Eden's death and that no other person was involved. However, nowhere in those three pages did the coroner refer to forensic findings that she relied upon to exclude foul play and indicate suicide. This would have included post-mortem results, autopsy photos, or forensic or DNA testing—of the rope, for example. On the involvement of Reynolds, the coroner stated: Senior Sergeant Paul Reynolds of the Launceston Coroner's Office also provided regular oversight and direction during the investigation period at my request. The coroner stated that she was satisfied that she had received all available evidence that could reasonably assist her in determining the relevant matters under the Coroners Act 1995. An application by Eden's parents to have the matter reopened was refused by the Chief Magistrate in April 2022. From the evidence of her two older sisters, Justine and Hunter, who lovingly applied make-up to Eden's face at the funeral home in 2015, it would also appear that Eden had suffered facial bruising and shattered teeth. This, of course, could have been a result of blunt force trauma to the face. If these injuries did exist, why did the Chief Magistrate, in her written reasons for not reopening the matter, state that there was no sign of any trauma to Eden? Despite many requests over many years and more recent requests by Channel 9 to have the autopsy photos released to an independent forensic pathologist authorised by the parents for analysis, the coroner's office has refused to release these photos, essentially on the grounds that this case is now closed and that it is not appropriate for any third party to receive the photos. If there is nothing to hide, why not release the photos? What is also worrying is that Channel 9's Under Investigation producer was informed earlier this year that the autopsy photos were never in the coronial file. Does this mean that the coroner and the Chief Magistrate never viewed the autopsy photos? When Channel 9's Under Investigation with Liz Hayes asked an independent forensic pathologist to review Eden's case, the independent expert pathologist told Channel 9: The Coroner's refusal to provide these photographs has severely fettered my review of this matter and, whilst I understand the sensitive nature of these photographs, it beggars belief that they have not been released from my examination, as they comprise an integral part of the autopsy report. Did alleged paedophile policeman Paul Reynolds, who was assisting the coroner and oversighting the investigation, remove, sideline or destroy the autopsy photos? What role did he play in the obviously deficient police investigation? How are the parents and their legal advisers supposed to determine if they should appeal to the Supreme Court for an inquest when critical documents and images are not released? It also appears, from the recent commission of inquiry and additional advice, that there was alleged paedophile activity happening within the St Helens high school itself. There are also concerning allegations that there had been child abuse perpetrated by members of the Tasmanian police in St Helens around the time of Eden's death. Was Eden somehow caught up in this awful activity? Was she being groomed or even abused? Was she being bashed and tied up before a staged hanging? There have been other suspicious and unsolved murders or disappearances in the north of my home state. It is time for the Tasmanian Attorney-General to intervene, as occurred recently in the Jari Wise case, to ascertain whether systemic issues and corruption are involved and to direct that an inquest be held, as provided for in the Tasmanian Coroners Act. The Commission of Police also failed to ensure a proper review and reinvestigation of the matter when the Westbrooks made formal complaints. The outcome of a recent review was not shared with them. This whole thing stinks to high heaven. I believe this case needs an urgent public inquest headed by a respected interstate judge or coroner, with independent counsel assisting from interstate, as soon as possible. How could Paul Reynolds have operated as he did for decades, as reported by Regina Weiss in her 2024 interim report? With clear knowledge of his misconduct, why was a full police funeral with a police guard of honour held for him and a eulogy given by the then commissioner? You need only look at the way in which the recent commission of inquiry into child sexual abuse in government institutions in Tasmania was prevented from making adverse findings or findings of misconduct and therefore from holding people, both offenders and enablers, to account. There must be an independent commission of inquiry, underpinned by appropriately amended legislation, by a highly respected interstate judge—or judges—into the integrity, impartiality, competence and effectiveness of Tasmania Police and the coronial and criminal justice system in Tasmania. The possible murder of a young girl and what appears to be a botched investigation—potentially, a blatant cover-up—should be an enormous concern to all Tasmanians. I call upon the Attorney-General in Tasmania to direct that a public inquest into Eden's death by an independent and external coroner be held pursuant to section 24(1)(d) of the Tasmanian Coroners Act 1995. The Westbrook family have been fighting for answers for nearly 10 years. It is time the Tasmanian state government did its job and found out the truth behind what happened in St Helens. COVID-19 90 20:20 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland My Senate office held the first inquiry into COVID and response measures, called COVID Under Question, on Wednesday 23 March 2022. Another was held on Wednesday 17 August of the same year. Witnesses included Australian and international experts on health and relatives of people that the COVID injections killed or maimed. All aspects of Australia's COVID response were questioned. Politicians from several parties participated, making it a true non-partisan cross-party inquiry. Because of the two full days of testimony at these inquiries, my decision-making has been much better informed. That's what a senator must do. I acknowledge the support of my wife, Christine, as our office team's workload increased in response to the many serious breaches of Australians' rights and tens of thousands of deaths due to mandated COVID injections. Our aim is to restore our country and our planet for humans to abound and flourish. Channel 7's Spotlight program two nights ago revealed that the public remains very deeply dissatisfied and concerned about governments' COVID response. Many are angry. The people have many questions to be answered before trust can be restored in federal and state governments, in politicians, in health departments and agencies, in medical professions, in media and in pharmaceutical companies. Across Australia, citizens are waking, making an effort to understand for themselves and for Australia. Generally speaking, people are wonderful and deserve to have their needs and expectations of governments met. Citizens are our constitutional democracy's highest order. As servants to the people, it's our duty as their representatives to address their questions and concerns. I find it surprising that our health bureaucrats and politicians oppose a judicial inquiry into COVID. Listening to their responses in Senate estimates over the last four years, it's clear they desperately do not betray they've made a single mistake. In fact, their answers suggest their performance has been exemplary—worthy of medals and parades. The United Kingdom even called upon the whole country to stand on their front doorsteps and applaud their health professionals every Thursday evening. The inventor of the Moderna vaccine was given a staged standing ovation at Wimbledon. Certainly, big pharma thought so highly of the head of the TGA, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, Professor Skerritt, that they offered him a thankyou job on the board of Medicines Australia—which, despite the grandiose name, is the main pharmaceutical industry lobby group. Heady days, indeed. Those days are over as the reality of their incompetence, self-interest and lies comes home to roost. To those in this place fighting a rearguard action against a tidal wave of knowledge and accountability, it must be clear to you now that the battle is lost. Public anger is not going away; widespread and deep anger remains. Trust in the medical profession is lower than at any time I can recall. I fear where that will lead if it's not corrected. Every new unexplained death and every new heartbreak increases public realisation of what was done to the people. Excess deaths, despite statistical sleight of hand, are not falling. The genetic timebomb of mRNA vaccines is still ticking. More people are dying and more will die. The failure of our regulatory authorities to protect us is a crime. Approving a vaccine—a novel vaccine that killed people—is a crime. Banning existing products that have proven efficacy and safety in order to drive sales of a so-called vaccine is a crime. Covering up this corrupt process is a crime. This is homicide. Those who approved the vaccine knew, or rightly should have known, it was a gene therapy—an experimental gene therapy of a type which has failed a generation of safety testing. Five United States states—Texas, Utah, Kansas, Mississippi and Louisiana—are currently suing Pfizer for knowingly concealing that the vaccine caused myocarditis, pericarditis, failed pregnancies and deaths. The complaints allege Pfizer falsely claimed that its vaccine retained high efficacy against variants despite knowing the reverse was true: protection dropped quickly over time, and it did not protect against new variants. Marketing the vaccine as safe and effective despite its known risks is a violation of consumer law in all five of those states. The lawsuit alleges Pfizer engaged in censorship with social media companies to silence people who were criticising its safety and efficacy claims and who even dared to question them—proof of which has been public knowledge since Elon Musk released the Twitter files in December 2022. The lawsuit charges civil conspiracy between Pfizer, the US Department of Health and Human Services and others 'to wilfully conceal, suppress or omit material facts relating to Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine'. While Pfizer has indemnity for injuries, under the PREP Act, that indemnity is invalidated through making false and misleading claims. The reason this relates to Australia as well is that our contract with Pfizer, which provided indemnity against injury, can be negated through misconduct from Pfizer, and misconduct there was. Surely, if we have a chance to move the cost of vaccine harm from the taxpayer to the perpetrator, we must take that opportunity. Citizens of Australia deserve this. Evidence for this lawsuit in the United States was gathered during a grand jury investigation and has now been presented to the Supreme Court of the United States, the ultimate court. It makes for horrifying reading. One, Pfizer's chairman and CEO, Dr Bourla—a veterinarian, not a doctor—declined government funding in order to prevent the government's ability to oversee the development, testing and manufacture of the vaccine. That's not something someone does with a safe and properly made product. Two, Pfizer's independence from Operation Warp Speed allowed it to demand a tailor made contract that did not include the normal clauses protecting taxpayers' interest. Three, contrary to its representations, Pfizer has wilfully concealed, suppressed and omitted safety and efficacy data relating to its COVID-19 vaccine and has kept data hidden through confidentiality agreements—it kept it hidden. Four, Pfizer had a written agreement with the United States government that Pfizer had to approve any messaging around the vaccine. A judicial inquiry can determine if such a clause was in the Australian agreement as well. Five, Pfizer used an extended study timeline to conceal critical data relating to the effectiveness and safety of its COVID-19 vaccine. The study timetable was repeatedly pushed out to avoid revealing the results of the clinical trials until after billions of doses had been given. Six, instead Pfizer submitted a 'Hollywood' version of the safety trials, which showed efficacy and safety data that their real trials did not, and our health authorities bought it. Seven, we're three years into COVID, and scientists still can't review Pfizer's COVID-19 raw trial data. Eight, so, when Professor Skerritt said in Senate estimates that the TGA had analysed all of the trial data, that was a lie. They used Pfizer's 'special' data. Nine, Pfizer kept the true effects of its COVID-19 vaccine hidden by destroying the trial control group, invalidating the study. This was not gold-standard research. This was dangerous and fraudulent behaviour. Ten, Pfizer rigged the trial by excluding individuals who had been diagnosed with COVID-19 or who were immunocompromised, pregnant, breastfeeding or simply unwell. Why did the TGA claim the vaccine was safe for these people when the vaccine was not even tested on these people? Eleven, the statement that the vaccine worked even if you already had COVID is therefore a lie, yet that expanded the potential market. Twelve, Pfizer maintained its own secret adverse-events database, which was obtained in court processes and showed that, in the first three months of the rollout, 159,000 adverse events had resulted, including 1,223 deaths. Thirteen, Pfizer was receiving so many adverse-event reports that it had to hire 600 additional full-time staff. Fourteen, while Pfizer tested its COVID-19 vaccine on healthy individuals in 2020, Pfizer and its partner, BioNTech, quietly tested its COVID-19 vaccine on pregnant rats. Subjects had fetuses with severe soft-tissue and skeletal malformations, and some subjects failed, at more than double the rate of the control group, to become pregnant and to implant embryos, amongst other side effects. Some rats lost their entire litter. Pfizer did not issue a press release announcing the rat fertility study findings, and it lied about the outcome. My 10 minutes is almost done, and I'm only up to page 24 of the 179-page brief of evidence. There are another 155 pages yet to cover. If it's not clear to the listeners by now, the vaccine was criminal fraud. I have plenty more to share with you. The last word for today is from South Korea, where a study analysed 4.3 million individuals over three months, comparing the rates of various new medical conditions in vaccinated versus unvaccinated groups. The study revealed that the vaccinated experienced a 138 per cent increase in mild cognitive impairment, a 23 per cent rise in Alzheimer's disease, a 68 per cent rise in depression, a 44 per cent rise in anxiety and related disorders and a 93 per cent increase in sleep disorders. In Australia, following my questions to the Institute of Health and Welfare at the inquiry into excess mortality in Australia, evidence was presented that the Institute of Health and Welfare could have done this same research. It chose not to. Our health authorities are not conducting this research because they don't want to know the answer. They want to avoid the answer and hide the answer. A judicial inquiry is needed to get to the truth, and I call on Prime Minister Albanese to call a royal commission immediately. Senate adjourned at 20:30