2024-07-03 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Wednesday, 3 July 2024

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

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

Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024

Second Reading 1 09:01 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I want to begin by stating what I've already stated in the past: we have a problem with our Australian universities. It seems to me they're finding their own ideology these days. That's a matter of fact. They are beyond a joke. Last year's Australian Jewish University Experience Survey found that 64 per cent of Jewish students experienced an incident of antisemitism during their time at university. Of these, 29 per cent reported that staff had participated and 70 per cent said that staff were present but not involved. In other words, staff just ignored what was going on. They turned their backs and didn't have the courage to deal with it. This is where our Australian universities are today. This is where they're at. Sixty-one per cent of those students said that they didn't make a complaint because they didn't think it would make a difference. Nearly half of them said they didn't make a complaint because their university wouldn't take it seriously. I've spoken to Jewish academics and students who have told me they feel intimidated and afraid. A student has told me that she tries to hide the fact that she is Jewish and that she feels afraid every time she must walk past one of the pro-Palestinian encampments. In March this year, two Israeli academics who the University of Sydney had invited to speak on campus had to be locked in a room, with anti-Israel activists screaming at them for more than an hour while the university security people were instructed to stand by and do nothing. Also in March, Macquarie University academic Randa Abdel-Fattah said that Zionists had no right to cultural safety, and she helped to spread a leak of the private details of hundreds of Jewish artists. In late April, she and activist group Parents for Palestine organised a kids' excursion where primary school aged children led each other in chants, including 'intifada' and 'Israel is a terrorist state'. Senator McKenzie 207825 Whoa! Senator LAMBIE 250026 Yes. This is what is going on in our own backyard. Our values are being depleted, and people are turning their backs because they don't have the courage to stand up and stop it. That is where we're at in Australia in 2024. This was at the University of Sydney's pro-Palestinian encampment. You did nothing. You allowed those encampments to sit outside your university and you turned your back. I don't know what you are selling in those universities, but you are not selling the values of Australians, nor do you seem grateful for the freedoms that you have been given through the blood, sweat and tears of our veterans. Macquarie University has not condemned this academic. The New South Wales Co-President of the Australasian Union of Jewish Students, Danielle Tischmann, said it's 'heartbreaking' to see the University of Sydney allow its campus to become a safe haven for preaching hatred, as she put it. She said: It's incomprehensible that students are walking to class hearing young children chanting for violence— in this country. There are boot camps out there for that. New Zealand is running them today. They said, 'We're going to do this.' By the way, those boot camps can be used for the deradicalisation of these kids. There's a wake-up call for you. Over on this side, for three months I've been discussing with you these boot camps, and the difference they can make to a young person's life. They have a 75 per cent success rate. They're not just about young offenders; they can be used for deradicalisation as well. Have a good look. New Zealand is onto it. Once again, you are behind. You don't want to deal with this. A University of Queensland associate professor, Yoni Nazarathy, said he had serious incidents of antisemitism happening in front of him. These included the snatching of flags, pouring coffee on signs and using the word 'Zionist' in a 'derogatory and hurtful' manner. As he put it: I think that the University of Queensland … is complicit with anti-Semitism … It does not mean that they're anti-Semitic, but they allow for anti-Semitism to go on campus unchecked … Once again, no courage. So, yes, we clearly have a problem with antisemitism in our universities, because the universities do not want to deal with it. Well, I say this to the universities: you've got to build some courage, because I can tell you now that, if I were in charge, this is what I would do. I would ask you to put the pressure on these universities. They get millions of dollars of Australian taxpayers' money, and they can't behave themselves. They need to be disciplined. They need to know that this cannot happen in this country. Because they have no courage to stand up against this, they're not carrying our Australian values, and it's probably time that your government and the minister get tough with them. I would suggest holding up their funding—their grants—until they can start coming into line with Australian values, leading by example and teaching our kids what our values are in this country. Do you over there have the courage to do that? Watch them jump up and down then, if they have no money coming in from Australian taxpayers. I can guarantee that Australian taxpayers do not want that money going in there at the moment. I will say this time and time again: universities, you are supposed to be places of learning, you are supposed to be teaching our kids the right thing, and you are failing miserably to do so. Universities are supposed to be where the free and frank exchange of ideas begins, but they should never, ever be made safe havens for racists, and that's exactly what you are doing: you are making your universities safe havens for racists. My goodness! So, yes, we do need a commission of inquiry into antisemitism at Australian universities, and I'll tell you what: I wholeheartedly support this Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024. 09:08 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I rise to speak on and support the Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024. I thank Senator Henderson for bringing it before us in this way, and I hope that it receives the support that it needs to. I 100 per cent endorse this private senator's bill. Let me be crystal clear: there is no room in Australian society for antisemitism, period—no ifs; no buts; zero tolerance. Antisemitism is not new, but since the terrorist attacks on Israel by Hamas on 7 October there has been a gradual increase in antisemitic behaviour across this country culminating in the disgraceful behaviour seen recently at our university campuses. Jewish Australians no longer feel safe in their homes, in their places of worship or indeed at their educational settings. Jewish students right now are being harassed and verbally abused at Australian taxpayer funded universities as they make their way to classes. Meanwhile some Jewish schools are resorting to hiring security guards to ensure that their students feel safe in class. As a conservative I believe in free speech. I support free speech and, of course, freedom of assembly. But with free speech comes a duty and a responsibility. It is not to be misappropriated. The right to protest must not be a cover for intimidation. It shouldn't be a cover for racism or indeed for religious discrimination. Free speech and the right to protest are not to be used to stir up hate and spread division, but that is exactly what is going on. That is exactly what we're seeing at university campuses with these encampments. With a sense of the incredulous, I have watched the Left search for its moral clarity on antisemitism in Australia—the manoeuvring and the hesitation, the ambiguity and the self-doubt. This is not a time for such moral indecision. Now is the time to call out antisemitism when we see it and to call it out when we hear it. As observed by Greg Craven in a column in the Australian on 11 May: Why are people who endlessly propound human rights— that's what we hear from the Left all the time— revile racism and foster gender diversity so negatively obsessed—at best—with one of the smallest, historically most persecuted minorities in the world? Why indeed. Where has the university leadership been during this time of crisis on their campuses? Why have they been so silent and so quiet? Why have they been so slow to act and call out and condemn the antisemitism that's occurring on the very campuses that they administer? By way of example, on the St Lucia campus at the University of Queensland, the flag of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine was flown at the Gaza solidarity encampment. The PFLP has been designated as a terrorist organisation by the United States Department of State. It's been that way since 1997. It's also considered a terrorist organisation in the EU and in Canada. But there, at the St Lucia campus, the PFLP flag is proudly flying alongside the Aboriginal and the Palestinian flags. This was on the same day a rally locked down two buildings at the university after the protesters stormed the buildings. Meanwhile, over at the University of Sydney, the Gaza solidarity encampment has school aged children chanting 'intifada' against Israel and calling Israel a terrorist state. These institutions are supposed to be settings of academic enlightenment and educational attainment, centres of critical thinking and beacons to society representing the pinnacle of higher education. Yet the silence of university administrators in failing to condemn these antisemitic activities can only draw one conclusion: they condone the radical actions of their students by allowing these protests to go on in the way that they are. It needs to be called out. This bill needs to be supported. Is it any wonder why Jewish Australians are increasingly feeling unsafe and isolated in their own country? The activists' behaviours on campuses, like those that I have highlighted, only fuel a heightened sense of concern and insecurity. I note that, at long last, at least one university has decided to take action. Deakin University in Melbourne has committed to taking action and clearing the encampments. Other universities must do the same. The time for being idle has passed—it's long passed. There needs to be more respectful debate on matters currently unfolding in the Middle East. Chanting slogans such as 'intifada' and 'river to the sea' while conducting other provocative activities at university encampments is not the way forward. During recent Senate budget estimates, I spoke about having met several Jewish students who had come to see me to express their deep concern about what was happening on their university campus. These students were from the university just down the road here, at the ANU. The ANU has a proud record.  It has nearly 7,000 residential students, many of whom are Jewish and Israeli. The ANU has one of the largest percentages of residential students of any other university in Australia. But, over the past few months, it's become a site of pro-Palestine and anti-Jewish encampment. Each morning, students walk out their front door only to be confronted with protesters camped out on their front lawn. This isn't just any place for them; this is their home. They don't have the benefit of being able to go home to retreat to the comfort or protection of their family and their household. This is where they live. They are putting up with this encampment and these protests and racial taunts every time they walk out their door. The administrators of the National University have a responsibility to ensure that those students are cared for. Every student should be protected, particularly those young students who are in their homes. They live on campus and can hear the taunts. The encampment is just outside their door! It's unbelievable! It needs to be called out. This bill needs to be supported so that we can properly examine this issue and so that an inquiry can be set up to properly engage on this issue to see the extent of this happening. These stories should drive us to support this bill. We need an inquiry. This is not the Australian way. Our Jewish and Israeli students deserve much more. These students are 18, 19, 20 years old. They're just kids, basically. They shouldn't have to deal with this kind of horrible racial and religious rhetoric. The ANU showed it was able to move the encampment from where it was. The encampment was in the hub of the campus, where the tavern and the student services are. They moved it from there, but they didn't move it because that's where Jewish students interact and that was where they were going to be confronted by this social and emotional harm; they moved it because there was a fire risk. That's right; they should move it if there is a fire risk—absolutely, move it on. But why didn't the ANU consider the safety of those students living on campus during the weeks this was going on? They weren't just there for their contact hours. It was their home! Where was the consideration of their emotional, social and mental safety? None of that was considered. Come on, administrators of universities. You need to take this issue seriously. Students should not have to put up with this. This bill will establish a commission of inquiry to examine instances of antisemitic activity on campuses both before and after 7 October. It will consider whether the response of university leaders, regulators, representative organisations and others has been adequate. I am pointing out to you today that it hasn't been. Let's have an inquiry and check that. In closing, when laying out the cornerstone for the future site of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in October 1988, which I was fortunate enough to visit in Washington, President Ronald Reagan said: We must make sure that from now until the end of days all humankind stares this evil in the face, that all humankind knows what this evil looks like and how it came to be. And when we truly know it for what it was, then and only then can we be sure that it will never come again. The ongoing persecution of Jewish students on university campuses across Australia cannot be tolerated, and I urge every senator in this place with every fibre of my being to please support this bill. Let's do the right thing. Let's ensure that protests are able to occur but not in the way that they are. We shouldn't be seeing what we're seeing on our campuses. Please support this bill. 09:20 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales I rise to speak on the Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024. I commend my friend in this place Senator Henderson and my friend in the other place the member for Berowra for their work on this incredibly important matter. Before I turn to the matter of university campuses, I want to reflect on this point. As honourable senators would know, Julian Leeser is my good friend. I have worked closely with him for many years in his service of the people of Berowra. Julian has had to deal with many things that other members and senators would never think of, particularly during election campaigns. I particularly remember the 2019 federal election when our campaign office was vandalised and defaced with antisemitic symbols. After that we had to lock ourselves in for our own safety. In 2019, in Sydney, we had to lock ourselves in our campaign rooms for our own safety. Julian is a proud Jewish Australian, and, as a result, he is targeted by hate and intimidation. This is something that Jewish Australians right across our country sadly have to deal with. But the clear message from the Jewish community is that this is the worst that it has been in living memory. The level of discrimination that Jewish Australians are facing at the moment is extraordinary. It is the worst that I have seen. At its crux, this bill is responding to some disgraceful behaviour that we have seen on our university campuses. What we are seeing is a group within our society who are facing untold amounts of discrimination on the basis of their race at Australian university campuses, places where young Australians go to learn so that they can better contribute to our society. Unfortunately we have seen a clear lack of appropriate action from this government. A commission of inquiry, as proposed in this bill, is in stark contrast to the Albanese government's establishment of a racism study led by the Australian Human Rights Commission into various forms of racism—a study led by the AHRC rather than action now. This study is a woefully inadequate response to campus antisemitism. The AHRC doesn't have the independence, powers or personnel to adequately deal with campus antisemitism. To make matters worse, the AHRC will not hand down its final report until after 30 June next year. That's the priority which this government gives this problem. The report is not even due until after the next federal election. This further reflects the government's weakness in combatting antisemitism on university campuses. We're also concerned that the AHRC is not fit to run such a study, as we revealed in Senate estimates. It has failed to expressly condemn the Hamas terrorist attack, and its employees include individuals under investigation for antisemitic slurs published on social media. Let's think about that. It's important to also note that the AHRC does not have the confidence of the Jewish community. The Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the Australian Union of Jewish Students, the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council, and the Australian Academic Alliance Against Antisemitism all reject an inquiry led by the AHRC and support a judicial inquiry. For a government that speaks frequently on the importance of consultation and co-design in social policy, it makes me wonder why they are listening to Australia's Jewish community. Education minister Jason Clare, who should be throwing the book at university vice-chancellors, has done very little here. He has failed to directly condemn the kids' excursion at Sydney University that encouraged young children—let's think about this—to chant anti-Israel slogans such as 'Intifada' and to participate in a march calling Israel a terrorist state. This is a school activity. This is a children's activity, on an Australian university campus. These are children. I think this is something the education minister needs to reconsider. He suggested that terrorist slogans like 'Intifada' and the slogan 'River to the sea' mean different things to different people. Well, they mean very bad things to Australia's Jewish community. The minister continues to draw a false equivalence between antisemitism and other forms of racism, such as Islamophobia. The minister has also failed to condemn university encampments which are fuelling antisemitic and incitement. These are Australian government funded campuses. Can we think about this? We are funding these campuses that allow this behaviour to continue unchecked. The coalition has consistently called out the minister for weakness of leadership, raising concerns that he has not shown the moral courage that is needed. This is a time for strong and clear leadership. I understand that the minister has concerns in relation to his own electorate. That's a separate matter and should not be a consideration here. On 28 May 2024, the coalition announced that a coalition government would use provisions of the migration act to cancel visas of any student protestors found to be involved in spreading antisemitism or supporting terrorism—and rightly so. That should pretty much be a given, shouldn't it? Under section 116 of the act, the ministers for Home Affairs and Immigration have significant powers to cancel the visas of any person who is or may be a risk to the health, safety or good order of the Australian community or any segment of the Australian community. Section 501 of the act gives ministers the power to do so if visa holders show contempt or disregard for the law of our country or human rights, including terrorist activities and political extremism and for vilifying a segment of the Australian community or inciting discord in Australia. These laws already exist. Yet there is no evidence that the Minister for Home Affairs, Clare O'Neil, or immigration minister Andrew Giles have cancelled one student visa under the significant powers available to them under the Migration Act. Why? Why have they not acted? How much longer will Jewish students have to fear for their safety when they go to classes at university before this government acts? Let me repeat that: how long do they have to fear for their safety before this government acts? Australia respects the democratic right to protest and free speech. But we will not tolerate racism, antisemitism or the public support for a terrorist organisation like Hamas. Australians are witnessing a failure of leadership from this government and some university authorities, which have profoundly failed to combat antisemitic hate and vilification on campus. Senator Henderson's private senator's bill before the Senate today mirrors the private member's bill introduced into the House of Representatives by the member for Berowra, Mr Leeser, on 3 June 2024. He has been a leading voice in our parliament in fighting to combat the scourge of antisemitism. I thank Senator Henderson for her work on this as well. It is regrettable that, despite multiple invitations to endorse this commonsense bill, this government has provided no public acknowledgment of or support for the proposal. They have completely ignored it. I think it's called 'ghosting'. This government has provided no public acknowledgment of or support for the proposal. Members of the coalition have directly reached out to the Attorney-General, inviting him to discuss this bill and this issue. He has not responded, despite promises to do so. On behalf of coalition senators, Senator Henderson has taken up the fight for a judicial inquiry by way of introducing this bill into the Senate. We note with concern that the Assistant Minister for Education, Senator Chisholm, said in budget estimates that the government would not support a judicial inquiry into antisemitism on university campuses. Why? I especially ask why given that, in this time, the situation at many universities has become worse. This government needs to act. The situation at universities includes the endorsement of the horrific actions of Hamas by some academics and students and classroom invasions where those who don't support activist causes are photographed and vilified for evidence, like something from the 1930s. Think about it. If you don't do what they want and you don't stand with them, they'll take your photo and use it for something down the track. It's extraordinary. It's absolutely extraordinary, and it's happening on Australian university campuses, taxpayer funded campuses. In the face of this weak leadership from the Albanese government against antisemitism on campus, the coalition will keep fighting for what is right. The coalition will not tolerate universities becoming a law unto themselves. 09:32 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales I too rise to speak in support of this private senators' bill—Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024—to establish an instituted judicial inquiry into antisemitism on university campuses. I think the term 'antisemitism' can confuse Australians sometimes, but antisemitism is simply another form of prejudice or discrimination on the basis of race. It's particularly in this instance directed against the Jewish people and the Jewish faith, but it is as worthy of condemnation and as worthy of this parliament's attention as any other form of discrimination. Unfortunately, many people, including in this chamber, seem to have a blind spot when it comes to this form of discrimination. They will be virulent and condemnatory, and rightly so, of any other form of prejudice or discrimination they see arise in Australian society, but when it comes to antisemitism, which is directed against a particular part of the Australian community—the Australian Jewish community—these same voices often fall silent. We have seen this far too often in this debate. Let's remember what the 7 October terrorist attacks by Hamas on Israel involved—the massacre of some 1,200 innocent people, families, women, children and the elderly, and the abduction of some 240, who were taken to Gaza and continue to be held by Hamas. Large numbers of those hostages have since been killed. A number still remain in captivity. These were crimes of a truly barbaric fashion. Young children dancing at a music festival fled for their lives. Some 354 of them were killed that day. More were taken hostage. Others were hiding in a safe room, lying on top of their children, trying to protect them from Hamas gunfire. Bodies were defiled and mutilated. Women were the victims of horrific sexual assault and abuse. All of this has been well documented. But, strangely enough, after these atrocities the only form of discrimination and prejudice we have seen surface in Australia has not been directed at Hamas or their fellow travellers or ideological supporters; it's been directed at the victims of these terrorist attacks—Israel and the Jewish people. And, undoubtedly, since 7 October we have seen what is truly a horrifying and unprecedented outbreak of antisemitism here in Australia. We saw it begin with the shameful protests, if you can call them that, on the forecourt of the opera house on Monday 9 October, a day that was meant to allow Jewish people and other people who sympathise with Israel and the victims of that terrorist attack to gather together in solidarity—not in malice and not with ill will towards anyone, but in solidarity with and remembrance of the victims of 7 October. That event was hijacked by people who instead sought to glorify and celebrate the horrific acts perpetrated by Hamas. We saw that on the night that the opera house was lit up with the colours of the Israeli flag—at the same time, I'd point out, that the Brandenburg Gate, the Eiffel Tower, Number 10 Downing Street and the Washington Monument were. All these other international capitals were able to respectfully honour the victims of that attack. Instead, in Australia, we had a mob descend upon the opera house, we had police forces tell Jews to stay at home and we had people burning Israeli flags, chanting hateful slogans and wishing ill will not just towards Israel but to Jewish Australians as well, uttering phrases which have been the subject of a number of police investigations but in which you could only detect malice and ill will. Since that time we've seen Jewish individuals, many of whom have no public profile and many of whom have expressed no political opinion or public opinion whatsoever on this conflict, doxxed—that is, had their personal and private details released with a view to them being harassed, being targeted on social media and having their businesses boycotted. We've seen the hijacking of theatrical productions to express a political statement in places like the Sydney Theatre Company and elsewhere. We've seen religious services disrupted, notably in Melbourne. We've seen property vandalised at Mount Scopus Memorial College in Melbourne and many other places. We've seen the boycott of Jewish owned businesses. And, of course, on university campuses, we've seen similar things. If this sort of behaviour were targeting any other group of Australians—if it were targeting Coptic Christians, Muslim Australians, the Australian Chinese community or the Australian Filipino community—we would be, in this chamber and outside, united in our condemnation of this and equally repulsed by it. We would be as one as a society in calling out this sort of unacceptable behaviour and in taking resolute action. Instead, when we are dealing here with one of the oldest, most persistent and most virulent forms of discrimination, many of us have fallen silent. On university campuses in particular, many of us have spoken to Jewish Australian students, and we know how unsafe they feel. We know that they are avoiding classes. We know that, if they are attending universities, they're seeking to give the encampments a wide berth. We know that, if they ever wear Jewish insignia such as the Star of David, they're not wearing it today. If they—heaven forbid—wear a kippah, a head covering, they are certainly not wearing that. If they are wearing anything that suggests their Jewish faith or even some element of solidarity with Israel, they are removing that. The recent survey by the Australasian Union of Jewish Students—which was conducted, in fact, in August 2023, before these October 7 terrorist attacks—already revealed that Jewish students had personally experienced antisemitism on campus. That has only been exacerbated—multiplied, really—by the events since. I was in Israel several weeks ago, and a fact that far too few people know about Israel is that Israel's population is about 20 per cent Arab Palestinian. They are full citizens who enjoy the same rights and who attend university in the same proportions as Jewish Israeli students. You haven't seen any protests there. You haven't seen the majority, the Jewish Israelis, organising encampments or protests on campuses which have Arab academics and Arab students. You haven't seen Arab students harassed, you haven't seen Arab students deterred from attending lectures and you haven't seen them vilified or persecuted. In fact, communal relations between Israel's Jewish and Arab Palestinian communities have been, in some ways, improved as a result of this attack because of the solidarity they all feel with the victims. So why are we seeing this on Australian campuses, our own university campuses? Not only have we seen encampments at places like Monash University and the University of Sydney, but we've also seen Jewish academics have their classes disrupted, be denied entry to their offices and be subjected to other forms of hate and intimidation. We've seen academics at places like Macquarie University actually join the encampments, take children to the encampments, encourage and urge that no Jewish Australian be allowed to have a safe space and encourage the targeting of them on social media and in other forms. I accept that universities face a difficult task in balancing freedom of speech and freedom of expression on campus. I've met with a number of vice-chancellors in my home state of New South Wales and discussed these issues with them. I think some of them have handled it better than others, frankly, but what I've heard consistently is that they have been looking for some leadership on this issue from the federal government, and they have found that leadership to be profoundly lacking. You'd be aware that a number of university vice-chancellors wrote to the Attorney-General some months ago, seeking his legal advice, particularly around phrases like 'from the river to the sea', but the Attorney-General pushed it back on them and said, 'It's up to you to figure this one out.' Rather than telling universities to clamp down resolutely on this and to make sure campuses, whilst tolerating free speech, remain a safe space for everyone, where students of all faiths, denominations, race and ethnicities can attend without fear, we've seen the Minister for Education not only fail to issue firm directions to the university vice-chancellors but equivocate about phrases like 'intifada' and 'from the river to the sea'. Jason Clare, the education minister, said that such things can mean 'different things to different people', a comment which was rightly disowned and condemned quite quickly by the Prime Minister. But we've seen too much of this, too much moral equivocation, from those in government, who are expected to set the moral tone of the nation, and, frankly, we've seen too many bothsidesisms. It's rare that you hear anyone in government condemn antisemitism without in the same breath condemning Islamophobia. Theoretically, yes, of course they should be condemned together, but, practically speaking, we're only seeing demonstrations of antisemitism on Australian streets, in Australian civic life, in Australian artistic institutions and on Australian university campuses. Of course, if we see an outbreak of Islamophobia or if I become aware that Muslim students are hesitant about wearing the hijab in public, feel intimidated about attending university classes and are being victimised, harassed or doxxed, I will condemn it just as much as anyone else in this chamber will. But here we are dealing with only one form of discrimination directed against only one sort of people. In Australia, one of the secrets to our success as a nation is that we have been able to bring together, and people this nation with, individuals of vastly different backgrounds, different traditions, different religions, different ethnicities and, in many cases, different value systems and mould them into one. If you were to conduct an experiment and say, 'We're going to set up a new country, and there will be an old and existing civilisation, and we're going to bring people from all corners of the globe, from all different backgrounds, from different socioeconomic strata and with different professional skills, different life experiences, different religions, different faiths and different ethnicities and put them all together,' most people would think you were creating a recipe for social division and disharmony. We've succeeded in spite of that because we've firstly demanded that everyone become Australians—that is, adopt, accept and promulgate Australian values. Whilst remaining true to their own heritage, their Australian identity must take primacy, and adherence to Australian laws and values must take primacy. We've also been very resolute in not allowing the importation of foreign conflicts and the tensions they bring into Australia. We are failing on this score right now because we have allowed people whose emotions can understandably run high as a result of the conflict in the Middle East to bring those emotions into Australia and to use them to target their fellow Australians. Australians all enjoy—and this is one of our joys as a nation—equal civil and political rights. They should enjoy equal rights to be free from discrimination and harassment, equal rights to express their political opinion without intimidation or fear and equal right to go about their lives—to conduct businesses, to study at universities, to attend artistic productions and to identify themselves as of a religion or a faith. Our Jewish Australians certainly deserve those rights, but those rights have been eroded over the events of the last several months and what we have been seeing, frankly, in Australia is redolent of 1930s Germany. Antisemitism in Germany began with schoolteachers and academics being harassed in university campuses and forced to leave their jobs, and with Jewish students being forced away from universities. It then escalated into the targeting and boycotting of Jewish businesses, property defacement, harassment and intimidation. We have been seeing all those same precursors here in Australia. In 2024 Australia we are seeing pictures that are redolent of 1930s Germany. That should be alarming to all of us because it is making one community of Australians feel unwelcome and unsafe—a community of Australians who, incidentally, have made a massive contribution to Australia in all spheres. Some have come from some of the most humble and fearful backgrounds, many of them Holocaust survivors, and have helped build this nation. Not only are we endangering their own lives and eroding their rights as Australians but we're risking the very social fabric of our nation by failing to stand up to this. I support this private senator's bill because I believe it will give the guidance to university vice-chancellors that they need to deal with this issue resolutely. 09:47 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I rise to make some supportive comments in relation to Senator Henderson's private senator's bill. It concerns me that one of the consequences of us living through a period where the country has a low level of ambition and has seen a failure on addressing division in our own community, is that minority groups have been treated unfairly. This has been a very difficult time to be a Jewish Australian. Since October 7 it would have been one of the most difficult minority groups of which to be a member. That is a great shame for our country because the mark of a good society is how it treats minority interests. We are all Australian and we are all able to take pride in our country, but the mark of how we treat minorities is so terribly important. It was with great shame and embarrassment that after the October 7 attacks on Israel—the greatest loss of life amongst Jewish people since the Holocaust—that we saw the scenes of celebration in Sydney at the iconic Sydney Opera House. Fancy that, celebrating the deaths of people, of our fellow humans. That was a real low point. There has been, I have to say, regrettably, a huge spurt of antisemitism throughout our community since October 7. It is undeniable that the threats against Jewish people for the crime of being a Jew have not been properly investigated and subjected to enforcement. I'm very disappointed that the state criminal code in my own state of New South Wales has not been enforced to protect people who have been vilified and threatened just for being Jewish. This is a great shame. Right now, the lesson from history is: don't think it will end with the Jews. It will spread and metastasise, and this is a huge failure of leadership and of law enforcement to be specific about it. This bill, of course, deals with a judicial inquiry into antisemitism in our university campuses, and we know this has been a major problem for students, academics, teachers and staff at universities. It has been well documented that the University of Sydney completely capitulated to the demands of the activists on campus and has subjected the university's governance and investment arrangements to activists, who can pore over the internal affairs of the university. This is another example of Israel being treated very differently to other countries around the world. We hear a lot from the crossbench, particularly in this place, about Israel, but we don't hear a lot about Russia and other countries. The reality is that there is a strong equivalence between what is happening in Ukraine and what has happened in Israel. We hear a lot about how the war is going in Israel, and everyone in this place feels for our fellow humans and the loss of life, but we also fear and feel for the people who are living through a similar conflict about borders and security in Ukraine. The attempts to change Australia's foreign policy, I think, are obvious to everyone. Australia is part of the liberal democratic alliance, and it is very important that we maintain fidelity to that alliance, because if we give up on the security of one of our partners then how can we expect our partners to support us? That is a very important point for us all to reflect upon. If Australia that had been attacked in the way that Israel has been, would we honestly expect that our government would take no action to defend the lives of Australians? I think the answer to that question is no. This bill would establish a process where a judicial inquiry would be able to get to the bottom of what has happened at the universities. The universities have been in the main, I would say, indolent and weak. I call out the University of Sydney for particular attention here, because their capitulation to these activists sets a very worrying precedent. As I said at the start of my remarks, we have always been a country which has protected minority rights and interests. In relation to Jewish Australians, after the Second World War Australia went out of its way to ensure that Jewish people who had fled the Holocaust and Nazi Germany could be resettled in our country. These people, in the main, have gone on to make an outsized contribution to our country. It is very important that, in protecting those minority interests, we set and maintain a standard that would apply to all Australians, so I say to all my colleagues here in the Senate: we need to tread very carefully here because, if we set a standard whereby one group or one minority interest is not worth preserving and protecting, then what message are we sending to everyone else? I think it is absolutely disgraceful that it has had to come to the point where the Senate is effectively considering stepping into the shoes of the universities, who have failed to protect Jewish students and teachers. It has been a very hard time to be a Jewish Australian, and I think that is a great shame for us all, particularly given the history of this country, as I say, in resettling Jewish people after the Second World War, but also given our outsized role in establishing the State of Israel after the Second World War and the role that 'Doc' Evatt and other people in the labour movement played in making sure that that happened. I have to say that I think that if Bob Hawke were still with us we would have been in a much stronger position to be able to repel some of these terrible things that have happened. Leadership is about calling out poor behaviour and ensuring that it is not repeated. I think we've now had eight or nine months of appalling behaviour happening in our community and attempts to change our foreign policy for the worse. This has been allowed to run and run. Leadership is about calling out poor behaviour, correcting it and then endeavouring to bring us all together. There is far too much division in Australia and too little ambition. 09:56 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I rise to speak in favour of this private senator's bill, the Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 (No. 2), and I congratulate my dear friend and colleague Julian Leeser MP for his role in relation to advocating for this and also, of course, Senator Sarah Henderson, who has been at the forefront of this debate. I'll make a number of points in relation to my contribution. What I want to do at the start is respond to the point which has been made by some members who've spoken against this bill. They ask: why have an inquiry that looks just at the rise of antisemitism in our universities and at how universities have managed that issue? I say this to you: quite simply, our Australian Jewish community is asking us, the Australian parliament, to convene this inquiry. When any part of our community—our society—exhorts us to establish an inquiry into issues relating to their victimisation and to the intimidation and harassment of that group and looks to us, the Australian Senate, to lead the way and to set up a judicial inquiry with appropriate powers and appropriate impartiality to look into an issue that is of particular concern to them, I think we have a moral obligation to reflect very, very carefully on that request, wherever it comes from. I want to quote from the representatives of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, which is the federal representative body of the Jewish community in Australia. The Executive Council of Australian Jewry is the peak body. This is what they've said in relation to this private senator's bill: A judicial inquiry, as originally called for in May by Mr Leeser, would allow Jewish students and staff to give evidence in a closed hearing, without having to fear reprisals from the fanatical fringe of anti-Israel or Jew-hating students, or victimisation from anti-Israel and antisemitic faculty members. There would be no opportunity for political grandstanding by any party, and the sole focus would be on getting to the truth. I'll just focus on some elements of that statement made by our Jewish community in calling for this inquiry, calling for this bill to be passed. There is a fear that, if Jewish students and staff are not provided the opportunity to give evidence in a closed hearing, they will be subject to reprisals and further intimidation. This is very sobering. I say to those opposite: you should carefully consider your position before you vote against this private member's bill, because the Australian Jewish community is calling for this judicial inquiry into antisemitism on our campuses and how our universities are managing this issue. That's the first point. The second point I would like to make is that, on the same day that Julian Lesser MP announced his intention to bring forward his bill, I attended my old university, the University of Queensland, at the invitation of the organisers of Camp Shalom to engage in a silent protest with them in response to the antisemitism they were seeing on my own university campus. I participated in that night-time silent protest. We went silently to the building of the office of the vice-chancellor and held up signs that simply said, 'Keep us safe.' That's all the Jewish students and academics were seeking: a commitment from the university to keep them safe. Even in the course of us engaging in that silent protest, there was vile abuse directed at the students and the faculty members participating. Even in the course of that silent procession, there was vile abuse. I commend all the participants in that silent protest for their discipline in terms of ensuring that they didn't do anything to respond to that vile abuse. There was dignity in that silence. I subsequently wrote to the vice-chancellor of the University of Queensland, Professor Deborah Terry, and told her about what I had witnessed on my university campus. I also conveyed to her the fact that Camp Shalom, the Jewish camp on the University of Queensland, was subject to vile acts of intimidation that very night after I left. I read a heart-rending email from a student at that university who was in the camp with his two-year-old son about the impact of that on his two-year-old son and how heartbreaking it was for him. That was on my university campus. I also referred to the fact that there'd been a terrorist flag flown on the university campus, the flag of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The PFLP has been declared a terrorist organisation by a number of our closest allies. They're responsible for aircraft hijacking, kidnappings, assassination and murder—absolutely despicable. A terrorist flag was flown on my university campus. There was also the incident relating to intimidation of a UQ academic where a protester went into their office and urinated in their office and called on them to resign. We have seen it all—swearing, flag stealing and sign tearing. We've seen all of it. Then what did the University of Queensland do? It entered into an agreement. It gave a commitment to the protesters who are in the other encampment. It issued a statement of commitment dated 1 June 2024 to those other students. In that commitment that goes for three pages—I have it here—it doesn't even mention antisemitism. They couldn't bring themselves to even mention antisemitism. That's my university. In the context of this debate, they couldn't bring themselves to even mention antisemitism. It's absolutely disgraceful. This is what Camp Shalom member and liaison for the Academic Alliance Against Antisemitism, Yoni Nazarathy, said. These are the words of a Jewish academic at my university: … seems like a commitment for keeping the door open to more harassment, vilification, hate speech, and anti-Semitism on campus. The university has had a very slack response to a series of hate and vandalism events on campus during the past month. With this, the statement negotiated with the anti-Israel camp has no explicit mention of anti-Semitism— extraordinary— and opens the door for a series of more demands from anti-Zionist protesters. As such, the contributors to Camp Shalom have agreed to physically set up the camp on campus during the graduation days, July 8 to 12, in protest. Queensland Jewish Board of Deputies President Jason Steinberg said the university's decision to acquiesce to the protesters was absolutely abhorrent. He said: What they've done is opened the door for anti-Israel, anti- Semitic activists to change the policies of the university … which was already an unsafe place for Jewish people; now it's an even more unsafe place. Following that, alumni of the University of Queensland have written an open letter to the Chancellor of the University of Queensland, Mr Peter Varghese, and the Vice-Chancellor, Professor Deborah Terry. The letter says: Whatever anyone's view about the current war between Israel and Hamas terrorists, there is no excuse for bringing the hatred of that war into Queensland. That's what the anti-Israel supporters on your campus are doing in Queensland—they are directly attacking Jewish staff and students through their words, graffiti, posters and violent acts. One of the signatories to that letter—and I commend him for it—is previous Chief Justice and Governor of Queensland, Paul de Jersey, an outstanding Queenslander. He has raised this issue as a former Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court and as former Governor of Queensland. This is an issue of grave, grave concern to the Jewish community in Queensland and to the Jewish staff and academics at the University of Queensland. I call upon the Labor party to reconsider its position if for no other reason than because the Jewish community of Australia is calling for this bill to be passed. How can you stand in the way of a bill calling for a judicial inquiry into antisemitism on our university campuses and the management of that policy? How can you stand in the way of that inquiry when the Australian Jewish community is united in calling for it? I commend the mover of the bill, and I certainly look forward to supporting it. 10:07 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory I stand to support the Commission of Inquiry into Antisemitism at Australian Universities Bill 2024 (No. 2). I was brought up in a household with a parent who was a history teacher who taught me the importance of understanding not only our nation's history but also world history, because our history teaches us what we should do in order to avoid atrocities from occurring. We, as an entire world, understand what the Jewish people have endured through world history. Yet, here we are, in Australia, in 2024, where there has become a huge rise in antisemitism throughout our democratic nation and, of particular concern, in our education institutions. Universities are supposed to be a place of learning, challenge, academia and safety, where our young people can learn within an environment where everyone is treated equally and where they don't have to be subjected to racism or prejudice. In our past we have been victim to terrorism. If we can all think back to the Lindt Cafe incident not so long ago. Following on from the Lindt Cafe incident, our Australian community was encouraged to ensure that we did not subject our entire Muslim community to any kind of prejudice. However, that same attitude or respect has not been applied to our Jewish community in this country, and, most importantly, in our universities. I would hate to think what would happen if the same sorts of behaviour were projected towards Indigenous students. Imagine that. Imagine the outcry, the uproar and the calls of racism that would take place. But for some reason in Australia in 2024, it has been acceptable for terrorist flags to be flying out the front of our universities and for terrorist chants to be used at the front of our universities. Let's look back to history, shall we? It really wasn't that long ago, in 1926, that the Nazi Party founded the National Socialist German Students' League. Part of their role was to foster ideological training of young people on university campuses. This is where it all begins. If we don't stand up and recognise the signs now as to where this can all go, then we are not learning from history. 10:12 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order! Senator Nampijinpa Price, the time for consideration of private senators' bills has expired. You will be in continuation when debate resumes. Payment Times Reporting Amendment Bill 2024 10

Payment Times Reporting Amendment Bill 2024

Second Reading 10 10:12 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I'm very pleased to rise in relation to this piece of legislation. For those in the gallery and those who are listening to this debate, what we're talking about here is the legislation Australia currently has in place requiring businesses of a certain size to report to a regulator with respect to the time it takes for them to pay invoices, in particular to small businesses. The particular concern the Senate has sought to address, and this parliament has sought to address previously, in relation to this problem is outlined by the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, who said: Late payments affect cash flow of the business owed the outstanding debt, forcing them to find ways to finance the short fall in their working capital instead of being paid on time and using the cash flow to grow their business. A lack of cash flow is the leading cause of business insolvency, and this underscores the importance of the issue of late payments, which can easily put many businesses out of operation. Against the backdrop of late payments, there has been a growing trend in payment practices, particularly amongst large Australian and multinational businesses, to extend payment times. The growth in extended payment times is partly linked to the practices of multinational businesses who apply global policies to improve their working capital efficiency. Extending payment times for suppliers effectively uses the businesses in the supply chain as a cheap form of finance. That's the issue. To put it in stark terms, just imagine that you are a small- or medium-sized business, you've incurred all the costs associated in producing goods or providing services to a large corporation—so you've incurred the expenses on that side of the ledger—but in some cases you're waiting for two, three or four months to be paid. In effect, your customer—the big business—is using you as a means to finance their working capital. It really is unacceptable in this day and age. So this is an important issue, and these are important reforms. Once this parliament set up the regulator, a review was undertaken with respect to the process. We're considering here ways in which we can improve the process to take into account the findings of that review. I want to quote from the reporting data, which is publicly available. You can go onto a website and find the payment times for some of our largest companies—BHP, Rio Tinto, Coles or whoever. You can see that in an open website. The Bills Digest states: The Payment Times Reporting Regulator released new data on the payment performance of more than 7,000 big businesses (many with an annual turnover of more than $100 million) on 1 February 2023. Analysis by the ASBFEO — the small-business ombudsman— revealed that there has been virtually no improvement by big businesses over the past six months … This is what the analysis of the current position with respect to timing of payment of invoices found: 24% of big business take more than 120 days to pay their small business suppliers— that's four months to get paid— 9% take between 61 and 90 days to pay 36% take between 31 and 60 days to pay 18% take between 21 and 30 days to pay 13% pay their bills in fewer than 20 days. So what you're looking at there, if you do the maths, is that only 31 per cent are paying invoices within 30 days. In the meantime, those small businesses are expected to finance all the expenses they've incurred in providing the goods or services. These statistics are quite startling. So the coalition—the opposition—does support the reforms which are proposed in this legislation. However, one additional reform is proposed by the coalition. That is that not only should slow payers be outed, with a light being shone on those who do not make payments within appropriate times and those who are laggards in making payments to small businesses, but we should at the same time recognise those businesses who are fast small-business payers. Those companies which are doing the right thing—that number within that 31 per cent cohort who are doing the right thing—should be acknowledged. It shouldn't just be a stick; there should also be a carrot so that we as consumers, when we're making our choice as to whether or not to buy goods or services from a large business, are informed as to whether or not this business is doing the right thing by its suppliers, particularly small business. That's what the coalition is proposing here: not just a stick but also a carrot. I think that's a very good initiative, and I compliment my good friend and colleague Senator Cash for driving this reform. How do we define a fast small-business payer? An entity is a fast small-business payer at a particular time if, at that time, the entity has to report under this regime and, for two consecutive reporting periods, the payment times report shows that they're paying within 20 days. If you're paying your small-business suppliers in 20 days or fewer, we're saying you should be recognised as a fast small-business payer. We the public should be aware of that, and you should be able to market that to the market—to the customers—so we can take that into account in deciding whether or not we're going to purchase our products or services from organisation A or organisation B. I can say, on my own behalf, that I would be particularly concerned, if I had a choice, about procuring goods or services from a company that is not paying its small-business suppliers in a timely manner, and I think many Australians would share my views in that regard. A number of other issues are covered in the amending legislation, and I want to quickly talk about one of them. With respect to the outing of slow business payers, I am concerned about the discretion given to the minister to decide whether to trigger a process leading to the categorisation of a business as a slow business payer, which in itself triggers a process that could lead to appropriate notations on invoices and other material to bring that fact to the light of the public. I would have thought—and I say this in good faith, to those who no doubt have put a lot of time and effort into this reform—that that should not be a matter of ministerial discretion, because it opens the door to the minister deciding, in two exactly similar cases, 'I'm going to exercise my discretion in this case to out someone as a slow payer, but I'm not going to exercise my discretion in this other case, where the objective circumstances are exactly the same in the case of this supplier.' I don't understand, to be frank, why there's that discretion in the process. From my perspective, as someone who believe in the rule of law—that we should all be treated equally before the law—it concerns me that that discretion is built into the legislation. From my perspective it should be objective. So, if you fall into the category of a slow business payer then you should be outed on that basis; if you fall into the category of a fast small-business payer, then that should be recognised as well. It shouldn't be a matter of ministerial discretion. So, I've got a concern in relation to that. I know there's going to be a further review after this legislation goes through, and that is a matter that I will be particularly interested in. But hopefully the government will seriously consider the amendments that are being put forward in good faith by the coalition. I think they improve the scheme. They provide a carrot. We've got a stick, but let's also provide a carrot so we can recognise those companies that are doing the right thing. I think it improves the bill. I think it improves the process, the regime, and I commend that amendment to the Senate. 10:22 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I thank Senator Scarr for his contribution to this debate. The Payment Times Reporting Amendment Bill 2024 is an important part of the Albanese government's commitment to delivering a better deal for small business. This bill implements important amendments to the Payment Times Reporting Act 2020 to level the playing field by promoting fair and timely payments from large businesses to their small-business suppliers. Our government recognises how crucial payments are to small business and to their cash flow. We are supporting small businesses, and thriving small businesses support broader economic growth. The bill introduces a framework of transparency to name best- and worst-paying large businesses. The intention is to create reputational pressures for large businesses, encouraging them to improve their payment times, their terms and their practices. It is important for the regulator to have appropriate powers to ensure that big businesses are meeting their obligations under the act, and this bill broadens the regulator's functions to include undertaking research and publishing analysis on payment performance and practices of reporting entities. This research will identify the causes of slow payment practices and barriers to improvements and will provide the public with tools and data to understand and interpret the payment performance of large businesses. At the same time, the bill reduces regulatory burden for entities covered by the act, streamlines processes and removes inefficiencies in the act. The reforms in this bill implement the government's response to Dr Emerson's review of the Payment Times Reporting Act 2020 and complement the other measures that the Albanese government is taking to support small businesses. I commend this bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee 12 10:25 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (5) on sheet 2639 together: (1) Schedule 1, item 12, page 5 (after line 25), after the definition of exempt entity in section 5, insert: fast small business payer: see subsection 22J(1). (2) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 4), after item 13, insert: 13A Section 5 Insert: list of fast small business payers means the list maintained and published on the register in accordance with section 22K. (3) Schedule 1, item 29, page 27 (after line 25), at the end of section 11, add: Division 5 requires the Regulator to maintain and publish a list of fast small business payers on the register. The Regulator can exclude an entity from the list of fast small business payers for a period in certain circumstances. Civil penalties apply to entities that make representations about being a fast small business payer when the entity is not included in the list of fast small business payers. (4) Schedule 1, item 41, page 41 (after line 13), after Division 4, insert: Division 5 — Fast small business payers 22J Fast small business payers (1) An entity is a fast small business payer, at a particular time, if: (a) at that particular time, the entity is a reporting entity or reporting nominee; and (b) at that particular time, the entity has given the Regulator payment times reports for 2 consecutive reporting periods and both of the payment times reports for the 2 consecutive reporting periods have a qualifying payment time of 20 days or less; and (c) at that particular time, the period of 9 months, starting on the day after the end of the later of the 2 consecutive reporting periods, has not ended; and (d) in the case that, at that particular time, the entity has given the Regulator a payment times report for the next reporting period starting immediately after the end of the later of the 2 consecutive reporting periods—that payment times report also has a qualifying payment time of 20 days or less. (2) For the purposes of this Division, qualifying payment time of 20 days or less has the meaning given by the rules. 22K List of fast small business payers List of fast small business payers (1) The Regulator must maintain and publish on the register a list of entities that are fast small business payers, to be known as the list of fast small business payers. (2) The Regulator must update the list as soon as practicable after an entity becomes, or ceases to be, a fast small business payer. Regulator can exclude entities (3) Despite subsections (1) and (2), the Regulator may decide to exclude an entity from the list for a period if the Regulator reasonably believes (or is considering whether): (a) the entity has engaged in procurement practices that limit, reduce or restrict small business participation; or (b) the entity has engaged in payment practices that are contrary to the objects of this Act; or (c) the entity has given the Regulator a payment times report for a reporting period that has a misleading qualifying payment time of 20 days or less. (4) If the Regulator makes a decision under subsection (3) to exclude an entity from the list, the Regulator must give the entity written notice of the decision. (5) The notice must: (a) set out the reasons for the Regulator's decision; and (b) specify the period in which the entity is excluded from the list. 22L False representations in relation to fast small business payers An entity that is a reporting entity or a reporting nominee is liable to a civil penalty if: (a) the entity does an act or omits to do an act; and (b) the act or omission results in, or is reasonably capable of resulting in, a representation that the entity: (i) is a fast small business payer; or (ii) has a qualifying payment time of 20 days or less; and (c) at the time the act or omission results in, or is reasonably capable of resulting in, the representation, the entity is not included in the list of fast small business payers. Civil penalty: 200 penalty units. (5) Schedule 1, item 72, page 50 (at the end of the table), add: I commend these amendments to the chamber. 10:25 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The government supports these amendments to introduce the concept of a fast small-business payer, which will recognise large businesses that pay their small suppliers within 20 days or less for 12 months. Our government wants to see small businesses getting paid as quickly as possible, and we recognise that there are merits to pointing to good examples of business payment practices. This aligns with the government's Supplier Pay On-Time or Pay Interest policy, which requires Commonwealth departments to pay invoices within 20 calendar days or to pay interest on the invoice amount. Of course, we encourage payment faster than 20 days, wherever possible. I'm pleased that the opposition supports this bill to improve payment times for small businesses. The Albanese government is delivering a better deal for small businesses because we understand their importance to local communities and to the national economy. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Third Reading 14 10:27 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (More Support in the Safety Net) Bill 2024 14

Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (More Support in the Safety Net) Bill 2024

Second Reading 14 10:28 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia The opposition will be supporting the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (More Support in the Safety Net) Bill 2024. But, sadly, two years in, Australians are paying the price for a succession of bad decisions and wrong priorities by this government. We will be supporting these measures because Australians are poorer after two years of Labor government. Australians have rarely in our history been able to look back from one election to the next—without overstating it, without overblowing it, without trying to throw the political rhetoric out there—and say, 'We are actually poorer than we were at the last election.' Sadly, that is what will happen at the time of the next election.  We will support the proposals from the government. These include, in schedule 1 of the bill, increasing Commonwealth rent assistance; in schedule 2 of the bill, making some very minor amendments, including some flexibility amendments, to JobSeeker arrangements; and, in schedule 3 of the bill, improving access to work and providing greater flexibility for those on carer payments. It's pretty uncontroversial stuff, but it's a bandaid on the bullet wound of what's being felt by Australians throughout the country under this Labor government. If you've got the average mortgage in Australia today, you're $35,000 worse off. After three budgets, we've seen terrible stewardship of the economy. We now have more core inflation, and the fact that we have homegrown inflation is troubling even the hard heads in the government. In the immediate aftermath of COVID, clearly the Australian economy was hit by inflation that had flowed from the supply chain issues and material shortages that were global phenomena. We wore the pain and did as every other trading nation in the world did, but what's occurring now is actually homegrown inflation. Whilst inflation is going backwards in almost every competitor country in the world, or in most economies that we would compare ourselves to, we now have inflation remaining stubbornly high here in Australia, and that means interest rates will have to be higher for longer. That's an immutable fact. It doesn't matter how much the Treasurer tries to spin this; the reason why this is relevant to the bill is that ultimately the Social Services portfolio is trying to paper over the cracks that are emerging because of the terrible mismanagement of the Australian economy by the Albanese Labor government. The truth is that no social services budget or portfolio measure can ultimately paper over the gaping cracks occurring in the economy right now, which are hitting families extraordinarily hard. The truth is that food prices are up by more than 10 per cent and the cost of housing is up by 14 per cent. This year, from April to April, in the housing sector we've seen rents rise by nearly eight per cent. Since the government have been in power, we've seen rent increases of more than 20 per cent on average. If the average is 20 per cent, I can say right now that there are many parts of the country where rents are up by 25, 30, 35 or even 40 per cent. There's nothing that the social services minister can do, even with a modest increase to Commonwealth rent assistance, to address the issues that are before Australians at the moment. There's nothing the social services minister can do to assist families which have an average mortgage and are paying $35,000 more than when this government came to power. That doesn't even account for those families—those in metropolitan Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane and in most of our metro areas in particular—who have mortgages well above the average. These people will literally be spending tens of thousands of dollars more to service their mortgage and put a roof over the heads of their families. We're supporting this bill, but what Australians don't want to see is the self-congratulatory patting on the back that we see every single day by this government—about how they're doing wonderful things for the Australian people. People are struggling out there and in a way I've never seen in my lifetime. Sadly, this is something that we often see with federal Labor governments. Labor are always saying, 'We just have very bad timing.' The poor, old Labor governments just have bad timing. They think that they just inherit these difficult circumstances. No, you don't inherit them after two years in government and after three budgets; you are making this problem. Your difficult circumstances are your own fault. The lack of budget strategy and lack of strategy to put downward pressure on inflation and to reduce interest rates mean there is nothing the poor social services minister can do to address and alleviate the issues that are being faced by some of our most vulnerable Australians. Before the election, we were promised by her Prime Minister no fewer than 97 times that he would reduce power prices by $275 per household each and every year, and that was for the level it was in 2022. Power prices are now up by more than $2,000 since that time. We all thought it was pretty heroic for the Prime Minister to make those promises before the election, but, no, that's how he sold himself to the Australian electorate. Some of us wondered if there was something that he knew that we didn't know or if he had something up his sleeve that we didn't. Well, no, the truth is that the Prime Minister clearly made a decision to say whatever he needed to say to deceive the Australian public and get them to vote for him, while he knew that he would not be able to deliver thereafter. What do we see now? We see electricity prices up by 20 per cent and gas prices up by 25 per cent. Again, there is nothing the social services minister can do on her own to address the pain that is being felt by Australians. I'll finish where I started. After two years of an Albanese Labor government, Australians are poorer than they were when the government came in. That's not open to interpretation. There wouldn't be anybody in Australia who would argue with that—apart, perhaps, from those opposite. It's not an area that you would be able to credibly debate politically, even if you tried. Australians are poorer than they were two years ago. The dollar doesn't go as far as it did two years ago. Housing costs are demonstrably higher than they were two years ago. Real wages have gone backwards under this government. On every single metric, Australians are doing it tougher than they were when the Albanese Labor government came to power just two years ago. So the Minister for Social Services and this government are not going to get a pat on the back from us for giving a tiny bit back with one hand when they have taken a massive amount away with the other hand over the past two years, from households and from Australians who are really struggling. 10:35 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I rise to speak to the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (More Support in the Safety Net) Bill 2024. This bill implements the woefully inadequate changes outlined in the budget in social services. This bill will not even touch the sides of the cost-of-living crisis being felt most acutely by people on income support payments. JobSeeker is a poverty payment. With rents soaring and grocery prices going through the roof, people on income support are increasingly hungry and homeless. A bill that moves less than one-half of one per cent of jobseekers onto a slightly higher payment isn't a solution; it's a sick joke. It's a special kind of cruelty to force people into poverty, tell them you're doing everything you can to help them and then offer a payment increase that is so small they will barely notice it. This higher payment, which only 4,700 people will now be eligible for, still falls over $200 short of the disability support pension. Instead of taking actual leadership, the Labor government has resorted to rearranging deck chairs. We are being asked to take seriously a minute increase for a very tiny group who in any sane system would be on the disability support pension. Rather than investing money in measures to provide people with a liveable income, Labor continues to force millions into a punitive, privatised mutual obligation system that enriches for-profit job providers and allows them to make life-and-death decisions about the poorest people in the country. It's a total sham, and it's appalling. The increase to Commonwealth rent assistance that this bill will give effect to amounts to $1.30 a day which, in the face of unrestricted rent increases, barely touches the sides of a runaway crisis. More and more people are being forced into homelessness. My office in Gladstone is directly beneath the department of housing service centre. On most days, we have people walking into reception immediately after they've just been told by the department of housing that there's nothing that can be done for them. They come in for help because they're desperate. I want to thank my staff who deal with these desperate people every day. It is hard and draining work. The government tells them that they can't help. Charities and community organisations are overstretched. Even with income support and rent assistance, there's still nothing affordable for these people in the private market. They're young people. They're old people. They're white. They're First Nations. Many of them come in with kids. None of these people deserve a life of housing insecurity—waking up every day in the park, in a friend's garage, on a friend's couch or in their car—wondering, 'Is today the day I'll finally find a place I can call home?' The line between having a home and having no home to go to has never been thinner. If Labor was really serious about tackling the housing crisis, it would phase out the massive tax handouts for property investors that are denying millions of renters the chance to buy a home and it would invest the savings in a mass build of public housing and coordinate a rent freeze and a cap on rent increases. We have a Prime Minister who once said JobSeeker should be increased. That's a fact. He said that people shouldn't be in a position where they can't afford to live. Well, there are millions of people in this country who can't afford to live—and it's getting worse. People are getting pushed to the brink and, instead of doing the one thing we know will help, we have a Treasurer crowing about a surplus and responsible budget management. Here are some facts for Labor. More than three million people in Australia experience poverty. That's right now, today. Over a third of all households are experiencing food insecurity. This is hunger. This is skipping meals. This is buying less nutritious food because it's cheaper than healthier options. I want Labor to really pay attention to this. In 2019, 30 per cent of all suicides in Australia were by people receiving the disability support pension and what we used to call Newstart. When income support payments increased during the pandemic, the suicide rates of people on unemployment payments fell 37.4 per cent. If I were the Treasurer of a wealthy country like ours, this is what would keep me up at night, not whether I could manufacture a fake budget surplus so News Corp can give me a gold star. In a cost-of-living crisis, a surplus isn't an achievement. It's money left on the table. It's money that could have gone to lifting millions out of insecurity, misery and desperation. Labor's surplus is an unmitigated moral failure that doesn't even stack up economically. One in six children in Australia experience poverty. Again, this is right now. It's today. This means kids turning up to school with an empty stomach and going to bed hungry at night. In my last decade of work as a teacher before I entered parliament it was clear that a growing number of families in the community where I worked were falling deeper and deeper into economic insecurity and poverty. I had students coming to school hungry and nodding off at their desks because they were running on empty. I had kids who couldn't get their homework done in the evenings because their parents literally couldn't afford to keep the lights on. I had senior students who were struggling to keep up with their assessments because they were working several nights a week and on weekends to supplement their family's income. I had students who were unable to engage in the curriculum because they couldn't afford a laptop or a home internet connection. We were forced time and time again to cancel more and more excursions because so many parents and carers just couldn't find the $10, $20 or $30 to cover the cost of an excursion. For years now, experts, advocates and people with lived experience of poverty have been united in one single call: raise the rate. The government's own Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, chaired by a former Labor minister, no less, has recommended for two years running that the single best method for tackling the cost-of-living crisis and alleviating poverty is to substantially raise the rate of income support. The Liberal controlled cost-of-living inquiry has heard overwhelmingly in submission after submission that the single most effective way to tackle the cost-of-living crisis is to raise the rate of income support payments. UnitingCare Australia said: … government-administered income support rates need to be increased, to ensure recipients have the means to cover their daily expenses and overcome poverty. Headspace said: In order to provide adequate support for those in need, income support payments, including JobSeeker and youth allowance, need to increase above the poverty line. Sacred Heart Mission said that the solutions to alleviating this crisis are clear and available and that: Raising income support payments to a liveable level above the poverty line would be the single greatest factor in poverty reduction in Australia. Homelessness Australia, the Community Housing Industry Association and National Shelter jointly said: Any meaningful impact to alleviating housing stress for lower income households must also include a permanent increase in the level of income support beyond the current inadequate routine indexing of pensions and payments. These are the voices that Labor continues to ignore. The Sex Discrimination Commissioner referred to rising income support as a preventative measure, saying it will stop homicides. We've seen hundreds of prominent women and non-binary people from across the community, union, business and academic sectors and civil society call for a substantial increase to JobSeeker and youth allowance as a matter of critical economic security. The Greens believe that the current social security safety net cannot be described as "decent" nor safe. Keeping people in poverty on JobSeeker and youth allowance is a fundamental issue of safety. It's not just the Greens saying this. We have wall-to-wall support across community organisations, advocates and people who are currently living in poverty. We need to be very clear about what the budget surplus represents. It represents a decision by Labor in the middle of a poverty crisis to refuse to spend public money—our money—on helping the people who need it the most. As Greens we are not going to stand in the way of the tiny increases being put forward in this bill, but we want to be absolutely clear that this is not enough. For this season, I foreshadow that we will be putting forward an amendment to lift the base rate of JobSeeker and other income support payments to $88 a day, above the poverty line. If Labor decides to vote against this, then it will be clear for everyone to see that it is their decision and their choice to prioritise a surplus over the safety and health of our community. It will be their choice of poverty rather than action. Let's be clear that poverty is a political choice. We've got a government that is willing to give tax breaks to the wealthy, to give tax breaks to property speculators and developers, to pay billions for submarines that we will never see and to give subsidies to fossil fuel corporations, yet they can't bring themselves to raise the rate of income support above the poverty line. People living on income support payments deserve to live a life of dignity, to put food on the table and to afford to put a roof over their head. No-one deserves poverty. In a wealthy country like ours, it is pure madness that Labor—I repeat that—that Labor are keeping people trapped on payments that don't cover their basic needs. I'll say it again: poverty is a political choice. The Greens have long fought for a strong social safety net and a liveable wage that would raise all Centrelink payments above the Henderson poverty line. We will continue that fight alongside the numerous organisations, advocates and people on income support, who, to this government's shame, are still having to campaign for no-one to be left behind. 10:50 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I rise to speak to the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (More Support in the Safety Net) Bill 2024, and I'd like to acknowledge and endorse the words of my colleague Senator Allman-Payne. In doing this, I also acknowledge the work of former Greens senator Janet Rice, who was an extraordinary champion of raising the rate, and the work of another former Greens senator, Rachel Siewert, who I don't think spent a moment in this place without trying to lift people out of poverty. I acknowledge the work of those three extraordinary, powerful women from the Greens team. This bill makes the most incredibly tiny changes that were outlined by the Albanese Labor government in the 2024-25 budget, a budget that put billions aside for nuclear powered submarines and billions more aside for a bunch of weapons systems like frigates, attack helicopters and missiles. It put billions and billions aside for war, almost all of which goes to offshore international and multinational arms dealers, and then gives people who can't pay the rent, who are struggling on Commonwealth rent assistance, $1.30 a day. I think what was most offensive about that was that the Labor Party pretended that that was meaningful. Because these people are living in such obscene poverty because of decisions by the Labor Party and the coalition, $1.30 a day might actually be meaningful to some of them. It might mean the loaf of bread that they couldn't otherwise afford from the discount-bread rack that they're able to put in an otherwise empty shopping trolley. To that extent, it may actually be meaningful. But how can a government suggest it's meaningful when they've got a $368 billion nuclear submarine project, when they're giving tens and tens of billions of dollars to fossil fuel companies to stuff up the climate and when they refuse to tax the hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars of gas exports sucked up by political donors to the Labor Party, like Woodside and other international global fossil fuel companies? A government that's doing that can't pretend it's meaningful. The bill also proposes to increase the JobSeeker payment rate for recipients who have an assessed partial capacity to work between nought and 14 hours per week. That's going to impact about 4,700 people, the government tells us. I think that's a fraction of one per cent of the people on JobSeeker. Again, they trumpeted that as though that was something meaningful. I'm sure, for those 4,700 people, it may be that tiny little bit of additional income that slightly reduces the obscene poverty they live in, but it's the same government that's giving $368 billion for nuclear submarines. It's the same government that's giving tens and tens of billions of dollars to international arms dealers for crap we don't need to kill people that we've never met. It's the same government, and they pretend it's meaningful. The other change is a very small change to the carer's payment that means recipients can work for up to 100 hours over a four-week period, rather than 25 hours per week, and still keep their payments. That is letting people actually, in part, work their way out of obscene poverty. It's a rule that has had to reverse more than a decade of cruelty towards carers because of a decision of a former Labor government to toughen the test and make it harder for carers, which has been overturned now by this government. That's hardly a handout; it's just letting people work some of their way out of the worst poverty. That's what that does. We're not going to oppose any of those changes, but what we're going to highlight is just how appallingly inadequate this is. These changes won't make a dent in poverty. They won't address the cost-of-living crisis; they don't even pretend to. In fact, in many ways the inflation that we've seen since these things were announced has eaten up the rental assistance. The increase in rents since these things were announced has eaten up the increase in rental assistance. The key point that this all comes back to is what Labor has refused to do. At the centre of this Commonwealth scheme is a basic payment for those people who can't work or can't find work. It is a base rate that is guaranteed to keep people in grinding poverty. Labor could have lifted the base rate of income support to above the Henderson poverty line. They could have done that, but instead they chose nuclear submarines, weapons of war, handouts to the fossil fuel companies and to let their big donors like Woodside get off without being taxed for the sale of hundreds of billions of dollars worth of gas offshore. That's what Labor chose. When you look around the country and you see people who can't afford rent, basic groceries or to keep the power on, who get frightened about turning the heater on on a cold night in Canberra or turning the air conditioner on on a blisteringly hot day in Townsville—if they have an air conditioner—and who can't afford to go to the pharmacy to get their medicine, how can you not be offended by a government that sees all that and, in turn, does this? It's an insult to millions and millions of people who are struggling to get by. Right now JobSeeker is a starvation payment. That's what it is. It's basically a starvation payment, and millions and millions of Australians are living on a basic starvation payment in abject poverty. A bill to move less than one per cent of those jobseekers onto a slightly higher payment is not a solution. There would be a better word for it and that would be 'cruel'. It's actually cruel. Income support is so inadequate that people are making decisions like showering once a week because they can't afford the hot water. Others are not buying essential medication for themselves because otherwise they couldn't afford it for their kids. And we know that about one in three Australian households are struggling to put the food on the table that they want to feed them and their kids. Think about that for a minute. In a country as wealthy as Australia, where billionaires are swanning about with tax credits and tax favours from the coalition and Labor, where gas corporations like Santos paid, I think, $16,000 in tax last year on billions and billions of dollars of revenue and genuine profit and where the billionaires and the fossil fuel corporations are having the time of their life, the response of the Labor government is to let them go on having the time of their life making billions and billions of dollars from the sale of public assets. We should remember that every cubic metre of gas, every tonne of coal, every tonne of iron ore and every tonne of rare earth that's sold were all public assets until they were granted to a corporation in a mining lease. They're all public assets. So they suck out all these public assets, they get billions of dollars in profits, many of them screwing up the planet at the same time with climate change, we don't tax them and then the government, in response, does this to people living in poverty. They pretend to be a Labor government. What does it even mean to be a Labor government if that's your policy platform? The inquiry into this had hundreds and hundreds of submissions from prominent women, cultural organisations, unions, the organisations dealing with the poverty that Labor lets happen, food banks and community groups. To a person, except for the business groups, they said the same thing. Do you know what groups like the Youth Affairs Council of Australia, headspace, Foodbank, the Uniting Church, the Salvation Army, St Vincent de Paul, the Western Australia Council of Social Service, the Tenants Union of Tasmania, the Medical Students Association, community interest groups, Wesley Mission, the Sacred Heart Mission, First Peoples Disability Network, Homelessness Australia, the financial council in Victoria, the Settlement Council in Victoria, the Youth Affairs Council of Western Australia, the South Australian Council of Social Service, the NSW Council of Social Service—in fact, every council of social service in the country—and the peak bodies said to Labor? They said, 'Raise the rate.' That's what they said. They said, 'Raise the rate and lift people out of poverty.' We can afford to raise the rate. It's about choices. An amount of $88 a day is hardly a king's ransom. It's hardly King Charles's ransom. An amount of $88 a day is just enough to live a life of basic dignity where you don't have to be anxious about turning the heater on when it's bloody cold, where you know that your kids are going to have enough to eat and where you can actually pack a school lunch and know that your kids are going to have something decent to eat at lunch. It's when you know if you need to get asthma medication for your partner you can afford it. That's what $88 a day means. It probably means you are going to have a really tiny flat somewhere on the outskirts of a city like Sydney, where I live, but at least you might have some housing security. That's what $88 a day means. That's what the Greens have been asking for, it's what millions of Australians have been asking for and that's what this bill fails to deliver. It comprehensively fails to deliver. At the end of this debate, this bill will succeed and these changes will happen. The minority of people who are renting who are on Commonwealth rental assistance will get a bit over $1 a day. Some carers will be able to work a little bit longer. Some people on JobSeeker who have partial incapacity, about 4,700 people, will get a slight benefit. What will happen tomorrow after this bill passes? We will still have more than three million people in this country living in poverty. That's what will happen when this bill passes—more than three million will be living in poverty. That's about one in six kids in this country. It's about three-quarters of a million kids. They are in poverty today. They will be in poverty tomorrow after this bill passes. About a quarter of all single parents in this country who are trying to juggle work juggle work, kids, school and all of that, overwhelmingly women, will still be in poverty after this bill passes. The 2.3 million households—that's households, not individuals—living in severe food insecurity will still be in severe food insecurity after this bill passes. Some of the impacts of obscene poverty that we know are related to incredible housing stress—lack of food security, the deep anxiety that you wake up with every day when you are in deep poverty, suicide rates, mental ill health rates and some of the sequelae of that, like domestic violence and being unable to escape domestic violence—will still be here after this bill passes, because Labor seems to be comfortable with that—with being a country that does that. The Greens think Australia is better than this. The Greens think Australia should be a country where nobody lives in poverty, where kids can go to school and have lunch, where people can afford to buy the food that they need and where they have a house that is secure. That's what the bill doesn't deliver. 11:05 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I also rise to make a contribution on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (More Support in the Safety Net) Bill 2024. I echo the comments of my colleagues Senator Allman-Payne and Senator Shoebridge that this absolutely barely touches the sides when we talk about more support in the safety net. I also want to echo the acknowledgement of the amazing work of former Greens senators Janet Rice and Rachel Siewert, the baton they passed on to Senator Allman-Payne in the community services portfolio in our party, and the work that they did tirelessly—and I know Rachel continues to do that work in Perth—on raising the rate of income support to $88 a day. Obviously, we on this side of the chamber will never stand in the way of a bill that delivers an increase in support for some people, but at the end of the day I want to reinforce from a Greens perspective that it is woefully inadequate to accept that $1.30 a day is providing more support. That's absolute rubbish, because the people that need that $1.30 a day need much more than that, and we've been campaigning for much more than that. They will barely even notice that $1.30 a day as a difference. Only an increase in the base rate of income support will deal with Australia's poverty crisis, which is crippling the nation. People want to refer to it as a cost-of-living crisis. Well, it is, but it's also about poverty. It is the gap between the rich and the poor in this country, and it is widening. The people who need support from the lawmakers in this country—in this chamber and the other place—are going under, and they're doing it rapidly. They're not just doing it tough. As Senator Allman Payne already outlined, these are people who are barely surviving, in some of the most horrible, tragic situations—and not just them but their families. We have seen an increase in women sleeping in their cars with their children and in older women who have been subjected to poverty. As my colleagues have already said, JobSeeker is a starvation payment in this country. Millions of people in Australia are living in poverty and continue to live in poverty, and it's simply cruel. That is the only word that I can find to describe what is happening. When this government, which tells people, 'We're not going to leave people behind,' gives people a measly $1.30 a day, it's ridiculous and it is cruel. As we know, the burden of poverty falls disproportionately on the shoulders of First Nations people in this country. Most of the indicators of poverty and related disadvantage show First Nations people are between two and three times worse off than non-Indigenous people in this country. For a population of less than half a million, it's pretty sad that we are two or three times as likely to be poor in our own country. That means that 30 per cent of Indigenous households across this country are in income poverty, which basically translates to about 120,000 Indigenous people who are living below the poverty line. They're not on it. They're not above it. They're underneath it. In this place we absolutely dismally fail to protect all Australians from poverty, particularly our most vulnerable people. We fail to help them out of the misery that unfortunately was created as part of history. In this place earlier today I sat and listened to people talk about how important it is to pay homage and to listen to history. Well, for us, there is a lot of history that has left us through colonisation which has now deeply entrenched our economic disadvantage in our own country. I want to share this quote from a previous parliamentary inquiry into poverty. It says: Not only is Indigenous poverty deeply entrenched, the causes are complex. … despite government policies directed toward achieving economic equality for Indigenous Australians, there has been little improvement to their relative socioeconomic status, according to standard social indicators. It's the reason that we have what we call Closing the Gap in this country. But the harsh reality—and yesterday I introduced a bill on truth-telling into this place—is that our land was taken from us and our economic base was taken away. The legacy that we inherited as part of poverty remains with us today. In some cases and in some parts of the country, it is dismal and has actually accelerated. If this country has decided that it wants to close the gap, we cannot leave people in the kind of poverty that is destroying communities and exacerbating some of the social problems. You come in here and talk about the social problems that are happening in black communities across the country—in fact, you love to have a bit of political ping-pong about it—but you're not willing to admit that Indigenous poverty is so deeply entrenched and persistent in our communities. No-one wants to work on that. It's in the too-hard basket. This also implies that improving the economic and social status of Indigenous people would actually require you, through bipartisan agreement, to have a long-term plan that you'll stick to and that you can all decide on. We need long-term government intervention that has innovative social models to ensure there's a higher degree of what we call grassroots engagement that is community controlled but not in the sense of where we are now. It's about making sure that we are truly involved in the development and implementation of the programs that are on the ground, because you're not listening. We're speaking into that void all of the time. We speak to a new government when there's a new government about the same issues we spoke to the last government about. That is why Indigenous communities, when we talk about the issue of poverty and its connection to social problems, are not willing to listen to that. There's another quote I want to share from the same inquiry: A future challenge for governments will involve implementing approaches that recognises the heterogeneity of Indigenous life influenced by the decisions made by Indigenous people in terms of how and where they want to live. These factors in turn affect how rapidly any progress might be made in improving the economic outlook for Indigenous people. The multifaceted and complex nature of Indigenous poverty suggests that approaches that merely mirror those for mainstream society, or advocate immediate outcomes, may risk failure. That is the history of this nation, because, in this place, we still have governments that think it's great that, when it comes to income support—the majority of First Nations people, not all of us, are on income support, whether it be DSP, JobSeeker or youth allowance because we are not an ageing population; we're a youth population. We are still being slammed and getting a measly extra $1.30 a day. What we know is that tackling poverty is a fundamental issue that should be front and centre in the minds of governments and also of First Nations people and non-Indigenous people. If the nation were meeting its obligation, an obligation to ensure that we have fair and equitable social, economic and cultural living standards for all citizens, we would be progressing and, as others in this block have already talked about—I think it was Senator Shoebridge—we wouldn't have a Treasurer standing up and talking about a surplus. We'd actually be helping Australians, all Australians, including First Nations people, to actually tackle the issue of poverty, but we're not. We must increase the base level to a level that is above the poverty line. We've heard of people struggling to survive, and that survival becomes a full-time job. It is a full-time job. They can't make it to a job interview when they can't afford a bus fare, when they can't provide an address on a form, when they become homeless. These are the constant barriers. It doesn't matter where they turn, there is a barrier. Senator Allman-Payne, in her speech, has already talked about the knockbacks for housing that people coming into her electorate office get. Just how demoralising and soul-destroying that must be for people is beyond me. This government is not listening. The federal government plays such a pivotal role in this. In my home state of Western Australia I know firsthand that the frontline services are bearing the brunt of the emergency relief needs of our communities. In fact, many of our Greens offices, who are being sought out for emergency relief, are also finding themselves in that situation, and my office is doing that as well. I just want to mention briefly the amazing comments that Senator Allman-Payne made in her speech. People who are watching out there may not have heard Senator Allman-Payne's personal account of working with the folks in her electorate and in Gladstone, where her office is, and also with the students whom she worked with as a teacher, but it was heartbreaking. It was heartbreaking to sit next to her in the chamber and see how emotional she was and it has been heartbreaking to see how much it has distressed people who are dealing with and working alongside our folks in communities. Penny, thank you for sharing the reality of this situation with this chamber today. Over in this block we're familiar with this, and I echo some of those same sentiments. As a mother and as someone who grew up in poverty—I've worked two or more jobs and I've hustled my arse off to make sure that my kids didn't get into intergenerational poverty—the thing that burned in my brain the whole time Penny was talking about what was happening was that one in six children in this country is still living in poverty. We can never claim to be the lucky country that we are, because, if we do, we are seriously kidding ourselves. We are not the lucky country when one in six of our children is still living in poverty in Australia. I know there are many people across this chamber who have their own children and grandchildren. Think about that when you are in power in this place and you make government policy. What are you going to do to leave a legacy behind? It doesn't matter whether we're talking about rent, energy prices or prices at the till care of the supermarkets, this increase will be barely felt by those people, and it certainly isn't helping to shift the dial for that one in six children. Below a certain income level, poverty breeds more poverty in a cycle which keeps people down. Income support in this country is below that certain level—and the Greens will keep fighting to make sure that we raise all income support payments in this country to the rate of the Henderson poverty line. If you don't know that, get out of your ivory tower and go and talk to the people sitting on the ground outside your offices and in the parks. Stop looking away from them. They want to tell you of the distress they're in because of poverty. Poverty is a political choice. In this place we should know better in order that we do better. It is incumbent upon us to look at this issue and stop looking away. An extra $1.30 is not enough. It is not enough. It's not going to hit the sides. It's barely going to make a difference. We can come together to do better. 11:20 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia This month is Disability Pride Month, and so I want to go straight to what the Social Services Legislation Amendment (More Support in the Safety Net) Bill 2024 means for disabled people across the country. First of all, we see in this bill a complete failure to increase the disability support pension above the poverty line, leaving so many disabled people trapped in vicious cycles of poverty, fear and pain. So many of us have said so clearly that there is an urgent need to increase the disability support pension because it is damn expensive to be a disabled person. The additional costs are huge. The barriers are massive. In Australia, we have one of the highest disability unemployment rates. In fact, 50 per cent of us are unemployed or underemployed. So, if we have to then fall back on a disability support pension that's below the poverty line, that places us in extraordinarily stressful and unnecessarily difficult situations. This bill also fails to remove the discriminatory income partner test that traps disabled people in abusive relationships and prevents us getting married. Let's just let that sink in. The disability support pension and the policies which this bill fails to change mean that, in 2024, a disabled person is not only prevented from getting married—because, if they get married, they will then be placed in a dynamic of financial dependency—but also deeply disincentivised from partnering up at all because, if they partner up at all, they lose access to the DSP or the DSP is substantially reduced. That is absolutely unacceptable. It is one of the key reasons why disabled people are so often the subject of family and domestic violence at wildly higher rates than what we see in the broader community. It is time for marriage equality for disabled people in Australia. These are discriminatory policies that are unacceptable. They are ableist. They must end. This bill was an opportunity to end them, which the government has failed to seize. The bill also provides a tiny increase to rental assistance. For some people it's $1.30 a day, as has been mentioned in the course of this debate. Let's be really clear: the entire Australian community is struggling with the housing crisis right now, but if you are a disabled person that struggle is so much more difficult. In my home state of WA, the City of Perth has one of the lowest vacancy rates in the world, meaning that anybody there trying to get a place to live is faced with an extraordinary challenge. If you are a disabled person on the DSP, can you guess how many rental places there are in Perth that would be affordable for you? Zero. In response to that, the Labor government said, 'Well, here's $1.30 a day.' It's just an insult. If you are a carer in Australia, performing those vital and often under-recognised roles in our community, when it comes to the carer payment, there is nowhere near the increase that is needed to support carers in this cost-of-living crisis. We have a bill debated in Disability Pride Month that presented the opportunity for the government to address some of the key discriminatory policies—the key ableist policies that exist within our social security system. This bill was an opportunity to end the discrimination faced by disabled people in relationships—the policies which trap us in financial dependency and open us up to abuse. This bill was an opportunity to bring in marriage equality for disabled people in 2024, and the government has failed to take it. This bill was an opportunity to increase the carer payment to the levels needed to support carers during this cost-of-living crisis, and the government has failed to take it. This bill was an opportunity to increase the disability support pension to a level that would mean that disabled people were able to live free of poverty, and the government failed to take it. This bill was an opportunity to ensure that disabled people might actually be able to afford somewhere to live—that there might be one property that they might be able to rent. Maybe we could do the 100 per cent increase in metropolitan Perth. Maybe we could leap from zero rental properties in Perth that are affordable for somebody on the DSP up to one? 'No,' says the government, 'we shan't address that in this bill.' They say that in Disability Pride Month, and you wonder why so many disabled people look at this government and feel anger, frustration and betrayal. To have the power to end these issues in your hands and do nothing is a disgrace. To create a dynamic where disabled women, disabled men and members of the queer community are unable to enjoy getting married because to do so would mean that they would be financially trapped with that partner—to have the opportunity to do something about that and simply not act is disgraceful. I commend Senator Allman-Payne for her work in relation to this bill and her tireless advocacy for those members of our Australian community who are so deeply struggling during this cost-of-living crisis, particularly those members of our community who struggle with financial insecurity while also doing the work of educating the kids of Australian communities. There are so many teachers right now, as Penny has so often shared with me, who go to work, burn themselves into the ground while trying to do right by the kids in their classrooms, come home, look at the balance sheet for the month, look at the bills they've got to pay and are struggling to make the sums add up. That is not okay in Australia right now. I also make the observation that, in terms of the framing of this bill and the framing of the social services system in Australia, there is a need for a fundamental transformation in the way that politics engages with the social security system. Poverty is not the result of moral failing. Having to go into debt and having to ask your friends for help are not things which people are subjected to because there is something inherently wrong with them. Poverty is a political choice. The cost of food and housing in this country is a disgrace. The fact that government after government has allowed the situation to get this bad is a disgrace. People are struggling to eat. That is not okay. That demands the most urgent response. We do not see that in this bill. What we see is fiddling around the edges—a dollar here, a dollar there—but no actual engagement with the structural changes needed, let alone the increases needed to mean that people who rely on supports will be able to live free of the fear of where the next meal will come from. No mother, father or family member in this country should have to ask themselves that question. Until we reach that goal, until we reach that place, our work here is not done. We must be driven by a deep sense of urgency. Every night that somebody goes to sleep hungry and every family that is put under strain because they don't know how they'll pay the power bill or the rent—that is on this place. The Liberal Party and the Labor Party could join the Greens in doing something about that. The power is here to end that experience for people. All that is required is the political will. The Greens are here within this space ready with that political will. Not only is poverty a political choice but the continuation of poverty is a political choice. Any one of you in this place can choose, at any moment, to join with us to end it. 11:32 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise to make a contribution on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (More Support in the Safety Net) Bill 2024. I'd like to endorse the comments that have been made by my colleagues and, in particular, that very moving contribution from Senator Steele-John just now. I wish that we had an actual safety net. It's a bit of a misnomer, really, that this bill is even entitled 'more support in the safety net' because there are more holes in that net than there is net. It doesn't have to be that way, and we could be making a different decision today. We could be choosing to end poverty in what is a very wealthy nation, by comparison globally. That's the sort of government that I thought people voted in, and I think that's the sort of government that people want. So why are we not having that debate today? Why are we once again seeing the bare minimum of an improvement from this government? They talked a really big game, and people signed up for that. Once again, it's an inadequate response to the scale of the problem. This is becoming like a broken record. We see it with disability funding; we see it with funding for frontline services for domestic, family and sexual violence; and we see with child care. There's not enough being done to address the need in the community. Why? Who said it was okay for a government to let down its citizens? Nobody voted for that. People can't believe that there's one in six children living in poverty in this country. I can't believe that, and I can't believe that any government, no matter what colour they are, might let that stand and might instead choose to fund property investors with $165 billion over 10 years in capital gains and negative gearing perks—perks for people who don't need the help—to accumulate more and more homes, as if a house was an investment rather than a human right. That's the decision this government has taken, along with $11 billion a year for big coal and gas companies for accelerated depreciation and cheap diesel—tax write-offs for big coal and gas on the public purse. Money is found for big coal and gas, but there's not enough money being found for poverty. Then there are the nuclear submarines. Tens of billions of dollars is being found for weapons of war that we think make everybody less safe, and yet the government can't find the money to increase JobSeeker to above the poverty line. I'm absolutely astonished that this is the situation we're in, and I'm really deeply disappointed that this government can't find the money to do what's right to help people, yet they're finding the money for those other things that aren't helping anybody, that are making us less safe, that are cooking the planet and that are making the housing crisis worse. What a deeply disappointing insight into the priorities of this government. The bill increases the maximum rates of Commonwealth rent assistance by 10 per cent—that's $1.30 a day. Every renter I speak to tells me that their rent has gone up by more than the average of $40 a week, and that is the national average that it's gone up. In some places, in my home town, it's far worse. Our national average increase is 8½ per cent. Depending on what suburb of Meanjin—or Brisbane, as it's also known—you're in you might be up for 12 per cent of a rent increase. Yet this government is giving you $1.30 a day. I'm sorry, but that is just an insult. I'm sure it will be welcome because, yes, it will help, but it won't touch the sides of the rental increase that people are facing. It just shows an absolute lack of understanding of the scale of the problem. How can you see those figures, know what the need is, and still choose to not meet that need? I genuinely don't understand. It's the same thing with the increase in the payment rates for recipients who've got an assessed partial capacity to work up to 14 hours a week. You're helping folk there, but you're helping 0.5 per cent of people on JobSeeker. What about the other 99.5 per cent who deserve to live above the poverty line in what is a very wealthy nation? Likewise, the change to the carer payment that evens out the work you can do. That's great, but you're not increasing the hours that people can work. It's fine to even that out over a month rather than looking at it on a weekly basis, but why not actually increase that amount so that where people are able to work they're not penalised for doing so. This is a woefully inadequate bill from the government and these changes will not make a dent in the poverty crisis or the cost-of-living crisis we're in. What should be done, and what my colleague Senator Allman-Payne will be moving to do, is to increase the base rate of JobSeeker to above the poverty line. We'll vote on that, and I'm just flagging that my heart will likely be broken by where people will vote on that, but I urge people to really reconsider their party's position and to vote to support lifting JobSeeker payments to above the poverty line. Why is it only the Greens that are asking for that? We've actually reached a level of insanity and cognitive dissonance in this building when people don't think it's the right thing to do to vote to support the base rate of JobSeeker to above the poverty line. Currently it's at starvation payment levels. Millions of Australians are living in abject poverty, and we have a bill to move less than a per cent—half a per cent, as I mentioned before—onto a slightly higher payment is not a solution; it's actually a cruel insult. We know income support is so inadequate that people can't cover their basic needs. We know that's compounded by a housing crisis. The cost of living is already impacting everybody in this nation and the cost of groceries is astronomical. We have people who can only shower once a week because they can't afford the hot water bill—and it's a really cold winter because the climate is going crazy because this government keeps giving public money to coal and gas to make the climate crisis worse. As well as people who can only afford a hot shower once a week, there are others who can't buy essential medication. I've just been at a breast cancer event, and want to give a shout out to Rachelle from So Brave which is supporting young women who suffer from metastatic breast cancer. The medical bods say, 'You're too young to get cancer,' but legions of young women are. I heard from a widower that he and his family couldn't afford the treatment; sadly, his wife is not with us anymore, and they couldn't afford the treatment to help her. I reflected on this bill. So many people are facing that choice. So many people are having to go without medication and medical support that is essential for their wellbeing because this payment is not enough and because this government is not doing enough to fix it. One-third of Australian households are struggling to put food on the table, and I welcome the recent change of heart by the opposition to get onboard with my colleague Senator McKim's proposal to break up the supermarkets and try to bring the cost of food down in that regard. I hope the government decides to join. Maybe the whole parliament could work together to actually address the cost-of-living crisis and the cost of groceries. It would be a wonderful outcome for the Australian community if the parliament were to actually address the need in the community, rather than offering the lip-service that people seem to get. I want to also highlight the fact that increasing JobSeeker is a women's safety measure. We know that so many women and their children—sometimes with their pets—are choosing between homelessness and staying in violence. The lack of financial security and the lack of an adequate JobSeeker support payment is further condemning people who are trying to escape from violence, who are already in a very difficult situation with nowhere to go because there's a housing crisis. Frontline family, domestic and sexual violence services are underfunded, and the shelters are full. But those people are being forced to choose between homelessness and violence, and they don't have the financial security they need because they are not getting JobSeeker support that is above the poverty line. This government says it wants to end family violence within a generation. I applaud that noble aspiration, vague and inadequately funded though it may be. If you really want to end violence against women and their children within a generation, raising JobSeeker is crucial. Women need the ability to escape violence and have a liveable wage and a liveable support while they're unable to be in other paid work, because they're in a situation of life or death and they're doing what's necessary to protect themselves and their families. So JobSeeker is a gendered issue and an issue of women's safety. I commend the fact that my colleague will be moving to lift the rate of JobSeeker to above the poverty line. If this government and the opposition were serious about acting on the cost of living, this bill would have included the No. 1 recommendation from academics, from experts, from peak bodies, from leading economists, from emergency providers and from Labor's very own hand-picked economic advisory committee. Remember them? You didn't really listen to what they suggested, which was to raise JobSeeker and youth allowance above the poverty line. We will keep fighting for that strong safety net—and for it to be an actual safety net, not riddled with holes—and we will keep fighting for a liveable wage that would raise all Centrelink payments above the Henderson poverty line, but we don't want to be fighting for that on our own. We want the parliament to unite to actually fix the entrenched and growing levels of poverty in this country that these policy settings are delivering. We know that poverty is a political choice. We know that as a parliament we could be choosing to end it—not just reduce it, but end it. Why is that choice not being made by a majority of people in this chamber and in the other place? I'd love an answer to that; I genuinely don't understand why it's not being made. No-one deserves to live in poverty. In a wealthy country like ours, it is sheer madness that you're keeping people trapped on payments that don't cover their basic needs. I would like to share with the chamber some of the powerful and persuasive comments that have been made by various support organisations in the sector. The Antipoverty Centre, which does outstanding work, says: Welfare recipients are tired of being told the pennies we are thrown will somehow hold back the crushing weight of housing and other living cost increases we are dealing with. ACOSS, another outstanding organisation, whose advocacy has been relentless on this issue, says: The extension of the higher rate of JobSeeker for people who cannot work more than 0 to 14 hours will support 4,700 people—not even half a percent of the more than one million people receiving JobSeeker and related payments unable to afford food. And: Based on median rents, private renters receiving JobSeeker or Youth Allowance will still be in deep housing stress because their base rate of payment is so low. Even with the increase, they will be paying half of their income in rent alone. Anglicare says: Boosting rent assistance is only a band-aid solution that won't have the same impact. Just two weeks ago, our Rental Affordability Snapshot found that a person on JobSeeker could only afford three rentals out of 45,000 listings. That was with the highest rate of rent assistance. Tonight's increase— They're talking about this bill— adds just three additional rentals across the entire country. So, six affordable rentals in the country for someone on JobSeeker. How is that statistic not landing? How is this government—and the opposition, who I am expecting will oppose our amendment to increase JobSeeker to above the poverty line—making that active decision to permit only six affordable rentals in the whole nation for someone on JobSeeker? Raise the rate, people! What is it going to take for you to understand that the scale of the problem is beyond imagining, beyond acceptable, and that you've got the ability to fix it and you're still choosing not to? It's very challenging. It's actually very upsetting. I wish you were better, and I think the country wants you to be better, too. More than three million people in Australia are currently experiencing poverty—one in six children; that's over 760,000 children living in poverty. The current rate is below all poverty lines used in Australia, not just the Henderson one that I referred to earlier. We know that a quarter of single parents are living in poverty. We know that most of those are women and we know that many of them have escaped family and domestic violence, and some of them didn't escape with their lives. Thirty-six per cent of households have experienced food insecurity in the last 12 months. That's a 10 per cent increase on the year before. So this problem is getting worse, and the increase in JobSeeker that you're proposing today is woefully inadequate. We know that more than 2.3 million households are severely food insecure. We know all of this. So please vote for our amendment to increase JobSeeker and start to turn some of those statistics around. The country really needs it. 11:47 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania As colleagues know, the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (More Support in the Safety Net) Bill 2024 proposes to increase the maximum rates of Commonwealth Rent Assistance by 10 per cent, which equates to about $1.30 a day for some renters. Wherever you look in Australia at the moment, people are getting smashed by what's become known as a cost-of-living crisis but is in fact a cost-of-existence crisis. And this is existential for many Australians, whether it's getting price gouged at the supermarket checkouts, whether it's paying your power bills, whether it's paying school levies or whether it's paying transport costs. Everywhere you look, prices are going through the roof. Unfortunately for many people, their wages or their income support payments are not keeping pace. That means that many people are having to make really difficult and close-to-impossible choices about how to spend their money. Do they pay the power bill or do they put food on the table for their children? In the inquiry into supermarket pricing, which the Greens established and led, we heard horrendous evidence. We heard from a single mum down in Tasmania about how she would skip meals in order to feed her kids. This is the lived reality for many people in our country at the moment. What we get from Labor is not a response that is commensurate with the scale of the challenge facing millions of Australians. We get a response that is designed to address the political difficulty that Labor finds itself in. So, rather than actually responding in a way that meaningfully helps Australians who are getting smashed by a cost-of-living crisis, we get a response that is designed to help Labor out of a political problem. That's not good enough. As Senator Waters said, we want Labor to be better than this. We want the government to be better than this, and millions of Australians want the government to be better than this. We want them to be better than this marginal assistance they're giving to an extremely small number of people rather than having significant and structural assistance that they could offer to large numbers of people. What would that look like? Perhaps Labor could start by putting dental health and mental health into Medicare. That would actually be something meaningful that they could do to help people who are getting smashed by a cost-of-living crisis. The other thing they could do is raise income support. The poverty that so many Australians are living in and are being condemned to is because of political choices that establishment parties in this place make every day, every week, every month, every year, every parliament and every electoral cycle. These are choices that the political establishment makes to condemn people to poverty. It's a woefully inadequate response from a Labor Party that was formed to look after people doing it tough and to look after working people. The inadequacy of Labor's response is one of the reasons that Senator Allman-Payne, on behalf of the Australian Greens, is seeking to amend this legislation to raise the rate of income support to $88 a day, which would bring it above the poverty line. I'll confidently predict what's going to happen here, and that is that the Australian Greens amendment will be voted down. It will be voted down not just by the Labor Party but by the Liberal Party as well—the political establishment again. The political duopoly in this place, the Coles and Woolworths of Australian politics, will again get together and make a deliberate, informed decision to condemn hundreds of thousands of Australians to living in poverty. That's what's going to happen here today, tomorrow or whenever this comes up for a vote. Labor is going to do this despite the fact that they're very happy to spend hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade on a tax cut overwhelmingly for the top end. This is despite the fact that they're prepared to spend hundreds of billions of dollars building nuclear submarines that will make Australia a less safe place. They have money for war machines. They have money for tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefit the top end. They claim they don't have money to lift people out of poverty. Actually, the reality is they do have money to lift people out of poverty. They're just choosing not to spend it. You can't eat a budget surplus, and yet we get mutual back-slapping from Labor folks in here and in the House of Representatives. Treasurer Jim Chalmers was slapping himself on the back when he announced the other day that the budget surplus is actually going to be bigger than what Labor predicted in the budget, as if that was a good thing while people are starving in this country, while people are being condemned to live in poverty and while the rate of homelessness is rising in Australia. You can't eat a budget surplus. That budget surplus is clear evidence that the poverty that so many Australians are living in is a political choice. It's a political choice made by the establishment parties. The Liberal and National parties are going to vote against the Australian Greens amendment that would lift large numbers of Australians out of poverty because they're hoping they'll be in government at some stage soon and they're going to want to pat themselves on the back for a budget surplus, if they can deliver one, which I have to say historically they haven't been that good at. At the moment JobSeeker, one of the income support payments we provide in Australia, is a starvation payment. We've got millions of Australians living in poverty. We've got people who can't find a job—not through any fault of their own, I might add, but because the system is designed to keep a number of people out of work, because that's what helps keep wages down. The reason that the neoliberal parties, the establishment parties, in this place have designed a system to keep wages down and to use an unemployment rate in order to do that is that that's what corporate Australia asks them to do. Why does corporate Australia ask them to do that? It's because it protects the profits of the big corporations. Colleagues, there has never been a time in Australia's post-colonial history when the share of this country's economy going to profits has been so big and the share of this country's economy that goes to wages—that is, to people—is so small. Think about what that means. This is a mass transfer of wealth from the bottom end to the top end. Everywhere you look along the wealth spectrum, the people who are doing it toughest are being hit, and the people at the top, the wealthiest Australians, are making out like bandits. Then you get bipartisan support from the establishment parties for tax cuts that overwhelmingly favour the top end. Colleagues, if you can't hear the social contract creaking under your feet, you are simply not paying attention. It used to be that we could say to young people in this country: 'If you study hard and if you work hard, you can lead a good life. You can buy a house. You can have the things you need to lead a dignified life.' That part of the social contract no longer applies. The big class divide in this country is now whether or not you own property. Whether you or your parents own property is now the prime determinant in somebody's economic future. It's all very well for those of us who sit in this place. Most of us own property. If we don't, most of our parents own property, because we're the privileged ones in here. It's all very well for us to ignore the terrible, difficult circumstances that are facing young people at the moment. Most of them don't own property and are renters watching their rents go through the roof. Or, if they do own property, they've bought it recently, and they're watching interest rates go through the roof while they're being price gouged at the supermarket checkouts and transport costs are going up. They have to find money to pay for their kids to go to state schools when public education should be free. It's not an easy time for young folks. They have to watch their climate breaking down around them because neither of the establishment parties in this place can actually divorce themselves from the interests of fossil fuel corporations and logging corporations. They have to watch ecosystems that actually support all life on this planet, including human life, crumble away under them, and in comes Labor with legislation like this that's marginal at best. We've got people in this country who don't shower every day because they can't afford to pay for hot water. We've got people who are not going to a dentist because they simply can't afford it, and their teeth are rotting out, when dental should be covered under Medicare—because, the last time I had a look, the inside of your mouth was part of your body. But, because of political choices made in the past by establishment parties, dental visits are not covered by Medicare. People can't afford dental care. They can't afford to shower every day. They're eating less healthy food than they used to because they're getting price gouged by Coles and Woolworths at the supermarket checkout. A third of Australian households are struggling to put food on the table. People can't afford to go to a GP; they can't afford essential medication. What do we get from Labor? Next to nothing. Some renters are going to get $1.10 a day out of this legislation, when average rents are going up by about 40 bucks a week. The housing system in this country is broken. It's fine if you own property, as long as you didn't buy it recently. If you've had property for 10 or 20 years, or if your parents have got property—especially if you've managed to pay down a fair bit of any debt associated with that property—things are looking okay for you. What about the people who haven't been able to buy into property? What about the people who are still renting and who are aspirational property owners? The future is not looking so bright for them. If the Labor Party were serious about acting on the cost of living, this bill would include the No. 1 recommendation from academics, peak bodies, leading economists, experts, emergency support providers and Labor's own hand-picked economic advisory committee. That No. 1 recommendation is raising JobSeeker and the youth allowance above the poverty line. That's what we should be doing. We need a strong social safety net and a livable wage, and we need to raise Centrelink payments above the Henderson poverty line. We are a wealthy country, colleagues, and we could make a political choice to ensure that no-one lives in poverty in this country. Instead, the choices we make keep large numbers of Australians trapped in poverty and trapped on income support payments that don't even come close to meeting their basic needs. So it's time for the establishment parties to do the right thing. This legislation nowhere near approaches the ballpark of doing the right thing. Labor needs to do better. Millions of Australians want you to do better, and the Greens are demanding that you do better. 12:02 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I've genuinely lost count of how many times my colleagues and I have had to stand up in this chamber—certainly over the 12 years that I've been here, and Senator Waters has been here longer than me and would probably say the same thing—and fight for the disadvantaged in this country who are living below the poverty line. Most of that 12 years has been under the Liberal-National party government. It's so disappointing to see, in their first term of government, the Labor Party not acting on the evidence that's been so clearly provided that this government needs to do better to look after the most disadvantaged in this country. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 You can verbal me as much as you like, Senator Brown, but, like you, I've been here for a long time, and this issue never gets solved. We never come together as a parliament to look after our most vulnerable. I remember the 'age of entitlement': Joe Hockey's first budget—the lifters and leaners—and the presumption that somehow it's your fault if you're doing it tough in this country. I remember, in the lead-up to the 2013 election, standing with my colleagues outside Centrelink offices most days with single parents who'd had their entitlements cut—that was under a Labor government—and the realisation that no two people are the same. I remember hearing the heartbreaking stories from all sorts of individuals. Many of them had lost their way because of circumstances completely out of their control: the death of a partner or the onset of mental illness—a whole range of things. It was hard not to feel deeply compassionate for these people and to wonder why the government doesn't do more. Yet, here we are, 12 years later, still having the same debate. I want to compliment my colleague Senator Allman-Payne for the work that she's done on this bill. I also want to put on record the legacy work that former senators Janet Rice and Rachel Siewert did. In fact, before I came in here to speak, my staff put up an earlier video of Senator Siewert. Some of you may well remember Senator Siewert's passion for this issue and how often she went to bat for those doing it tough. Senator Siewert did so much work in the committee system on many issues, particularly raising the rate. Rachel Siewert went straight from being a senator to continuing to work with the most disadvantaged in our communities. I hope she's watching today. I hope you're not too frustrated, Rachel. The fight goes on. I want to say a few words on the substance of this bill. The first issue is partial capacity change. A slightly higher payment is available for JobSeekers with an assessed partial capacity of work under 15 hours per week, indicating a very low or limited capacity. This will affect a tiny portion, at 4,700 recipients, out of a total of 814,765 jobseekers. The higher rate is $833.20, which is still $283.10 under the disability support pension. This is a cohort that should be receiving the disability support pension over time. The decisions of the government to erode the disability support pension over time have put this cohort on JobSeeker in the first place. Currently, 43 per cent of JobSeeker recipients have a partial capacity to work less than 30 hours a week. The second part of this bill relates to Commonwealth rent assistance. This change amounts to $9.40 per week, or $1.30 per day. The Greens support the cause of advocates to raise the rate of CRA, Commonwealth rent assistance. However, this should be in conjunction with an increase of all payments, to be more effective. In June 2023, 43 per cent of all CRA recipients were still in housing stress, indicating issues with the payment. I want to go through a couple of key stats for senators. More than three million people in Australia are currently experiencing poverty, including one in six children, or over 760,000 children, in 2019-20; the current rate of the JobSeeker payment is below all poverty lines used in Australia, and always has been since I've been in this place; 25.5 per cent or 549,000 single parents are in poverty; 36 per cent or 3.7 million households have experienced food insecurity in the last 12 months—this is a 10 per cent increase from 2022, or 383,000 more households; more than 2.3 million households are severely food insecure, defined as actively going hungry, skipping meals or going days without eating; data showing suicide rates for people on unemployment payments fell 37.4 per cent when payments increased during the pandemic; and, in 2019, 30 per cent of all suicides in Australia were people receiving the disability support pension and Newstart. I want to say a couple of things in relation to this. Firstly, I want to acknowledge the work that my colleague Senator McKim is doing on this issue of food security in Australia through the Greens' supermarket inquiry, looking at the power of the duopoly in this country and the price gouging which is making the cost-of-living crisis worse for a lot of Australians—as well as, may I say, making life hell for a lot of farmers across this country. This is also an issue the Greens—and other senators in this place, may I add—have been campaigning on since I've been here, for the last 12 years, but still nothing has changed. Governments refuse to act on corporate profiteering at the expense of the poor in this country. We know we can do a lot better. While increasing the social safety net and looking after people are essential, there are a lot more structural things we also need to be doing. I also note that yesterday Senator David Pocock—and I'll acknowledge him in the chamber here today—organised a forum, mostly for the blokes in this place to come along and learn more about what men can do about the scourge of violence against women in this country. One of the speakers—a clinical psychologist who has worked on this issue with men, especially younger men, for many years around the country, trying to change behaviours—said there is a very stark and high correlation between men who commit acts of violence against women and their physical and mental health and their economic situation. What the government has to understand, when we're talking about any health issue, is that things like Newstart and the social safety net are not just an investment in helping people live, pay their bills and put food on the table; they are an investment in our community and in human beings. They are an investment in each and every person who needs assistance. If we make their life easier, we reduce the anxiety in in their life, and 'anxiety' is a very important word when it comes to a whole range of social issues we face today. If we reduce the anxiety and other mental health issues by making people more supported and giving them the ability to live above the poverty line then—while I hate to throw a neoliberal argument into the mix—it will reduce the costs of this country in the long run, across a whole range of indicators. This is an investment in people that the Greens are asking for, and we're very disappointed that, in the last two years, the government have only found it in themselves to introduce this bill, which barely helps even a fraction of the people in need, into this place. I want to finish by talking about the messaging of this. It's very simple and it's very, very important. This bill won't even touch the sides of the cost-of-living crisis being felt most acutely by people on income support payments. Many of those people that I've talked to would like a job. They desperately don't want to be in their current predicament, and we need to do everything we can to help them get out of that. JobSeeker is a starvation payment, and millions of Australians are currently living in abject poverty. Those statistics I went through are just some of the relevant statistics, and they are black and white and stark. A bill to move less than one per cent of jobseekers onto a slightly higher payment is not a solution; it's actually cruel. Income support is so inadequate that people can't cover their most basic needs. Some are showering only once a week because they can't afford hot water, others can't buy essential medication, and a third of Australian households are struggling to put food on the table. I was doorknocking not that long ago in my home town of Launceston, and I met a lady who had no teeth. I was talking to her, and she told me that she's been waiting for over 3½ years to see a dentist. She literally has not been able to get on a public health list to see a dentist in 3½ years. They're the kinds of reminders that we need as senators, leaders and decision-makers in this country. When you meet people who are in such a situation and so clearly disadvantaged and down on their luck in life, you ask yourself: 'What could I do to help? Why haven't I done more?' I certainly ask myself that. So $1.30 a day will do nothing for some renters, when, as Senator McKim just pointed out, average rents are climbing more than $40 a week. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Thank you, Senator Whish-Wilson. We've reached the hard marker of 12.15. We will now proceed to senators' statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 28 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS James Boag Brewery, Future Made in Australia 28 12:15 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I rise this afternoon to speak about an iconic part of my duty constituency of Bass and an iconic part of my life in northern Tasmania, and that is Boag's brewery. It's the best one in Tasmania—no offence to my Senate colleagues Bilyk, Brown, McKim, Chandler and Duniam. I learned last week that unfortunately 15 jobs at Boag's will be lost to the mainland due to production outsourcing. If a mainlander buys a Boag's product in the future, no longer will it have been brewed in Tasmania; it will have instead been brewed on the mainland. In January 2023, the Tasmanian Liberal government gave Boag's $1 million to expand its production, but they are now just standing by idly as Boag's brewery makes the decision to cut costs and to outsource production to the mainland, except for the beer that is consumed in Tasmania, which will still be brewed there. At the moment there are only 15 jobs being lost, but that's going to have a huge impact on the economy in northern Tasmania. This is really a crying shame for Tasmania and for those Tasmanian workers. The Tasmanian Liberal government have a lot to explain. What does this mean for the future of Boag's? This $1 million that was provided to Boag's, or to the Lion group, was extraordinary at that time. There were no ties to that money. Keeping production in Launceston could have surely been tied to that $1 million. It's a crying shame and a shame on the Tasmanian state Liberal government. In stark contrast, the Albanese Labor government is committed to supporting Australian jobs and manufacturing. Today we will be introducing our $22.7 billion Future Made in Australia plan, which will bring our manufacturing sector back after a decade of neglect from the Liberals and Nationals, those opposite, who stood by and destroyed manufacturing here in Australia. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that our manufacturing sector is safeguarded, that our renewable energy targets for the manufacturing sector are met and that demand for our exports is increased. One of the first steps to achieve this goal is happening today. The Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 is being introduced in the other place today, through which the national interest framework will be legislated. The introduction of the Future Made in Australia Bill also provides an outline for the community-benefit principles that will apply to investment decisions in the Australian manufacturing sector. The $22.7 billion that the Albanese Labor government is prepared to invest into the Australian manufacturing sector is in no way a small amount of money, but we believe it's something that is crucial for Australia. We are 100 per cent dedicated to restoring our manufacturing sector. Frankly, those opposite ought to be ashamed that they stood by idly and let one company after another, one sector after another, leave our shores. It's our duty as Australian parliamentarians to ensure that our sovereign manufacturing capabilities are upheld, and those opposite failed Australia on that front. So many of those opposite claimed to be devout supporters of the Australian Made campaign, yet they did nothing. They never stood up for Australian workers. They never stood up for the Australian manufacturing sector when it mattered most. We have so much talent here in Australia. We want to ensure that those responsible for organisations who invest in our economy are acknowledged and well respected. The Albanese Labor government want to ensure that Australia is put back on the international map when it comes to manufacturing. We are dedicated to attracting security and investment, making Australia a renewable energy superpower, adding value to our resources, strengthening our economic security and backing Australian innovation. I repeat: backing Australia's innovation. That is so important for our future going forward. In my duty electorate of Bass in northern Tasmania we have numerous manufacturing organisations that dream of being put on the international map, and the Albanese Labor government is making that happen. We are reforming investment settings. We want international investors to come knocking at our door. We want single points of contact for investors and for companies with major investment proposals. To ensure Australians are delivered with the most beneficial projects that they can be, we want projects of high priority to be more easily identified in the future. Part of restoring Australia's sovereign manufacturing capabilities includes incorporating our net zero and renewable energy targets. There was no clearer demonstration of the former government's failing than when we went through the COVID pandemic, but through the Australian Renewable Energy Agency we will invest $3.2 billion over the next decade to support the commercialisation of technologies that are critical to the net zero transformation. The new $1.7 billion Future Made in Australia Innovation Fund will fund the implementation of innovation in technologies, facilitating those links that bring those industries together. It will have support and leadership from our government. As we announced recently, we're also investing $466.4 million in building quantum computing capabilities, in partnership with the Queensland government and PsiQuantum. As a government, our primary concern is ensuring that Australia's population is looked after. We also want to ensure that we make a sound contribution to the global market and that our exports are sought after. The concerns I expressed about Boag's Brewery are just another symptom of a decade of neglect from the Liberals and the Nationals. You cannot claim to be a supporter of the Australian Made campaign and of increasing our sovereign production capabilities when you continually show a lack of support for incentivising sovereign manufacturing. The Albanese Labor government is here to support Australian workers, Australian manufacturing and the sector. We want to see the return of other countries seeking out our products and increases in our export capabilities. I want to acknowledge the work of Senator Don Farrell as Minister for Trade and Tourism and acknowledge what he has been able to do in the last two years to re-engage in the international markets, particularly when it comes to China. Those opposite did untold damage to our major trading partners, and China, as we all know, is so significant to Australia in terms of our export markets. Of course, going forward we will always sell our raw materials, but our priority should be to invest so that we actually get all those downstream processing and manufacturing jobs here in Australia. Let's not forget the investment that this Labor government has made in TAFE. It has given fee-free TAFE to the sectors where we need will workers in the future. That's a government that is actually showing real leadership in this area. We believe in our Australian workers. That's why we've always increased wages and supported wage rises. It's why we believe strongly in superannuation. On 1 July there will be an increase for lower-paid Australian workers. We invest in our workforce and, very importantly, we invest in TAFE because we believe that a highly skilled workforce will result in higher paid, more secure jobs in the future. I hope that those in this Senate chamber, when this bill comes from the other place into this chamber, will not only make a positive contribution during that debate but support that bill, because that bill is a vote of support for the future of the Australian workforce and, importantly, the Australian economy. Australian Society 29 12:25 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland Today I rise to pay tribute to the authors of the Declaration of Independence. Tomorrow it will be 248 years since that magnificent document was signed. I think it is something that all people of the free world—especially those of us who believe in democracy, accountability and transparency—should reflect on. By putting their pen to that paper, the authors of that document risked their lives. I'm not sure if many people realise that. The American Revolutionary War continued right through to 1781, so, when these founding fathers put their pen to paper, they risked their lives to fight for what they believed in. What I like about the American Revolution is that it's actually a manifestation of the European Enlightenment. The European Enlightenment believed that power should come from the people. It sought to overturn the hereditary rights of kings and queens, whereby power came from the top down, and instead sought to introduce a system whereby power would come from the people. That is something that we should continually reflect on. In my time as a senator I have come to appreciate this document more and more, because I realise how hard it is to change entrenched systems. It has to be said that sometimes people have to rise up and push back against the system. That's something I want to reflect on. We see this all the time at the moment, with various bureaucracies that seem to not want to be accountable to the people. Yesterday I read an article in the Courier Mail by a guy called Mike O'Connor. He was talking about a petition that was signed by thousands of Queenslanders asking the Queensland government to provide the health advice that was used to lock people down throughout the COVID pandemic. Despite the fact that day in, day out for almost two years we were told that the Premier—and all other Premiers; it wasn't just in Queensland—was relying on this advice, the health minister of the day had to come out and say they didn't actually have any paperwork or documentation to back up the health advice that was used to lock down people. That's one of many examples of what I call the health machine. After reading that article yesterday, I read another article from an American columnist this morning. He was talking about how he's slightly bothered by the fact that about a month ago two missiles were sent into Russia to take out their early detection nuclear signals, to pick up whether or not they were going to be attacked by nuclear weapons. As this columnist goes on to say, this wasn't approved by Congress; nor was it approved by the White House. As he says, someone in the bowels of the bureaucracy basically decided to lob a couple of missiles into Russia and hope for the best. His concern is that he's not quite sure that the founders of the American Declaration of Independence believe that these people who are unaccountable ought to be making decisions so important as this. Earlier this week I was at the spillover estimates hearing for the CSIRO. I wanted to ask some question about the GenCost report. Lo and behold, Paul Graham, the author of the GenCost report, and Peter Mayfield—two of the senior CSIRO executives—didn't even bother turning up. So the CSIRO CEO was left there by himself, and when I wanted to ask him questions about the capacity of wind farms and what I consider to be flawed modelling used in the GenCost report, all he could say was, 'I will take it on notice.' Time and time again we are seeing these bodies that are basically not representative of democracy—they should be representative but they're not—not being held to account. Democracy is all about accountability and transparency. Indeed there's a famous saying by a Roman philosopher: who will guard the guardians? That is the question I put to you today on the soon-to-be anniversary of the American Declaration of Independence. Who will guard the guardians? For the last three or four decades, we have been seeing a decline in the level of accountability and transparency in governments across the Western world. I believe that is destroying confidence in our political system. But I say this to you, the people out there: I hear from many of you every day, and you often raise lots of concerns. One of the questions I often get is, 'Why is the government doing this?' The reason why the government is doing this is that we lack the spirit of those founding fathers who were prepared to stand up and fight for what they believed in. It's not good enough to keep shouting at the clouds or sharing posts on social media and expect to get a different outcome. You have to actually get involved with the political process. Democracy is a grassroots movement, and it is only as good as how active those people are in regard to the political process. I often say to those people who are disenfranchised, 'Are you a part of a political party?' They'll go: 'Oh, no. I'll never join a political party. I don't trust the political parties.' I'll respond to them, and sometimes it's quite abrupt and I think they're surprised by my abruptness. I'll say: 'You're a part of the problem. If this stuff is eating you up inside and you're not happy with the way your government is run, you have to actively get involved.' It won't be easy. The founding fathers in the American War of Independence signed that document in 1776, but the war didn't end until 1789. I'll reflect on World War II because we should also acknowledge the supreme sacrifice of the American naval forces, who actually went a long way to saving Australia in the Pacific as well. Those guys fought for their country. They were prepared to fight for what they believed in. So I urge people out there today to consider that, if they're not happy with the level or quality of the government they're getting, they should actually get involved. It's become too easy in this world to stay at home with in-house entertainment. You've got your iPhone and your Netflix et cetera. It's too easy to stay at home and not go out and not get active. If you don't get active, the grassroots movements get smaller and smaller and the vested interests get bigger and bigger. The last thing we want to see is the vested interests, the entrenched interests and the elites take over. So I say to you people today: don't be afraid of the new world order. This is the new world order. Democracy is the new world order. It was a new world order put in place by the founding fathers of the American Revolution and the American Declaration of Independence, and it's been worked on ever since. We had the Chartists in 1840, the French Revolution in the 1790s and the suffragettes in the early 1900s. It has been a continual work in progress. But I fear that if you don't get involved and you sit back on your social media and get too swamped by today's luxuries, and we do have many luxuries, the entrenched interests and the elites will once again take over and tyranny rather than democracy will rule. Australian Society 30 12:34 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales The political consensus that is responsible for planetary breakdown, deep and entrenched economic inequalities and the roll-back of civil rights is breaking down. The status quo is dead. That much is clear. People are hungry for more than the traditional political system that time and time again lets ordinary people down. Here, for people in Australia, that choice has too often meant get stabbed in the front by the Liberals or get stabbed in the back by Labor. The paucity of ideas—and, importantly, the paucity of action, particularly from Labor, for decades—has created a moral vacuum in a party that is riddled with contradictions. Worse, their brand of so-called pragmatic politics has deeply eroded people's trust in politics and politicians. In the most recent Essential poll, more than a third of respondents said they did not trust the federal government at all. Even worse, 75 per cent of respondents said Prime Minister Albanese plays politics, 64 per cent think he changes his opinion depending on who he thinks is listening, 61 per cent said he is out of touch with ordinary people, and 53 per cent think he's narrow-minded. That's a pretty scathing assessment. Then there's Labor's move to the right, which has, in turn, had a knock-on effect on the Liberal Party, which has reinvented itself as an ultra-conservative, right-wing outfit, embracing racism as a political strategy. People have sometimes said that we Greens are uncharitable towards Labor and that we should not equate the two big parties. But that, too, has changed, as communities feel completely betrayed by Labor, from climate to housing to Palestine. Don't get me wrong: the Liberal Party is the worst option for Australia, on every issue. Their dangerous push for nuclear and their unhinged opposition to ending live sheep export are just two cases in point. But honestly, it is getting harder and harder to tell the two parties apart. They both back Israel's invasion of Gaza and are complicit in the genocide. And Labor's proposal for Trump-style travel bans is in fact far worse than anything the Liberals dreamt up in their cruel treatment of refugees. Basically, people are sick of being told that they should vote for the least-worst option. Again and again we see the Labor Party promise one thing and deliver almost nothing, and often worse than nothing. The political carcass of Labor that we see before us is a cautionary tale for any political party to not embrace the status quo but to dismantle it. The trappings of power and privilege that are offered when one stays within the accepted boundaries of political discourse are seductive: positive media in the Murdoch press, opportunities to sit on exclusive committees, study tours to the United States or Israel, or perhaps jobs for the boys after your term ends. But we Greens dream bigger than this. We know we cannot continue along the terrible path that is destroying people and the planet. We demand a truly fair, equitable, environmentally sustainable and just present and future. And we fight for it, in parliament and on the ground, with communities. A world without radical change is one where corporations will continue to make megaprofits while people are barely surviving in a cost-of-living crisis. A world without pushing boundaries is a world where we continue to run down the clock on the unfolding climate crisis while oil, coal and gas companies peddle their planet-killing products. It is an upside-down world where there is more political outrage over a broken window than over the slaughter of 40,000 Palestinians. So, is change even possible? Yes, it is possible, but only if we are willing to smash the chains that hold us back. It may be easier to convince ourselves that we have to stay within the boundaries set by the political discourse or by the media. But the reality is that we get transformative change only when we are bold, when we dream big and when we let only our imagination be the limit. The Right has certainly used a well-worn model of getting into power and undermining the things we hold dear, rebuilding them in their image. And when the centrists and even the apparent Left get in power, they just paper over the cracks. John Howard went out of his way to break institutions and push neo-liberalism full throttle. He passed so-called Work Choices to break the unions. He created the ongoing bipartisan commitment to cruelty when dealing with people seeking asylum and took us to the forever wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet, when Labor is in power, do they smash those legacies and build their own? No. They co-opt them and bring them into their narrative, and they have become hollow and empty in that process. Major political parties might be holding on to archaic and old-world systems, fooling themselves or perhaps trying to fool others that incrementalism will be enough, but people are hungry for more, and our numbers are growing. The last few years have convinced me that the Greens have been central to smashing the status quo and pushing the debate. Building new public housing protection for renters and free education are just some longstanding Greens ideals that are becoming mainstream and hitting a chord, particularly with young people, who are being screwed over by the system. It doesn't take much analysis to show that the forces that destroy our natural environment are the same forces that keep people poor, that deny roofs over their heads and that drive an extractive economy that is measured only in profits, not in the quality of people's lives. The causes of the climate crisis are the same as those of the cost-of-living crisis, the housing crisis, the biodiversity crisis and the crisis of gendered violence and racism. The old structures of power—the corporations, the billionaires, the patriarchy and white supremacy—are holding onto them with a death grip. The good news is, while status quo politics is breaking down, grassroots democracy and engagement is not. This is being led by young people. They see straight through the games being played by politicians and refuse to accept injustice. For months, people have been hitting the streets for Palestinian freedom in what is probably the longest running and largest weekly protest this country has ever seen. University encampments sprang up, directly challenging corporate universities that partner with arms dealers. Climate activists are taking direct action outside the establishment to break its stranglehold. The absurdity of the system is obvious to everyone but those trapped in it. Take Senator Wong's and Senator Pratt's comments recently criticising Senator Payman for crossing the floor to vote for our motion to recognise Palestine. Just because they had to vote against marriage equality for years doesn't mean that she should have voted against her values as well. This is exactly what people are railing against—old, outdated ideas of loyalty and discipline. The world has moved on, but some are still stuck in old ideas of punishing integrity. We must recognise, however, that the breaking down of the status quo goes both ways, so we must be cautious. It is undeniable that we see the growth of extreme right-wing politics that seek to trick and bamboozle people into blaming their circumstances not on the root causes but on the most vulnerable. This is deeply racist, homophobic and transphobic populism. The rise of the far right is our red line, and we cannot allow it to continue. We are up against a lot: politicians desperate to save their trappings of power, the billionaires that control the media, and extremely wealthy and out-of-touch corporations determined to profiteer from the earth's destruction. But we must win. There is no other choice. Northern Territory: Health and Housing 32 12:43 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Recently I spoke about my visit to Galiwin'ku in north-east Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory. I was in Galiwin'ku to attend the Yota Dokitji event to learn more about the Djakamirr project. The Djakamirrs are birth companions. They accompany women during their birth journey and watch over them during this sacred time. They help ensure that Yolngu knowledge and ways are passed to the next generation and that babies are born healthy and safe. The Djakamirr model of care is an exceptional example of birthing on country. It's a great example of a program that will help improve First Nations women and babies' health outcomes, which we know are worse compared to non-Indigenous mothers and their babies. While I was in Galiwin'ku I met Richard Gandhuwuy, a Garrawurra clan leader and traditional owner of Dhambala Homestead, where the Yota Dokitji event was held. He spoke about the importance of birthing on country, of bringing back birthing rites to the community. He spoke with great pride about the cultural strength of the Yolngu people and their continuing connection to Elcho Island, Galiwin'ku and surrounding areas. He spoke about the great efforts of those in the community to improve conditions for people living there: their advocacy and their commitment to achieving the best possible outcomes for their families. I was honoured to receive this letter stick from Richard on behalf of the Elcho Island traditional owners. The letter stick is a message of Yolngu law, a message I was asked to bring back to the Senate and to the Australian parliament. It represents the aspirations of the Yolngu people for their communities and families. This message stick asks us to support their aspirations and goals. It's a message stick, a letter stick, to acknowledge their connection to country and their self-determination. It's an important message seeking support for the Djakamirr project to make birthing more culturally safe for women and babies in Galiwin'ku. We know the impact that community led and culturally safe care can have on First Nations health outcomes, especially for mothers and babies. I thank the traditional owners for entrusting me with this message and I thank all clan leaders and elders for keeping culture strong and for their efforts to achieve the best for their people. I also had the great pleasure of recently visiting Milikapiti on the Tiwi Islands for the signing of a historic housing agreement with the Northern Territory government. Linda Burney, the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Marion Scrymgour, the member for Lingiari, and I joined our Territory colleagues Selena Uibo and Manuel Brown for the momentous occasion. I thank the Tiwi people for their warm welcome and for the ceremony of dancing and singing, which was just wonderful. The agreement is the largest remote housing investment in the Northern Territory. This is an absolute game changer. The new 10-year remote housing partnership will halve overcrowding in Aboriginal communities. We know that overcrowding leads to poorer outcomes in terms of health, education and general standard of living. We know, if we invest in better housing, we'll get better outcomes across the board. We heard from a young couple at Milikapiti about their experience with overcrowding. Jacinta Bennett and Dominic Brown had been living in a three-bedroom house with seven other family members, including teenagers. They described the impact of overcrowding, saying that it was suffocating and that was really difficult. They've just moved into their new home and they're now enjoying more space—and a bit of privacy too, I'm sure. The landmark partnership agreement represents a new way of working collaboratively with Aboriginal communities and housing organisations towards a better remote housing system across the Territory's 73 remote communities. The $4 billion agreement to improve housing across the Territory is a commitment between the federal and Territory governments, but also between the four Northern Territory land councils and Aboriginal Housing NT, to work together to improve existing housing and build houses that are culturally appropriate and meet the climate challenges of the Northern Territory. This is about a new way of doing things in genuine partnership with our communities. We know that working together brings better outcomes for everyone. Construction of up to 2,700 new homes across the Territory will halve overcrowding in the next 10 years, aligning with the national Closing the Gap targets for improvements in health, education and community safety, as well as with opportunities for economic growth across the Territory. Federal funding agreements between the NT and the Commonwealth, informed by this partnership agreement, will also include better repairs and maintenance in remote community housing and improvements in infrastructure upgrades in homelands. We know we see better results when the state and Territory governments work together. This historic agreement builds on the work Territory Labor has initiated since coming to government in 2016, reaching almost 4,000 new and improved homes across the Northern Territory. Since Territory Labor came to government in 2016, the housing tally is nearing that. The Albanese government will also extend its commitment to housing upgrades and improvements to essential infrastructure in homelands, matching the Northern Territory's ongoing $40 million investment over three years, representing a joint investment of $240 million over that period. The federal government will also provide $1 million over two years to assist Aboriginal Housing NT to develop a community controlled housing model. This new national partnership supports local decision-making, with a focus on flexibility to support opportunities for local and Territory businesses and employment, supporting Aboriginal business enterprises and improving housing and tenancy of remote housing. The Albanese Labor government is committed to improving housing in remote communities and closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. I look forward to seeing more homes for families in our remote communities. It will go a long way to easing serious overcrowding. I'd also like to bring to the Senate's attention the arrival of local government councillors from across the Northern Territory. I welcome each and every councillor who has arrived and those councillors who have come from the Top End—from West Arnhem, from East Arnhem, from the Roper Gulf, from Victoria Daly, from Katherine, from Darwin and from Palmerston. We've got Alice Springs, we've got the Central Desert and we've got the MacDonnell Ranges. We've got a tremendous number of councillors who've descended on Canberra this week, and that's just from the Northern Territory. I'm conscious that each state and territory jurisdiction has their own local government councillors here. But, for the Northern Territory councillors, it's a particularly special week. This is also the week of our 46th anniversary of being a self-governing territory. I know that there are still moves by many of us to see the Northern Territory become the seventh state in the Australian federation. It's a long-held passion of mine, and I know it is a passion of many of the councillors who are here this week. I wish each and every one of them every success with their lobbying of all sorts of ministers for their particular needs and I look forward to seeing them all tomorrow in our working group roundtable. Live Animal Exports 33 12:52 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I thought we'd hit peak smugness and peak contempt for the agriculture industry from the Minister for Agriculture at 10 pm on Monday night. I thought we saw the peak level of contempt for the Australian agriculture sector, particularly the sheep industry of my home state of Western Australia, at 10 pm when Minister Watt and the government guillotined, through this place without inquiry, a bill banning a key segment of the sheep industry in Western Australia. I thought that was peak contempt. But, sadly, for the many thousands of hardworking farmers, shearers, truckies, vets, stock agents and so many more along the supply chain, that level of contempt for the Western Australian agriculture sector specifically and the agriculture sector in general just keeps growing. Minister Watt put out a tweet following that 'victory' on Monday night. The caption read: 'The Albanese government's commitment to end live sheep exports by sea is now law.' There's a picture, and there's only one way of describing this picture. and that is: the Minister for Agriculture indulging in the same cruelty porn as the animal activist groups. The animal activist groups' business model involves procuring pictures of animals suffering and using them to raise money. It didn't take much work for a farmer out there to use google to find out where else this particular picture had been used. Guess where it had been used? It was exactly the same picture that had been used on the website of the Animal Justice Party. Sadly for Minister Watt, in a post about the ending of live sheep exports by sea, the picture he has chosen—the cruelty porn he has chosen—is a picture taken 11 years ago of sheep onboard a truck in Ballarat. What an extraordinary level of contempt shown by this minister for agriculture for the Western Australian sheep industry in particular but for agriculture as a whole. I will remind everyone that it was the Animal Justice Party that claimed credit both for the timing and the content of the decision to phase out live export in return for preferences at the Dunkley by-election. Minister Watt denied it. He said: 'No, no, no. I know nothing about any sort of preference deal.' But here we have Minister Watt using exactly the same picture as the Animal Justice Party to trumpet the destruction of a key part of the sheep industry in Western Australia. But Minister Watt doesn't stop there. As a way of trying to mitigate the damage that he has done to the Western Australian sheep industry, he talks about the re-entry of Brazil into the boxed meat market. Sadly for Minister Watt, he just doesn't understand either the sheep industry or the scale that we are talking about. The Brazilian market at its peak was around 28 tonnes of sheepmeat. I can understand someone not being too au fait with the agriculture industry and not having a clue as to how many animals that represented, but anyone who has been involved in the industry for more than 10 minutes knows that that quantity could be put aboard three trucks. So Minister Watt is out there lauding the return of the Brazilian market, and it's the equivalent of three truckloads of lamb. The contempt and arrogance of this Labor government are extraordinary in terms of their thinking that they know better than our farmers what their agricultural systems should look like. The sheep industry in Western Australia has done everything the government has asked of it. Mortalities are at record lows—in fact, lower than mortality rates in the paddock. Morbidity measures are being constantly checked: How are the animals performing? Are they putting on weight? Are they overpanting, demonstrating heat stress? There are independent observers on board the vessels. There are vets and stockies trained to understand what it means if animals are suffering. Not only do we do that on board the ship but we actually do that in our export destination markets. We improve animal welfare right round the world. That is why, not just in my home state of Western Australia but right across the agricultural sector of Australia, a red line in the sand was drawn. The government decided to cross it, aided and abetted by the Greens, but the agriculture sector in Western Australia will not give up the fight. The agriculture sector in WA will take this to the next election and beyond, and the contempt and the arrogance shown by this minister will come at a cost. A few weeks ago, I was lucky enough to visit a waste facility at a place called Sandy Ridge, owned and operated by a company called Tellus. This is an absolutely remarkable facility. Being in my home state of Western Australia—and Senator Smith travelled with me—I think it's fair to say that this site is in the middle of nowhere. I say that with all due respect. It's an extraordinary place, a couple of hours north-west of Kalgoorlie, in a geologically very stable part of the world. The company, Tellus, erects a giant dome over the waste repository site, digs out a large pit and then, very scientifically, stores toxic waste, including low-level radioactive waste, for long-term storage. This facility has all the approvals. Not only that but it has the support of the local community, including the local Indigenous community. This is a good news story. It also cuts through the nonsense we hear from those opposite and particularly from the Greens about the problem of particularly low-level radioactive waste in this country. There is already a facility in place. It is long-term, stable, safe and can do much of the work of the government's proposed site in Kimba in South Australia, which sadly, thanks to the Labor government, fell over. Tellus has a remarkable facility. Something that I think we need to look much more closely at as we embrace AUKUS and the future of nuclear in Australia is the role of facilities such as this in ensuring we embrace the best of modern technology and look to the future, not the past. Australian Defence Force 34 13:02 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Defence is rotten the at its core, and the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force is part of that; it is defence's legal system. I know it, veterans know it and the Australian people can see it. But the Minister for Defence seems to be trapped in a world of sunshine and lollipops. I've known about the problems with the IGADF for years. Last year, I wrote to the Attorney-General requesting an urgent audit for three reasons. First, the office of the IGADF has never been audited, not once, in the 20 years since it was established. Second, the office of the IGADF has increased its staff by 85 per cent, all at taxpayers' expense. Third, and finally, the IGADF have been called out by the royal commission on their poor leadership and lack of accountability and transparency on numerous occasions. Even though the IGADF and the Australian National Audit Office are separate agencies and they are supposed to be impartial, they met to discuss the 'scope of potential audit including to determine the auditability of the IGADF's functions'. In September last year, Justice Duncan Kerr was commissioned to review the office of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force. This review was handed down the to the secretary and Chief of the Defence Force on 31 March 2024, yet all we have more than three months on is crickets. That's right—crickets. We've not had a report or a minister in sight willing to take action or accountability. Diggers have put their lives on the line for this country only for the IGADF to protect the top brass and not them. The role of the IGADF is very important. As they say on their website, they: … oversee the quality and fairness of Australia's military justice system. But its importance relies on the job being done fairly, impartially and independently. To me, it's failed on all fronts. I asked Minister Marles's office if I could see Justice Kerr's review and I was told that I could, but—oh, yes; there's always a 'but', defence members—I could only have 15 minutes in the minister's office to read the report. I couldn't take it away, let alone speak on it. Then I would have 30 minutes to ask questions. Are you kidding me? Obviously, I told them where they could stick it. The minister needs to release this report effective immediately. The government talk about low recruitment and retention in our defence forces, but, seriously, what have they actually done about it? It's obvious that these things relate to failings and cover-ups at the top end of Defence, but it's not just cover-ups. Serving members and veterans don't have a minister who backs them in. In response to the Brereton report, the Minister for Defence said: Today is a day where we come together and support the very difficult work which lies ahead in restoring integrity to Australia's Defence Forces. I have a few ideas on how to restore that integrity. Just come and ask me, Minister Marles, and I'll share them with you as I have done in the past. It would be great if you would actually start listening, mate. It starts with cleaning out the top brass, who have been fixated on protecting the Defence Force over and above its diggers at all costs, even if it means covering up for the institution. Under Minister Marles, we have seen the appointment of Vice Admiral David Johnston to the position of Chief of the Defence Force. I hope, Vice Admiral Johnston, that you have a mop and bucket with you when you come in, because I can assure you that, when you take that top position this month, you will have a lot of work to do. I reckon you'll need a whole battalion of elves behind you, mate. For too long, instead of lifting those who served our country up, the Australian government has done nothing but push them down. It's time the government got real about addressing the systemic issues in our Defence Force. I don't mean to sound like a broken record, but you'll only fix it when you stop putting the usual suspects into positions of power. I know that, for many veterans and families, the legal system within Defence has caused veteran suicides. Until it's fixed, the minister and the top brass will continue to have blood on their hands. If Minister Marles is serious about acting and fixing the legal system within Defence, he needs to make it an independent agency, completely independent from Defence. Otherwise it's just Defence policing itself. We've been doing that for years, and it's a big part of why we ended up with the royal commission into veteran suicides. Unfortunately, we are stuck with an inspector-general who is as useless as they come, all too concerned with every interest but those of accountability, transparency and reducing veteran suicide. This seems to have rubbed off on the Minister for Defence, who at every opportunity ensures he is devoid of any kind of accountability. The 20-year review into the Office of the IGADF had better come up with some answers, because I can assure you that families out there are counting on you. They've had a gutful. The hiding of this report, which you've had for three months, is absolutely disgraceful. You are not helping our veterans, let alone reducing the suicides that are going on in Defence, which I hear are worse than ever. Wages 35 13:07 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Well, I have great news: workers and unions around Australia are winning pay rises thanks to the same job, same pay laws that the Albanese government passed at the end of last year. Labor and unions have fought for same job, same pay laws for years, and at every stage we've faced staunch opposition from the Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation. Who can forget the Liberal minister Paul Fletcher saying in 2022 that the issue of labour hire workers being ripped off through lower pay agreements was 'a made-up issue'? Let's run through the wins workers are already seeing on this so-called 'made-up issue'. A headline in the Australian was 'Miners win same pay for same job wage rises'. The article says: More than 300 labour hire workers at Batchfire's Callide mine in central Queensland … gain pay rises of up to $20,000 a year following the first same-job same-pay order made by the Fair Work Commission. The landmark … decision means 324 labour hire mine workers employed by Workpac at … Biloela … have their pay increased from November 1 … At that mine, over 60 per cent of the workers were employed on a lower-paying labour hire agreement. Now, thanks to Labor's same job, same pay laws and the Mining and Energy Union, they'll see a pay rise of up to $20,000. You might think the local MP for Biloela would support pay rises of $20,000 for hundreds of his constituents who were being ripped off by labour hire companies and big miners, but you'd be wrong, because, like the rest of the Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation, the member for Flynn, Colin Boyce, voted against those laws and against pay rises for mine workers in his own electorate. I don't know how Mr Boyce can go back to his electorate, look a labour hire worker or their family in the eye and explain his vote. It's a disgrace. Everyone knows that the biggest rip-off merchants in the mining industry are BHP. Mr Boyce; the opposition leader, Mr Dutton; and the rest of the Liberals, Nationals and One Nation love nothing more than coming in here and doing the bidding of their BHP paymasters. At the inquiry into the closing the loopholes bill, we heard from workers from BHP mines across the Bowen Basin. Brodie Allen, a mineworker at their Blackwater mine, told us: I've been coalmining and in the industry for seven years. I've been labour hire the entire time, so I go in and do the same job as everybody else, but I'm paid $40,000 less a year to do the exact same thing. Maybe his local member, Mr Boyce, can explain to him how that's fair. The Mining and Energy Union has 10 more same job, same pay applications for workers at BHP coalmines across the Bowen Basin, including at Peak Downs, Saraji, and Goonyella Riverside, and also at BHP's Rix's Creek mine, in the Hunter Valley. At every one of these mines, the Mining and Energy Union is using same job, same pay laws to seek further pay increases between $10,000 and $40,000, and the Liberals, Nationals and One Nation have voted against those pay rises. But it does not stop there. On 23 May, a headline in the Australian was 'Workers in $30,000 same job same pay win'. That win was because Thiess had agreed to directly employ 27 labour hire workers at the Mount Pleasant coalmine, in the Hunter. For years, those workers had been paid $30,000 less than permanent staff for doing the exact same job—until now. I'm pleased to inform you that the Labor member for Hunter, Dan Repacholi, who is former coalminer himself, is a strong supporter of same job, same pay. In his speech on the bill, Dan said: This is very personal to me. …    …   … This is really important reform in order to improve job security, wages and conditions … If you're a mineworker in Central Queensland or the Hunter Valley or anywhere around Australia, it's Labor that voted for your pay to go up. The Liberals, Nationals and One Nation will always sell you out to their Minerals Council paymasters. Electric Vehicles 36 13:12 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria Electric vehicles are well known and are lauded for environmental benefits, helping to reduce emissions and reliance on fossil fuels. Yet the true value of electric vehicles extends far beyond their lack of fumes. Their potential to revolutionise our energy system and to drive down emissions in our electrical system is immense. Using what's known as V2G, vehicle to grid or vehicle to home—or vehicle to everything, V2X, as it's sometimes called—enables an electric vehicle to go from being a car to being a battery on wheels. For example, take into account charging an electric car at work during the middle of the day, when the sun's shining like it is today and energy is cheap, and then driving it home and plugging it into your house so that your household can take advantage of that energy. Or, if you sign up to a plan, then AEMO can use that energy to balance out the grid at the time when the grid needs the energy most. This time-phase shift is the primary benefit of V2G or V2X technology because it allows you to bridge the time from the middle of the day, when, as I said, energy is cheap and in excess, to later in the day and early evening, when there is peak demand. This capability transforms EVs into mobile storage units which can discharge electricity back into the grid or into the home. An average-sized EV battery can store more than enough energy to power a household. Picture this: in the middle of a scorching summer day, as the demand for electricity peaks, thousands of EVs are being driven home and parked in their garage and are discharging part of their energy into the house, alleviating the strain on our grid and ensuring that everyone can keep their lights and air conditioners on. When an EV is combined with a photovoltaic system—rooftop solar—a highly efficient home microgrid is created. AEMO's recent 2024 Integrated System Plan indicates that by 2035 we're going to need 522 gigawatt hours of storage of this kind, rising to 660 gigawatt hours by 2050. If you look at the average consumption of a four-person household, which is about 20 kilowatt hours, then you can see that there are a lot of households that are going to need a lot of batteries, either in the form of a standalone battery in the house or, alternatively, as an EV plugged into their house. The average battery capacity of an electric vehicle is around 72 kilowatt hours, more than enough to power a household during the peak times. When considering factors such as power conversion loss and battery health, a four-person household could be powered for over two days by an EV, and obviously topped up during the middle of the day. Projections by CSIRO using the AEMO step change scenario indicate that the national electricity market could, as I said, require up to 522 gigawatt hours by 2035 and 660 gigawatt hours by 2050. Currently there are about 80,000 battery electric vehicles on Australian roads. Encouraging the adoption of one million EVs equipped with V2G technology by 2030 could contribute up to 65 gigawatts of stored energy capacity. When scaled up, given the potential of EVs with V2X to provide substantial energy storage and reduce peak demand, the necessity of expensive projects like Rewiring the Nation all of a sudden become very questionable. Why not reward households for making sustainable choices and encourage them to buy a V2G enabled vehicle? Aukus 36 13:17 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I rise to give a statement about the AUKUS partnership and its effects on my people's land, culture and songlines. AUKUS is bringing destructive change to Meandup, which some of you may know as Garden Island or, in government speak, HMAS Stirling. It is a narrow strip of land that is rich in Noongar history straddling two important cultural groups—Whadjuk and Gnaarla Karla Boodjar—and it features in stories that explain the land and its features up and down the Western Australian coast. Academics have been mapping the area and they've discovered evidence of human habitation that stretches under what is now the ocean for hundreds of miles. The ancient shoreline was present before the Ice Age and the seas rose. We may have also found the entrance to the famous Derbarl Yerrigan, which some may know here as the 'Swan River', which runs through the Darling Scarp right the way through the city landscape and out to the Indian Ocean. Its cultural exit point is through the channel of the Derbarl Nara—the Cogburn Sound. Other areas of this land, which is precious to my people as traditional owners, reveal important living and working places, and we Noongar people connect with ceremonial and camping grounds where artefacts have been found that are clear examples of tangible cultural heritage. These objects are linked to our totemic systems and our creation stories—which are about time, place and the continuing protection of our rich Australian marine biodiversity—through our ancient songlines. The tangible and intangible cultural heritage associated with Meandup is not only under threat, some of it has already been destroyed by human habitation. Further construction of accommodation for US and Australian forces has already taken place without the appropriate approval from Noongar custodians. The Chief of the Navy, Mark Hammond, apologised to me in a recent Senate estimates session. But there has been minimal contact since that time and I'm not convinced there won't be further construction without any regard for land, cultural heritage and the deep and profound meaning associated with it. When magic words like 'defence' and 'threat' get thrown around every other value seems to go out the window. The Greens are not, and have never been, convinced by the language of militarism and threat. We don't believe that we need to hand our land and sovereignty to the US military industrial complex and we certainly don't believe that military imperatives should override everything that is important about land, culture and the natural environment of this area. When Meandup becomes both a nuclear target and a nuclear waste dump, there is no advantage for my people or in fact for any other Western Australian that makes up for what they are potentially losing. Today we learnt that Western Australia's Minister for Defence Industry has cast doubt over the construction and delivery schedule of Australia's locally built nuclear powered submarines. When he was addressing defence contractors last week, Paul Papalia said he expected the navy to receive five US built Virginia class submarines, implying that there would be delays with the future design. So, as suspected all along, the wheels are falling off the AUKUS plan. All of the destruction might in fact be for nothing. Juvenile Detention 37 13:20 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Today I want to talk about what are you all obsessed with at the moment: youth crime. But youth crime is not what you make it out to be. It is a symptom of current systems not working. Trying to be tough on crime by treating children as criminals doesn't fix the problem. What you call youth detention centres are nothing but prisons where you lock up children as young as 10. If prisons worked, crime numbers would be going down. Locking people up is not preventive or rehabilitative. All it is is damaging. It is damaging to those locked up, damaging to their loved ones and damaging to whole communities, because no-one gets better in prison, especially not children. To thrive, children need love, care and guidance. They need safety and stability in their lives. Children's pre-frontal cortexes are not yet fully developed. This is their personality centre, their idea of self, of who they are. As a child, it's easy to take on ideas that aren't yours and it's easy to make mistakes, especially if you don't have the support or guidance of a community around you. What you never mention is that many children who are incarcerated at a young age have been removed from their families. Many have been passed on from one foster family to the next, all too often experiencing violence or lack of care. Please tell me how a child is going to develop any sense of self-worth under those circumstances. Who can they turn to for love, care and guidance? Instead of ensuring that they get the support they need, you lock them in prisons and brand them as criminals, separating them from families and friends. You take away their every chance to have a childhood. And guess what happens? Well, it turns out that being incarcerated in these formative years doesn't solve disadvantage but entrenches it. It drives recidivism, and it means children never stand a chance. They have their whole lives in front of them, yet they don't. The media put out reactionary stories on the horrors of youth crime, putting fear into everyday people, creating this perceived need to be harsh on these children, trying to show 'strong leadership'. But, at the end of the day, evidence based solutions on how to actually address the root cause of these problems are being ignored. What is shown to work is community led diversionary programs. They don't exclude children from community. That inclusion into community is exactly what is needed. The real criminals are here—the government, locking children up. They're the criminals. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child states: 'The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time.' What we are seeing in this country, with the Labor government over here, is imprisonment of children as a first resort gaining more and more popularity, especially around election time. It takes away not just their childhood but also their future, leaving behind nothing but a trail of destruction for whole communities. So thanks, Labor government. Thanks for not looking after our children in this country. Wages 38 13:25 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland For over 10 years, as you well know, Acting Deputy President Sterle, workers in regional Queensland asked the Liberal-National government for one simple thing. If they worked the same job, they wanted the same pay. They asked for this simple thing from the former government for over 10 years. For over 10 years, members of the Liberal-National government, particularly those from regional Queensland, would go to these communities and make a promise that they would finally do something to crack down on dodgy labour hire companies that were refusing to pay workers the same wages under the same conditions. For 10 years, they made these promises and refused to do anything. In this place, they voted against making changes to those laws that the Labor opposition brought forward. Then, when the Labor government came in, we gave the opposition an opportunity to vote for the closing loopholes legislation. They even refused to do that. It is shameful what these workers had to go through over 10 years of being ignored by the previous government. But now, because of the laws brought forward by the Albanese Labor government to make same job, same pay law in this country, we have had the very first same job, same pay decision from the Fair Work Commission. This incredibly important decision means that the Batchfire Callide mine in Biloela, in Central Queensland, is the first place where you get the same pay when you have the same job. That's because of the laws brought forward by the Albanese Labor government. This involves more than 300 labour hire workers at this coalmine in Queensland. They were reportedly being paid $10,000 to $20,000 less than direct employees. This is a story that we heard over many years. These workers attended the same meetings but were paid less. They operated the same machines but were paid less. They wore the same uniforms but were paid less. They followed the same instructions. They used the same rosters. They were on the same production crews. They shared the same equipment and facilities. They undertook the same training. But they were paid less. They were doing the same job, but they were being paid less for it. Before we changed the law, companies were using labour hire loopholes to deliberately undercut agreements they had already made with their workers. Companies agreed on fair rates of pay with their workers, made an enterprise agreement and then undercut that agreement by bringing in a labour hire workforce that was being paid less. But not anymore—because of the laws that this government passed, if you do the same job, you get the same pay. The labour hire loophole is officially closed. We have spoken to some of the workers who have been affected by this decision. One of the workers who's worked at this mine for eight years said that her partner also works at the mine. They both started out as labour hire. They have both been offered permanent shifts in the last couple of months. She said that it makes a $30,000 difference for her and her partner, and yesterday's decision is an incredible boost to that. One other worker is Josh. He has worked at that mine for six years as a labour hire worker. He said: 'The pay rise will have a very strong impact, particularly since I've just started a new family. I now have a daughter who's just two months old and this pay rise will help go towards essential things like housing, grocery bills, nappies and baby clothes.' This is how you help people in regional Queensland with the cost of living, not by pushing up power prices with expensive nuclear reactors. You help families get food on the table by ensuring that our laws mean that, if you work the same job, you get the same pay. Mr Dutton wants to fantasise about expensive and risky nuclear reactors which are decades away and won't deliver a viable new industry for workers and communities. They want to see these workers work at one of these risky nuclear reactors, which will push up energy prices and mean these families pay more. The opposition has nothing to offer these workers. They offered them nothing for 10 years, even after they were begged to do something about same job, same pay. Well, finally, the Albanese Labor government has delivered. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x It is 1.30 pm. We will now move to two-minute statements. China: Human Rights 38 13:30 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia This week, I met with Sebastien Lai, the son of jailed media owner Jimmy Lai. At 76, Jimmy faces life in prison in Hong Kong for speaking truth to power and campaigning for democracy in Hong Kong. Jimmy is a Hong Kong success story. From child labourer to one of Asia's most successful businessmen, he understood the value of civil liberties, economic freedom, and the rule of law, which allows opportunity to flourish. He's now Hong Kong's highest profile political prisoner. When Hong Kong was handed back to China, Jimmy saw the threat to democracy and saw it coming a mile off. He set up the newspaper Apple Daily to campaign for democracy and ensure the people of Hong Kong got the independent news they deserved. Apple Daily became the most popular Chinese-language newspaper in Hong Kong. Mr Lai had been targeted for his journalism for years. In 2015, his home and office were firebombed. In 2021, the authorities forced the closure of Apple Daily—a dark day for Hong Kong's democracy. Now the authorities are weaponising the law and China's draconian national security law to put him in prison for the rest of his life. Sebastien is here today in the Senate chamber with Jimmy's legal team, and they're asking for our help. They're asking for our help in calling for his father's release. Australia should do the right thing and join the US and the United Kingdom in calling for Jimmy Lai's release. We cannot allow demonstrated Australian values of democracy and free speech to be sacrificed in our relationship with China. Jimmy Lai stood up for democracy, and it's time we all stood up for Jimmy Lai. Swan, Mr Dane (Swanny) 39 13:32 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I want to park politics and talk about another topic that's very close to my heart—the mighty Collingwood Football Club. And it's so good to do it in front of a couple of Carlton supporters sitting in the advisers' box, too. I won't mention last year's premiership heroics. Instead, it's time to acknowledge someone who brought joy to all in the Magpie Army over his 258-game career in the No. 36 jumper. I'm talking about the 2010 premiership star and 2011 Brownlow medallist, the one and only Dane Swan. A few weeks ago, 'Swanny' was inducted into the Australian Football Hall of Fame, the most prestigious recognition there is, joining fellow inductees and legends in this illustrious group. He was always one of my favourite players, so much so that in my office here in Canberra, sitting on top of my cabinet, is a very large bean tree sculpture modelled on Swanny himself. The sculpture doesn't have the most chiselled physique, but that was just Swanny, and that was what we loved about him. His laid-back demeanour was a trademark of his career glittering career, but this trait was in no way a reflection of his attitude to the team and what playing for the Pies meant to him. With his distinctive tattoos, there was no better sight than seeing Swanny burst into goal with his unique running style, often described as a duck-like waddle. His brute strength and footy smarts made him a very difficult player to match up on. He was just as quick off the field with his sharp one-liners. Congratulations, Swanny. Thanks for playing the game your way and bringing us a lot of joy. Go, Pies! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x I thank the Senate for its patience by not interjecting on that contribution. NAIDOC Week 39 13:34 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia Next week, from 7 July to 14 July, is NAIDOC Week. NAIDOC Week this year has a sensational theme: Keep the fire burning! Blak, Loud and Proud. NAIDOC celebrates the spirit of our communities and invites everyone to stand in solidarity, amplifying our voices that have long been silenced. The fire represents an enduring strength and vitality for First Nations cultures, passed down through our generations despite the challenges that we have faced. It is a symbol of connection to the land, to each other and to the tapestry of traditions that define Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. NAIDOC Week sparks pride and unity, igniting a renewed commitment to acknowledging, preserving and sharing the cultural heritage that enriches Australia. Blak, Loud and Proud encapsulates the celebration of First Nations identity, empowering us to stand tall in our heritage and assert our place in the modern world. We are reclaiming narratives, amplifying voices and promoting justice and equality. NAIDOC Week invites all Australians to listen, learn and engage in meaningful dialogue. Together we can build a future where the stories, traditions and achievements of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities are cherished and celebrated, enriching the fabric of our nation with the oldest living culture in the world. This is why during this week the Greens will kick off our campaign for Australia's first truth and justice commission, and we need everyone to join us. Happy NAIDOC Week, everyone. Keep the fires burning. Continue to be Blak, Loud and Proud. Western Australia: Defence Industry 39 13:35 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia In 2021 Australia announced the AUKUS agreement with the US and the UK. Many in my state saw this as a great opportunity for Western Australia, anticipating submarine rotations at HMAS Stirling by 2027. That deadline is now three years away, yet we still haven't witnessed any infrastructure initiatives from the state or federal Labor governments to prepare for these submarines and their crews. Just yesterday, the Financial Review reported that the Western Australian Minister for Defence Industry implied there would be delays with the design of the future SSN-AUKUS that would be built for the British and Australian navies. Meanwhile, a former defence department official has said it is almost inevitable that the 2042 deadline for Australia to receive its first locally built submarine will be missed. The Labor government is also dragging its feet to invest in road works that are necessary to accommodate the increase in defence vehicles and traffic congestion. The many requests from local government for the redevelopment of Garden Island Causeway and Parkin Street seem to be falling on deaf ears. It's no secret Western Australia is in a housing crisis. But it is unclear whether the national housing accord has considered the 700 submariners and their families that are expected to arrive in three years time. Nor is it clear the spouses of these submariners will be able to find a job. Many of them are nurses and teachers. Yet the Labor government is delaying action to develop accreditation recognition so that those people can join our workforce. This government has failed to address infrastructure shortcomings, housing scarcity, and skills and training needs, rendering our entire state unprepared. We don't just need a plan now; we needed a plan yesterday. Cost of Living 40 13:37 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria This week more cost-of-living relief is being delivered for Australians. This week tax cuts for 13.6 million workers have been delivered, with an average of $1,800 going a year back into household budgets. This week our $300 in energy bill relief comes into effect, $325 for small businesses. And this week 2.6 million workers on the minimum wage are receiving their third consecutive pay rise, so Australians can earn more and keep more of what they earn. This week paid parental leave will expand to 22 weeks in total for families, and it will keep going up each year until we hit 26 weeks. This week PBS medicine costs are being frozen for Australians, meaning no-one will pay more than $31.60 for a PBS script. This week Australians remember that those opposite opposed every cost-of-living measure on offer. 'No' to tax cuts for all Australians, not just some. 'No' to getting wages moving. 'No' to cheaper medicines. 'No' to energy bill relief. And, what's worse, those opposite want to push up electricity prices with their half-baked nuclear plan. They have nothing to offer Australians to ease the cost of living. Meanwhile, our measures are responding to the pressure households are under, without adding to inflation. We know there is more work to do. But, after a decade of inaction from those opposite, we are getting wages moving in this country. We are cutting taxes in this country. And we're providing the support that Australians need. Racism 40 13:39 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I am absolutely disgusted, as an Australian citizen born here, to see the desecration of our national anthem, young kids being forced to touch the ground while reciting racist slogans like 'always was, always will be Aboriginal land', racist rapper songs being played to young kids calling for the murder of people because they're white, bureaucrats forcing racist views on infants and toddlers in the guise of reconciliation, and bewildered parents being confronted with indoctrination they never gave permission for and do not support. Welcome to the Australian public primary school in 2024. When my grandson told me he was being forced to touch the ground while reciting the divisive acknowledgment of country, I told him, 'You don't have to do it; this is your land as well,' and now he doesn't. I encourage all Australian families to do the same. They're your kids—not child soldiers press-ganged as cannon fodder in racist culture wars. These racist activists—teachers and lecturers—know what they're doing. They're getting inside kids' heads as early as possible to program them. It has to stop. But, with public education now thoroughly infiltrated by racist activists, it's up to Australian families to take a stand for their children. Schools are for education, not indoctrination. Any teacher that tries to indoctrinate children should be sacked and never allowed to teach in Australia again. Australian education outcomes have been declining for decades, and now we know why. At the referendum last year, more than 60 per cent of Australians rejected the racial division of the Voice. The activists are now coming for our kids so they can try again with the new generation they've brainwashed. We must not allow future generations to be indoctrinated with racist divisions. Every Australian citizen born here or overseas has as much right to this land as anyone else. Treasury Laws Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Bill 2022 40

Treasury Laws Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Bill 2022

13:41 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Today in Sydney Australia's fintech community is meeting at the CDR summit, but there's only one question on their mind: why is the government continuing to deny Australians the opportunity to take the next step when it comes to consumer data rights? Why is the government denying Australians this important innovation, particularly during a cost-of-living crisis? Why is the government denying them this opportunity? The Minister for Financial Services himself said last year: The promise of CDR— the consumer data right— is great. As a competition policy, it has the potential to drive a better deal for consumers across a range of good and services, and drive productivity growth across a number of industries. Why is the government hiding the consumer data right bill from the Senate? The ACCC chair said in Senate estimates just recently that, while the consumer data right implementation task has been complex and technically challenging, the foundations were well laid and we have reached a point of maturity in the underlying technology and process. So why does the government deny the Senate the opportunity to have a vote on the consumer data right bill? Remember this: the Treasury Laws Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Bill 2022 passed the House of Representatives on 6 March 2023. It has been sitting on the Senate Notice Paper for over 110 sitting days. Then guess what happened? Just this week the government sneakily took the bill off the agenda. Why is the government, during a cost-of-living crisis, denying Australians the next step and denying fintech operators in our country important investment opportunities? This is shameful, and the Senate should vote on the bill. (Time expired) Australian Capital Territory: Road Safety 41 13:43 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania Yesterday with the ACT Minister for City Services, Tara Cheyne, and federal member for Canberra, Alicia Payne, I announced $10 million of joint funding, with each government committing $5 million for the road safety program. This money will fund 18 priority areas across the ACT. This program represents a vital step forward in our ongoing efforts to enhance road safety and reduce the road toll in our community. Road safety is a critical concern that affects each and every one of us. Every year too many people are killed and countless others have their lives changed forever. It is our collective responsibility to address this issue with the urgency and commitment it deserves. This $10 million investment will fund a comprehensive range of measures designed to make our roads safer for all users, whether they are drivers, cyclists or pedestrians. Road safety is a shared responsibility for all levels of government and road users and our community. In the year to May, 1,303 Australians were killed on Australian roads. In the ACT, there have been five deaths so far this calendar year. We know that one death on our roads is one too many. This funding will deliver strong projects directly addressing road safety. By working with communities and governments we can identify high-priority sites. Bringing down Australia's road toll requires a range of different solutions, whether that's improving roads or changing behaviours. It takes everyone to be responsible around our roads in order to achieve Vision Zero, our collective target to achieve zero deaths by 2050. The collaboration and commitment between the federal government and the ACT government is crucial for building a safer, more— (Time expired) Queensland: Youth Justice 41 13:45 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland As a teacher for 30 years, I taught hundreds of kids who, through no fault of their own, found themselves on the wrong side of the law. Students experiencing prolonged housing insecurity, hunger or a lack of mental health and disability support often become disengaged. Disengagement leads to nonattendance, and nonattendance means they go looking for other things to do, and some kids make poor choices. In Queensland, Labor and the LNP are in a race to the bottom on youth crime, but we can't imprison our way to safety. More than 90 per cent of kids who are put behind bars reoffend within a year. If locking up kids actually worked, then Queensland, which leads Australia in putting kids behind all bars, would be the safest place in the country. Despite this, Queensland Labor has wasted $2.6 billion since 2015 on building and expanding youth adult prisons. When kids engage in criminal behaviour, they're telling us: 'I'm not okay and I need help.' But help doesn't mean punishing them for our failures. It means ensuring they have decent housing, a free and high-quality public education, world-class public health care, a full belly when they go to class, and access to early intervention services and rehabilitation. That's what the Greens will deliver in Queensland, and we'll fund it by making big corporations pay their fair share. Public Sector Governance 41 13:47 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria Many Australians are quickly realising that, as bad as this Labor government has been, it may not be the biggest problem that we have. You see, if you sack the government, you can vote out your local MP, for example. But, if you do that, the only thing that changes is the name on the door of the local electorate office. The same nameless, faceless, unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats who were pulling the strings before you cast your ballot will continue to pull the strings after—and their presence continues to grow, taking more and more from the taxpayer. The larger the bureaucracy grows the further their tentacles reach into every corner of our lives. It has become almost impossible to do anything without involving a bureaucrat. In some parts of this country you've can't even cut down a tree, dig a hole or build a garden shed without reference to a bureaucrat. The Public Service is the unseen authoritarian. If the government really wants to reduce the cost of living while providing greater liberty and guaranteeing the precious freedoms that we all get to enjoy, there's only one thing to do: slash the Public Service, shrink the bureaucracy, undo the ties that bind us all and repeal as much legislation as humanly possible. If the government cut back the bureaucracy instead of always making it bigger, it would only improve our nation. Change the Prime Minister and you will change the country just a little bit, but cut the bureaucracy and you will change the nation completely—for the better. This is the great challenge before us today, but is there a political party in this chamber with the cojones to actually do it? Probably not. Well, it's not red. It's not blue. It's definitely not green. It's probably yellow. Economy 42 13:49 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales Home ownership has long sat at the heart of the Australian economy and is the national dream. It's something that I've spoken about many times. The economic mismanagement of this government has seen this dream slip further and further from reality for young Australians and has made life much more difficult for the over three million mortgaged households and small business borrowers. While interest rate hikes hit all Australians hard, they exercise particularly harsh punishment against young Australians who are trying to get their first step on the nation's property ladder and those who have recently bought their first home. All Australian household budgets are being squeezed by higher mortgage repayments, including for those who rent, where they are passed on. Most mortgage holders are simply one rate rise away from being unable to sustain the pressure. Let's be clear. The RBA's decision to steadily increase rates across this government's tenure from 0.85 per cent in 2022 to 4.35 per cent in July 2024 is the result of this government's home-grown inflation. And this government is delegating all responsibility for interest rates and inflation to the Reserve Bank. Why is the average Australian carrying the load? What about institutions and corporates? What about multinationals? Why aren't they sharing in this burden? Why are young Australians, mortgage holders and small businesses being forced to carry this on their own? Restoring young Australians' faith in the dream of homeownership and easing the pressure on the three million mortgaged households across the country and on Australian renters must be a priority of this government. This government must stop the rising inflation and rising interest rates which are crushing everyday Australians. The government cannot continue to delegate this to the Reserve Bank. Supermarkets 42 13:51 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania Choice has confirmed what Tasmanians already knew: we're getting ripped off at the checkout. Choice compared the price of a basket of essential groceries from Woolies, Coles and Aldi across the country. Aldi was cheaper by 25 per cent in every state except Tassie and the Northern Territory, which don't have Aldi. And Choice said that the lack of supermarket options for Tasmanians means that we're paying more for groceries—not good! Mainlanders have no idea what it's like to not have all the options at your fingertips. I joke that when I come to the mainland I go and check out supermarkets as a little bit of a tourist attraction—and I went to this tourist attraction on the weekend. Last year when I went on a family holiday to Adelaide we all bundled along to the local Aldi to suss it out. It was exciting! But then it was absolutely discouraging— An honourable senator interjecting— Senator TYRRELL 300639 I know, there were better things in South Australia, I'm sure. But it made me realise just what we're missing out on in Tassie. In the report of the Senate committee inquiry into supermarket prices I called on the federal government to look at ways to get more supermarket competition in Tassie. Aldi has already put Tassie in the too-hard basket. They say they're not setting up here because of supply chain issues and logistical reasons. I've heard time and again that when competitors come to a city the prices at Woolies and Coles go down. Why shouldn't Tassie have that, just because we live across the ditch? The cost of living is at the top of everyone's minds, and groceries are one of the areas where you feel the pinch the most. I know what it's like to put something back on the shelf because you can't afford it—the way you look around to see if anyone else has noticed, if they'll know you're struggling. Tassie needs more supermarket competition. Federal and state governments have a role to play to make sure that doesn't happen. (Time expired) Right to Protest 43 13:53 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Today is the national day of protest rights. I want to give a shout-out to the staunch protesters on the front lines fighting to protect us from the abuse of the state. Protest is a fundamental and necessary part of a functioning democracy. Without the ability to criticise the actions of governments and hold them accountable, societies stagnate and are at risk of human rights violations. Arresting protesters is an attempt to conceal the truth. Change has not come from silence. Protest gives a platform to those who go unheard. It's being used around the world, throughout history, for fighting for what is right, resisting when those in power fail to listen. Resistance movements on this land have existed since invasion and the frontier wars, from Wurundjeri elders at Coranderrk to the first Day of Mourning to the Wave Hill Walk-Off to the Aboriginal Tent Embassy, the longest continuous protest for First Peoples' rights in the world. All across this land, people are still protesting to protect country. This is something that affects everybody. History tells a different tale of those who protest to protect what is right. Governments always want to paint themselves as being on the right side of history, even when they opposed change at the time. It's not too late. You can listen to the hundreds of thousands of people peacefully protesting right now to stand up for human rights and the rights of country. Free Palestine, and no pride in genocide. Albanese Government: Primary Industries 43 13:54 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia There's a scary pattern of behaviour starting to emerge from this government. Every day, we see more and more examples of our primary industries being slowly and systematically but nonetheless fatally strangled by this Labor government and its ill-conceived, unconsulted-on policies. This week we saw another example of this, with the guillotined bill to end the live sheep export trade, and they wouldn't even have a Senate inquiry. They wouldn't let the farmers, the shearers, the truck drivers, the vets and the regional communities put their story on the record—a story that would have demonstrated that Australia's live sheep trade has animal welfare standards that are the best in the world. Instead, the government's happy to stop this trade and have countries with no standards supply animals to these markets—markets that, by necessity, can't take chilled meat. To add insult to injury, the government offered a support package of less than $15 million a year. They spent more on a Mad Max film than they will on the 3,000 farmers that are going to be impacted by this. But it's not just live sheep. They're shutting down our world-class fisheries, forcing Australians to buy fish from fisheries with no sustainability controls. The water buybacks that are being pursued in the Murray-Darling Basin are completely destroying communities like my home town of Renmark in South Australia. So where will Australians source their clean, green fruit and vegetables to feed their families? That's right: fruit and vegetables will be imported from countries that do not have the same environmental standards as we do here in Australia. The minister for agriculture should be renamed the minister for no agriculture, because that's what's going to be left after his watch. Clearly he and this Labor government do not care about our farmers and the agricultural sector, and the events of this week are just another sad episode in the destruction of a sector that has underpinned the Australian economy for over 200 years. (Time expired) Honourable senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Order! Senator Whish-Wilson, you have the call. Please show respect and listen in silence. Right to Protest 43 13:57 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania This week is the 41st anniversary of the historic Franklin Dam decision, a High Court decision to protect the Franklin River for future generations forever. This is one of the world's great wild rivers, with one of the world's great whitewater rafting experiences, which brings hundreds of thousands of tourists to my home state of Tasmania. The Franklin Dam blockade saw the arrests of nearly 1,400 peaceful protesters. The prisons were full, and my predecessor in this place, Dr Bob Brown, famously was led from a prison cell to the Tasmanian parliament. I wanted to raise this today because we are seeing a crackdown on protesters all around the world. In the last 20 years, we have seen 49 different pieces of legislation in this nation, more than two a year, to curb our rights for peaceful protests, and many of these pieces of legislation have been targeted at environmental protesters. When I organised, with my colleagues in the Tasmanian Greens, the 30th-anniversary commemoration and celebration of the Franklin Dam protests and blockade, my clear memory was seeing at the bar the police who had arrested the protesters, drinking with the protesters and celebrating this occasion. Everybody agreed that it was a momentous and pivotal moment in history. Everybody agreed that it was the right thing to do. Remember, senators, that, while protesters may be treated as nuisances in today's headlines, they are always on the right side of history, and we need to now do more to support protesters, to support the environment and to support future generations. (Time expired) Wages 44 13:59 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The Albanese Labor government was elected on a mandate to lift wages, and that's exactly what we're doing. I'm particularly pleased to see the labour hire workers at Batchfire's Callide Mine in Central Queensland finally gain the recognition that they deserve. These labour hire workers have been underpaid for too long, and, as a result of the changes by the Albanese government's laws, they are now getting the same pay for the same job, as they should always have got. At that mine, 300 workers are now receiving tens of thousands of dollars more, putting them on the same rates as the permanent workers they work with. These are Labor laws that were passed. They were opposed by Colin Boyce, the member for Flynn; every LNP member; and Senator Pauline Hanson. Labor is for the workers. The Liberals, Nationals and One Nation are not. The PRESIDENT 112096 The time for statements has expired. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 44 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Republic of Vanuatu: Parliamentary Delegation 44 14:00 The PRESIDENT 112096 I draw the attention of honourable senators to the presence of a parliamentary delegation from the Republic of Vanuatu led by the Speaker, the Hon. Seoule Simeon. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and to the Senate in particular. With the concurrence of honourable senators, I invite the Speaker to take a seat on the floor of the Senate. Honourable senators: Hear, hear! Mr Simeon was seated accordingly. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 44 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Budget 44 14:00 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Minister, following the budget you claimed: The targeted cost-of-living measures announced in the budget are expected to reduce inflation, with energy bill relief … expected to directly reduce inflation by half a percentage point in 2024-25. You and the Treasurer have both gone on to repeat this claim. Minister, the RBA's latest minutes confirm that they will look past these rebates when considering further interest rate increases and that any reduction to inflation will be reversed by 2025. Minister, do you agree with the RBA that they should look past this policy because the impact of it will be reversed? 14:01 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I welcome the opportunity to talk about our targeted cost-of-living measures that were calibrated carefully in the budget. As we said, from 1 July this year, which was Monday this week, we have tax cuts flowing into the pay packets of every taxpayer in the country and, importantly, energy bill rebates and relief for every household in Australia, recognising that this is a big bill for most households and that we should be providing support where we can. I read the minutes of the RBA board meeting which were released yesterday, and obviously the question did not give a comprehensive analysis, shall I say, of the minutes, which were quite extensive and went through what is happening not only in the international environment but also here domestically. I don't think it's any surprise—in fact, we dealt with this issue at estimates—that energy bill rebates were about putting downward pressure on inflation in 2024-25, and I don't think anyone has pretended otherwise. That year is the focus of that effort, and that was the evidence of Treasury, and it was my evidence. It's very consistent with the lines that the Treasurer and I have used since budget day. We believe that, whilst inflation is moderating in welcome ways, it is remaining higher than we would like for longer than we would like. We have made sensible investments to support households with some of those pressures as we get inflation back into the target range. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Davey, first supplementary? 14:03 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales The RBA minutes also revealed: Members acknowledged that if inflation expectations were to rise materially from current levels, it could require significantly higher interest rates to bring inflation back to target … With the latest monthly data showing headline inflation accelerating to its highest rate in six months, isn't it true that the Albanese government's latest budget has only made the RBA's job harder? 14:04 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory No, I don't agree with that. I think there's evidence from the governor about how the fact that we are running surplus budgets—not only one already delivered last year but one that we will deliver shortly—is actually assisting. So I don't agree with that. I think you are very selectively reinterpreting or providing your own analysis of the minutes. The minutes also go through arguments about maintaining the cash rate at the level it currently is, Senator Davey, so if you've read the minutes you will realise—and it is a useful document that journalists and other commentators look at—there are arguments for and against decisions that the RBA board may take going forward. I think it's useful information. It sets out the challenges that many are considering, but no; I do not agree with your question. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Davey, second supplementary? 14:05 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales Minister, with all due respect, will you now admit that your big-spending budget has poured so much fuel on the 'Jim-flationary' fire that, under Labor, Australians will see any tax cuts and other so-called relief gobbled up by higher inflation and higher interest rates? 14:05 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory It is interesting. I haven't heard examples from those opposite, while they criticise spending, of what spending in the 2024-25 year they don't support. Is it the tax cuts? What are the Nationals telling the Liberal Party that your position is? We know you've won on nuclear. We know you've won on divestiture powers. Here is the Australian Liberal Party actually moving policy to divest businesses. This is the world we're living in: where the Nats tell the Liberals what their policy is, and then you all come in and implement it. Is it the tax cuts that you don't support? Is it the energy bill relief that you don't support? You can't have it both ways, President. You cannot come in here, complain about spending but then not explain which of those measures you don't support. Taxation 45 14:06 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The cost of living is the No. 1 issue that I hear about from constituents, and I know that it's the No. 1 priority for the Albanese Labor government. The 1st of July was a really important day, with a range of cost-of-living supports rolling out for Australians, including the tax cuts. But I have noticed that the opposition doesn't seem excited about Labor's tax cuts. I'm wondering if perhaps they don't actually understand how important this policy will be for their constituents. Can the minister help them out? Can the minister let us know how their constituents and all Australians will benefit from Labor's tax cuts? 14:07 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I will first also acknowledge the honourable speaker Seoule and welcome you to Australia. We're very pleased to have our friends from Vanuatu with us today. If we're a little feisty, you'll understand this is the robust Australian democracy, Mr Speaker! President, senators and Senator Grogan, I would say to you that what we see from 1 July are tax cuts. There's a tax cut for every taxpayer in Australia—13.6 million Australians, 2.9 million low-paid workers, many of whom are people who supported the coalition. They must be scratching their heads wondering why it is that the coalition are so opposed to so many of the cost-of-living measures that the government has put in place. Of course, there is the tax cut for every Australian taxpayer, not just some. On top of that there's the $300 energy bill relief for every Australian household and $325 for small businesses. Remember when they were the party of small business? There's a freeze on the cost of PBS medicines for every Australian and a third consecutive pay rise for 2.6 million workers—they're not excited about that because they believe in low wages as a deliberate design feature of the Australian economy. On top of that, there's more funding to build more homes and an increase to paid parental leave on top of cheaper child care, fee-free TAFE and the biggest investment ever in expanding bulk-billing. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU They're more interested in shouting at the Labor Party than actually looking at what the people who vote for them want, which is relief for the cost of living. You would think that Senator Birmingham might be excited about or interested in all the people in South Australia who will benefit from this policy. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Grogan, first supplementary? 14:09 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia I thank the minister for that response. It's very helpful to have that laid out. I know that the Albanese Labor government is working to ensure Australians are paying a fair price for their groceries and to ease the cost-of-living pressures. Can the minister please tell the Senate what the government is doing and what the experts have said about why divestiture isn't the best way forward? 14:10 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Of course, this government is taking measures to strengthen the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct, cracking down on anticompetitive behaviour, increasing penalties and asking the consumer watchdog to investigate. What has been extraordinary this week has been to watch Senator Nick McKim write the coalition's supermarket policy. What I'm really interested in is: how is it that the party that used to be the party of tax cuts now has Senator McKim writing their competition policy? When did that happen? The Liberal Party used to be a party of people who prided themselves on being economic rationalists and who prided themselves on looking to the market. Now, Senator Nick McKim, I congratulate you. You're writing the alternative government's economic policy. Senator McKenzie 207825 Labor's all on their own! The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator McKenzie. Senator Grogan, second supplementary? 14:11 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia I thank the minister for that response. I read in the Australian this morning— Senator McKenzie 207825 All on their lonesome. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Grogan, please resume your seat. Senator McKenzie, two seconds before you called out again, I called you to order. Listen in silence. Senator Grogan, begin again and start the clock again. Senator GROGAN 296331 I read in the Australian this morning that Liberal MPs were ambushed over Mr Dutton's plan for new divestiture powers and are concerned that the policy will force up prices at the supermarket. Can the minister please tell the Senate: what are the best ways to ensure Australians pay a fair price at the checkout? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash! Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my left! The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Minister Gallagher! The PRESIDENT 112096 Go right ahead, Senator Colbeck, after I've called order at least four times, and completely ignore what I said! Senator Grogan, second supplementary? Oh, you've finished? I beg your pardon. Senator Ruston. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Oh, sorry. This is what happens when you are so disorderly. Minister. 14:12 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Obviously, we are very focused on working to deliver cost-of-living relief because we understand Australians are doing it hard. The Liberal Party is focused on adopting Senator Nick McKim's supermarket economic policy. But, of course, there are sensible people over there who understand what this really means. Earlier this year, Senator Dean Smith said that divestiture powers are 'ill conceived'. Senator Hume said that there was 'concern' about 'whether they will actually decrease prices'. I agree with you, Senator. Senator Kovacic said, 'They could end up harming the people we are attempting to protect.' Former Liberal Premier Jeff Kennett said, 'This is madness'. This is what happens when a party forget who they are and adopt the Greens' economic policy. Congratulations, Senator McKim. Welcome to the shadow cabinet. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber! Neuroblastoma 46 14:14 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Gallagher. Seven-year-old Holly Zerk is bravely battling neuroblastoma. With the support of her mum, Leanne, and her dad, Travis, Holly has spent the last 13 months undergoing intense treatment, including multiple rounds of chemotherapy which have left her seriously immunocompromised. High-risk neuroblastoma is the deadliest form of cancer affecting young children, with devastating survival rates of around 50 per cent. However, a groundbreaking new treatment approved in the US, known as DFMO, has been shown to dramatically increase survival rates in children to around 75 per cent. This could potentially save Holly's life and the lives of many other young children. Minister, will the government respond to the desperate calls of parents like Leanne and Travis with children battling high-risk neuroblastoma and provide urgent fast-track assistance to access the potential life-saving treatment in Australia? 14:15 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Ruston for the question. I acknowledge her interest in this, and it was a subject that we spoke about during budget estimates. I can say that the Minister for Health and Aged Care is working closely with the drug company and others, including having a meeting with me earlier this week to talk about how to provide access to this new drug—this new treatment line—in the time between now and its approval through the PBAC and PBS process. I understand an application has been made and that the TGA are giving it priority assessment, but that still takes some time. I can imagine, for Holly and her parents and for all of the other children and their families who are diagnosed with or undergoing treatment for neuroblastoma, that this important lifeline is really critical and a decision as soon as possible is really important. I can tell you that we are working on it. We are looking at ways and options to provide access to this medication. I'm not taking away from the seriousness of the issue you raise, but, as you would understand, there are a number of representations to governments about accessing new medications. I expect that will only increase as the highly targeted and engineered treatment regimes continue to be developed for drugs and medications that aren't on the PBS. We are very sympathetic. The minister for health is very sympathetic to looking at what we can do. I've had a meeting with him. Our departments are working together to look at what options are available. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, a first supplementary? 14:17 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia One-year-old Harris Richardson, also known as Hazzy, son of Tyler and Alix, has been diagnosed also with neuroblastoma. The Richardson family have been forced to start a GoFundMe page to raise funds for Hazzy and the family will need to fly to the US to receive the treatment that Harris needs. Is the government concerned that families are being forced to fundraise hundreds of thousands of dollars to access life-saving cancer treatment for their immunocompromised children overseas when the drug could actually be made available safely and accessed here in Australia? 14:17 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory (—) (): I can completely understand Harris's parents and family and friends doing everything that they can do to provide treatment for their son—of course I can. As a parent I completely understand that. The government is keen to look at what we can do. There is the Medical Treatment Overseas Program. That, for many of these children, is not an option, as I understand it; for some it might be, but it doesn't provide the assistance universally. So we are looking at ways. I'm aware of Neuroblastoma Australia's public calling for this, as is the minister for health, who, I believe, has had a number of meetings about this, both internally to government and externally. As you know, there have been 201—I think—new and amended listings on the PBS since 2022. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, a second supplementary? 14:18 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia As you say, Minister, the health minister has stated—even as late as in this morning's paper—that your government is doing everything it can as quickly as it can to work with the supplier of DFMO. These children cannot afford to wait for this life-saving treatment. Compassionate access is within your power now. Are you considering this? 14:19 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Compassionate access is really in the hands of the drug company under the compassionate access program, and we are working with them on that. They have also applied for urgent listing, and that is being assessed by the TGA. As those things are undertaken, I've told you already, we are looking at what mechanisms are available to provide assistance in the short term, between approval, pending approval and listing on the PBS. I would also say that we do have to go through a process. I am repeatedly asked to provide access to medications that are not on the PBS and for all worthy causes. This is something that the government has to properly consider, including what it means for other children with other illnesses who might want to access programs and for children and adults who aren't on the PBS. Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023 48 14:20 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, Minister Wong. The Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill being pushed by your government will make areas next to Perth and Adelaide nuclear waste dumping sites without any consultation with the local community or First Nations groups. If that's not bad enough, it will also allow the government to establish nuclear dump sites anywhere in Australia with no requirement to ever consult with the local community or First Nations groups. Your government is rightly opposed to the coalition's uncosted, unachievable and dangerous nuclear power plants. But how can you seriously take this position while also pushing $368 billion worth of nuclear submarines and their associated toxic nuclear waste dumps across Australia? 14:21 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia First, in relation to the bill, I don't agree with the language that Senator Shoebridge has utilised for that bill. In relation to the submarines, I would make a few points. The first is that we have been clear that the submarines that we seek to acquire through AUKUS, including those to be constructed here in years to come, are nuclear powered, not nuclear armed. We have been very clear with the Australian people and also with our like-minded partners and our partners in the Pacific family. We have also said that we understand and recognise our obligations under international law, including the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Treaty of Rarotonga. Whilst we're not party to it, we'll continue to act consistent with the basic principles of the Bangkok treaty, which is related to South-East Asia. My point is: there is a distinction between a nuclear powered submarine and a nuclear armed submarine. In relation to domestic power— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge? Senator Shoebridge 169119 It's a question of relevance. My question was about toxic waste, not nuclear arms. The minister's deliberately not addressing the toxic waste and the association with the coalition's policy. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. The minister is being relevant to your question. Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU You also made comments about the submarines, Senator Shoebridge, and I was responding to that because I'm conscious of the importance of there not being misinformation about the submarines in the public realm. We believe AUKUS is a core pillar of our national security policy to protect the nation. I think the bill to which you are referring is about the establishment of a new regulatory, including an independent regulator, to ensure nuclear safety within the nuclear powered submarine enterprise and over the life cycle of our submarines. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, a first supplementary? 14:23 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Your government's Australian Naval Nuclear Powered Safety Bill also permits nuclear waste to be dumped in Australia from AUKUS submarines, including UK and US nuclear submarines. How is it possible for your government to propose a law that will allow foreign nations to dump high-level nuclear waste in Australia while pretending to be outraged by the coalition's nuclear power plants? 14:24 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Again, the hyperbole is not fact. We have said that Australia will not be responsible for accepting and disposing of intermediate or high-level radioactive waste from other countries. The Deputy Prime Minister has made clear we will manage low-level radioactive waste responsibly and consistently with nuclear safety standards, as we do with other low-level radioactive waste generated across the country for medical or research purposes. Low-level radioactive waste generated from the routine maintenance of submarines, including through rotational force-west activities, will be managed at HMAS Stirling. The management of spent fuel from our own conventionally nuclear powered submarines is not expected to be required until the 2050s. Obviously governments will go through the process of dealing with that issue. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, a second supplementary? 14:25 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Keeping in mind that the nuclear waste from nuclear submarines is vastly more dangerous and toxic than civilian nuclear waste, can you explain why the Albanese Labor government rejects nuclear power and waste except for when it's in a submarine floating off the coast or is being dumped on shore from one of those floating reactors? How do you square that circle? Senator McKenzie 207825 It's part of the wedge. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator McKenzie! You were not invited to answer this question. I would ask you to listen in silence. If you wish to make a contribution, find another time during the Senate sitting to do so. 14:25 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I am interested to see Senator Shoebridge effectively parroting the same attack that the coalition made about this. The Greens-coalition alliance is going well. There are two things I would say to you. One is that we care about the safety of the nation, Senator Shoebridge. Would you like— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Shoebridge, you are out of order. Senator WONG 00AOU We've made the decision in relation to nuclear powered submarines because of circumstances Australia faces and because national security comes first. Secondly, in relation to nuclear power, as you know, the coalition's plan would deliver the most expensive power in the world in a number of decades time. It does not make economic sense even before we get to the waste issue. Medicare 49 14:27 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Gallagher. Medicare was established 40 years ago by the Hawke Labor government. Since 1984, bulk-billing has delivered affordable health care for all Australians. Can the minister please outline what the Albanese Labor government is doing to strengthen Medicare and how these initiatives are providing cost-of-living relief and making it easier for Australians to see a doctor? 14:27 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Stewart for the question on this really important issue which I know she cares deeply about, which is access to affordable health care for all Australians. In the budget, we introduced the second biggest increase to the Medicare rebate across the board in the last 30 years. The biggest increase to the Medicare rebate in the last 30 years was last year. So, over just two years, we have increased the Medicare rebate by twice as much as those opposite managed in nine years. That's because we care about making sure that people can afford to go and access health care in the community, which is primarily through their general practitioner. At the time of the last election, the 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 a 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 the history of Medicare. In the seven months since we tripled that investment we have seen a turnaround in bulk-billing, with a national increase of 3.4 percentage points, from 75.6 per cent of all GP visits bulk-billed in October to 79 per cent in May. That translates to an estimated two million additional visits of Australians to their GP. Bulk-billing has increased in every state and territory. In Tasmania, it's up over eight per cent. In the ACT, it's up 5½ per cent. In South Australia, it's up five per cent. In the Northern Territory, it's up 4.8 per cent. In WA, it's up 4.2 per cent. In Queensland, it's up 3.4 per cent. In Victoria, it's up three per cent. In New South Wales it's up 2.7 per cent. This shows that our investments are working. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, first supplementary? 14:29 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Thank you, Minister. That's a very timely reminder that only Labor can be trusted with Medicare. The government designed a budget that put downward pressure on inflation. Senator Henderson ZN4 Mediscare! Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson, order. Order across the chamber! Minister Watt, order! Senator Ayres, when I call order, it applies to you. Senator Henderson, you're not in a debate with me. Order! Senator Stewart, I'm going to invite you to begin your question again and reset the clock. Senator STEWART 299352 The government designed a budget that put downward pressure on inflation while providing cost-of-living relief to all Australians. Can the minister please update the Senate on how the government's policies to make medicines cheaper are providing cost-of-living relief that Australians need now? 14:31 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Stewart for another great question. We're building on our investments in Medicare, which is all about people being able to see their GP and have Medicare support them while they do that—so get to Medicare without out-of-pocket expenses. Under our government we've also made a number of reforms to make medicines cheaper. Under our government people now pay no more than $31.60 for medicines on the PBS, and in our first three months of governing we slashed the maximum amount that millions of pensioners would pay for their medicines each year by 25 per cent. In our first 12 months, we delivered the biggest cut to the price of medicines in the 75-year history of the PBS. So, the biggest investments in Medicare, biggest investment in the PBS, and we're seeing now that people are getting access to cheaper medicines, they're getting access to 60-day supply where it's needed, and in this budget we have also made sure that PBS medicines remain affordable. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, second supplementary? 14:32 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria I know that cheaper medicines are making a real difference, especially for those who have chronic illnesses. The budget also included additional funding for more Medicare urgent care clinics across the country. How are the Medicare urgent care clinics helping Australians to access affordable urgent care when they need it? 14:32 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thank you very much, Senator Stewart, for that supplementary. We have opened 58 Medicare urgent care clinics across Australia. They're now open and seeing patients. Australians can walk in and receive urgent care quickly and for free. There have been over 494,000 visits to Medicare UCCs across Australia since they opened. We know that one in four visits are from someone aged under 15, over one in three have been outside of regular working hours, and a half of all of those presentations were with people who said that they would otherwise have gone to a hospital emergency department. So not only are people being seen, not only is it free, not only can they walk in and get their kids seen out of hours, we're also making sure that we're taking pressure off busy emergency departments. So Medicare, PBS and Medicare urgent care clinics really show how importantly we regard health—(Time expired.) Energy 50 14:33 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Wong. The Australian Energy Market Operator's 2023 Inputs, assumptions and scenarios report shows that your government's energy transition plan will run new massive transmission lines through prime agricultural land and National Parks, with costly unreliable wind and solar projects planned for an area covering up to a third of Queensland. Why has your government failed to properly inform and consult with the affected communities and landowners about the impact and risk to their loss of livelihoods and land rights? 14:34 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank Senator Hanson for the question. First, it is true that there is a very, very big change in Australia's energy system that is required, not just to deal with the transition to 2050, but to ensure that Australians have access to the cheapest form of new energy, which is renewables. It is true that our transmission system is very much predicated on what we have had for the last 50 years, which is large coal-fired power stations closer to urban areas, or able to service large urban areas, with the transmission system we have. So there is a big change. In relation to consultation, I think I've been asked about this before and I'll see if while I'm on my feet someone can find some additional information for you. I do understand— Senator WONG 00AOU And I'm very upfront about this, Senator Cash. What I would say is it is important that social licence for this change continues to be sought. This change does require engagement, and I respect the fact that there are communities and landowners who are supportive and there are landowners and communities who are not. There is also the importance of engaging with First Nations leaders as well. So I would say to you that consultation is happening. I accept that this requires ongoing discussion— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, first supplementary question? 14:36 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Minister, what feasibility studies have been done with regard to the impact on communities, landowners, the agricultural sector, and the environment—flora and fauna? 14:36 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Firstly, approvals in relation to environmental requirements, which are some of the things that you've referred to, would continue to be required under relevant state and federal legislation. I'll confirm if my answer is not correct. But my understanding is that you still have the regulatory framework in relation to environmental approvals. The social licence question I think is a different question. I can say to you that in the last budget the government invested about $20 million in three different initiatives: one, strengthening the governance of the Energy Infrastructure Commissioner to enhance its independence and its ability to address misinformation, to support First Nations peoples and to improve complaint resolutions; secondly, working with a diverse range of stakeholders on the introduction of a developer rating scheme to encourage best practice and to foster transparency and trust, and to explore options for better delivering benefits— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, your second supplementary question? 14:37 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Will native title holders be treated the same as non-Indigenous Australians with respect to compensation, legal funding or denial of access to the property in the construction of solar panels, wind farms and transmission lines? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, silence. 14:38 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Whether it's in relation to these projects or any other projects, whatever arrangements are in place under state, territory or federal legislation for engagement with First Nations communities and native title holders remain. There is, I think, a separate issue, which you have been advocating for, which is ensuring that regional communities in the broad are consulted about what is occurring in their communities—and also gain the benefits. The last point I was going to make was one of the measures that is being looked at by the government is whether or not you could deliver direct bill relief and additional benefits in regions most affected by renewable energy developments. In other words, can you provide some economic benefits, some way of demonstrating the economic benefit these communities are providing to the country in the region itself? These are all matters the government has— (Time expired) Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union 51 14:39 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Yesterday the Senate passed legislation, which the opposition voted for and fully supports, that will enable the most vulnerable female textile workers, in particular, to demerge from the militant, bullying, thuggish and dysfunctional CFMEU. But in February your government voted against an amendment by Senator Lambie that proposed almost identical legislation. Minister, why did it take the outrageous, bullying demands of CFMEU boss John Setka against the AFL for your government to finally introduce this legislation? 14:40 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Cash. First, I know that Senator Cash wants to make a suggestion about Mr Setka. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU Sorry. No, I'm just trying to maintain focus. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU I'm happy for the clock to be reset. No, it's not that. I was responding to the interjections from behind. I was trying to maintain focus. The PRESIDENT 112096 I would ask all senators to listen in silence. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, I've just asked for silence. Senator WONG 00AOU Well, I worked for the Furnishing Division of the CFMEU, and I helped organise many workers in the textile sector. Senator Cash I0M Then why didn't you support this in February? The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Cash, you're not in a dialogue with the minister. You've asked your question. It's now your opportunity to listen in silence, and that's what I've asked you to do. Senator WONG 00AOU First, in relation to Mr Setka, I would make two points. Those opposite might talk a lot about it, but it was this Prime Minister who ensured one of the first things he did as leader of our party was to expel John Setka from the party. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU One of the first things Mr Albanese did as Labor leader was to expel Mr Setka. Senator Cash I0M And then abolish the ABCC for Mr Setka. Senator McKenzie 207825 That's right. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash and Senator McKenzie, you are both being incredibly disrespectful. Senator Cash, you've asked your question. Listen in silence. Senator WONG 00AOU One of the first things that occurred when Mr Albanese took the leadership of the Labor Party was the expulsion of Mr Setka from the Labor Party. You might recall Mr Setka did take the Prime Minister—or the Labor leader—and, in fact, the entire national executive to court over the expulsion, and it was the— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, order! Minister, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU It was the right decision. The demerger legislation will allow members of the Manufacturing Division—and I have been a part of that union—to determine their own course, free from distractions which have nothing to do with the core business of unions. I know that Senator Cash wishes to prosecute this because she is very anti union, and I think she's proud to say it. But we are not. What we want— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, first supplementary? 14:43 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Will the Prime Minister unequivocally condemn CFMEU leader John Setka for the bullying threats he made to disrupt AFL infrastructure projects if they do not sack their head of umpiring, Stephen McBurney? What action is the government taking to ensure the CFMEU cannot and does not act on this threat? 14:44 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I have two points. I think the Prime Minister has already made his views clear on this, as has— Senator Cash I0M He was. John Setka told him to stay out of it, and he did. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, I don't know what more I can say to request you to be silent. You are being incredibly disrespectful towards me in my role as the President. I've called you to order a number of times, and you've completely ignored that. I'm asking you to listen in silence. Senator WONG 00AOU I would say that the Prime Minister has made his views on that clear. The Prime Minister has also made his views on Mr Setka's behaviour more broadly very clear by his actions. The minister has made the government's view on this clear. I know Senator Cash desperately wants to use this in order to prosecute an anti-union agenda. We on this side know that Mr Setka does not represent the heart and soul of the trade union movement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, second supplementary. 14:45 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Does the Prime Minister agree that neither the Labor Party nor the Australian Greens, who even voted yesterday to protect CFMEU thugs rather than vulnerable textile workers, should accept donations from the CFMEU? 14:45 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Well, my recollection—and it comes to reform of donations law—is that it is the Labor Party that has provided more transparency, has engaged in reform, which, as I recall— Senator McAllister 121628 Unilaterally. Senator WONG 00AOU Yes, unilaterally. The minister reminds me that in fact we disclosed at a lower threshold than those opposite. And, as I recall, the cabinet of which you were a part, Senator Cash, did not wish to go down the path of more disclosure and transparency on electoral reform and campaign donations. So, we all understand what you're doing, Senator Cash. I was pleased that we saw that legislation pass yesterday. It is a good thing for workers. It is a good thing for the members of the manufacturing division. And, unlike you, we remain supporters of the trade union movement. Human Rights 52 14:46 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria My question is to the leader of the Labor Party in the Senate, Minister Wong. This year we have heard the government say that they can't move forward on key issues, including human rights and First Peoples justice, without bipartisan support. They told me this was the reason they could not support my bill implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Why does the government need the Liberal Party's permission before you can move forward on important reform when you've got a majority in the House and a progressive crossbench in the Senate that would support good reform? What more does it take? 14:47 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank Senator Thorpe and I acknowledge her support for a number of government bills. But I would make a couple of points. One is that we do seem to have seen quite a lot of engagement between the coalition and the Greens, so I'm not sure of the premise of your question. Senator Thorpe 280304 I'm not Greens. Senator WONG 00AOU No, you asked about majorities. And we've seen a fair example in this sitting fortnight and a majority between your former colleagues and the opposition. So, I would make— Senator WONG 00AOU That's true. But I'm making the point—you said we have a progressive majority in this place. I'm not sure that that is always the case. Secondly, obviously there are a number of things that you've asked about. Can I just go with the anti-discrimination legislation; I think you went to that. Obviously this has been a very divisive debate previously in Australia. The Prime Minister's view was that, given the importance of social cohesion at this time, this is not a time for an ongoing partisan, divisive debate. We saw such a debate and the effects of that on our communities. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe? Senator Thorpe 280304 On the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Labor voted it down— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe! Senator Thorpe 280304 with all their First Nations members. Shame job! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, you're now debating, and the minister is being relevant to your question. Please continue, Minister Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU The brief I have in relation to UNDRIP—and I will come back to you if this is not correct—is that the government is currently considering the report handed down by the joint standing committee. Obviously, the government remains committed to upholding the values and principles laid out in the declaration, and we understand the importance of empowering Aboriginal communities to participate in decision-making processes. That does improve outcomes. I don't have anything additional in relation to UNDRIP, other than that brief. I would make the broader point that, certainly, in one of the pieces of legislation you referred to, we regard that as important. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, first supplementary? 14:50 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria Progressive Labor candidates always say that change is made from within and that if you want Labor to be better you should vote for a Labor member. How can progressive members make change from inside the Labor Party when we see the lengths to which your party goes to silence and exile your own caucus members who hold progressive views? 14:50 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I reject the suggestions at the conclusion of that question, Senator Thorpe. The second thing I would say to you is that my parents married when the White Australia policy was still in place. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Thorpe, do you have a point of order? Senator Thorpe 280304 Relevance. I don't need to know the history of the minister's upbringing. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, the minister is being relevant to your question. Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU Yes. I'm responding to your point about change. My parents married when the White Australia policy was still in place. It was a Labor government which removed the last vestiges of the White Australia policy. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU It was a Labor government which introduced the Racial Discrimination Act. It was a Labor government which introduced the Sex Discrimination Act. It was a Labor government which introduced the native title legislation. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Order across the chamber! Minister, did you wish to continue, or have you finished your contribution? Senator WONG 00AOU My point— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU Are we doing the withdrawal or are we finishing the question? The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I remind senators on my left that this is Senator Thorpe's question. Senator Thorpe is entitled to hear the response. Senator Henderson ZN4 Point of order: Senator Ayres just made an unparliamentary remark, which I won't repeat. I would ask him to withdraw it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ayres, if you made an unparliamentary remark, I'd ask you to withdraw it. Senator Ayres 16913 I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you very much. I'm going to ask for silence while Minister Wong continues. Senator WONG 00AOU The history of this country shows what change Labor governments deliver. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe, second supplementary? 14:52 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria We know public support for the two major parties is collapsing fast. Instead of the tired old Labor Party, is the future of progressive change going to be driven by community, Independents and a bigger crossbench? Tell me how you are going to make change and bring justice to First Nations people with silencing your own First People in your caucus? 14:53 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Again, I think that's a really disappointing thing to say, Senator. I have been in this caucus with members of our First Nations caucus for a number of years and I can say to you that no-one is silent. They are proud, principled advocates for their communities and their people, and I have learnt a lot— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Thorpe. Senator WONG 00AOU I have learnt a lot as a leader and as a representative— Senator Thorpe 280304 Stealing children! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe! Senator WONG 00AOU from Senator Dodson, Senator McCarthy and also Senator Stuart— Senator Thorpe 280304 Highest rate under your watch! Senator WONG 00AOU as well as from my friendship with Ms Burney. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Thorpe, I have respectfully called you to order, and I would ask you to listen in silence for the remainder of the minister's response to your question. Minister Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU I don't agree with your proposition, and I'm immensely proud to— Senator Thorpe 280304 I don't agree with your lies. You're killing our people. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Thorpe! I've called you to order. Minister Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU I am both proud and humbled to be in a caucus with our First Nations caucus. Cost of Living 54 14:54 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia My question is to Minister Watt, the Minister representing the Minister for Finance, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Australians have been feeling the impact of cost-of-living pressures at our checkouts, with regional Australians impacted by supermarket price rises even more. So how is the Albanese government helping all Australians cope with cost-of-living pressures, including getting a fair deal at the supermarket? And why is ensuring Australians can earn more and keep more of what they earn so important to delivering cost-of-living relief? 14:55 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks very much, Senator Pratt. I know you have done a lot of great work on this issue recently in committee. The Albanese government does know that Australians are doing it tough. That's why our policies are designed to provide real cost-of-living help for everyone, including in our regions. Every Australian taxpayer is getting a tax cut under Labor, not just some. And our $300 energy bill relief is beginning to flow, with 2.6 million low-paid workers getting their third consecutive pay rise, backed by this Labor government. Importantly, we are helping bring down prices at the checkout. The price of fruit and vegetables in Australia has fallen in three consecutive quarters, but we know more is needed. That's why we're strengthening the food and grocery code of conduct. We're cracking down on anticompetitive behaviour from supermarkets, so families and farmers get a fair go. This includes making the code mandatory and fines of up to $10 million for supermarkets caught doing the wrong thing. All of these measures are designed to make a real difference at the checkout for Australians, and not one of them was taken in the 10 years of Liberal-National Party government, and they haven't learned now they're in opposition. What we saw yesterday from the coalition was another absolute shambles of a policy announcement from Mr Dutton. After opposing every single cost-of-living measure—we have delivered tax cuts, cheaper power, cheaper medicines, cheaper child care, more housing—his big cost-of-living idea is to maybe sell Coles stores to Woolies and sell Woolies stores to Coles. What a genius idea! That's really going to help supermarket competition. That's really going to help those prices at the checkout. Those CEOs at those big supermarkets must be rubbing their hands with glee. Driving prices up, especially in regional Australia, to expand their profits more. Coles becoming Woolies, Woolies becomes Coles, Nationals becoming Greens, Greens becoming Nationals—what an absolute joke you have become. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order! The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order! Senator McKenzie, once again, after I've called order at least four times you've continued to interject. You are being incredibly disorderly towards me. Senator Pratt, first supplementary. 14:57 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I've heard a lot of commentary in this chamber about supermarkets. But my constituents tell me consistently they want less talk and more real action to help them with their grocery bills. So why is the Albanese government's strong and considered approach to supermarkets the right way to support Australians to respond to cost-of-living pressures at the checkout? 14:58 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Pratt. It is the right way, because, unlike what the coalition says, it isn't going to drive up prices at the checkout. Just like their divisive nuclear policy, this announcement yesterday was just another chaotic announcement from Mr Dutton and the coalition, but this time it was driven by those giants of economic policy, the Greens' political party. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath. Senator WATT 245759 Once again, Mr Dutton and the Liberals have been rolled by the Nationals, who have then been rolled by the Greens. Twice in a fortnight, we have seen the National Party tail wagging the Liberal Party dog— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath! Senator McKenzie! Senator WATT 245759 And I hear Senator McGrath over there, who is now a member of the National-Liberal Party, not the Liberal-National Party— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU Just wondering if we could perhaps hear the minister? He's quite loud. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator Wong 00AOU Point of order! Point of order on order! Senator Watt has one of the louder voices in this place and I'm sitting here and I can barely hear him. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order! Order! Order! As I'm sure you're aware, Senator Wong, I have called the chamber to order since I got into the chair at 2 pm. Sadly, today I am not having much luck in getting the chamber to come to order, but let's try again. Minister, please continue. 14:59 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Twice in a fortnight we have seen the National Party tail wagging the Liberal dog. It really does seem as if the member for Maranoa, Mr Littleproud, the Leader of the Nationals, is becoming the 'mini-Morrison' of the new opposition. One day he's the shadow energy minister, spouting nuclear policy and driving nuclear policy. The next day he's out there spouting supermarket policy. We even have the Nationals leading economic policy; not a single Liberal shadow minister can get a look in on that. No wonder Senator McKenzie is looking so happy. They're taking over. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, resume your seat. Senator Pratt, second supplementary? 15:00 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Western Australians have welcomed the government's work to crack down on anticompetitive behaviour in supermarkets as part of broader cost-of-living measures. How is the government providing meaningful relief to Australian families at Australian check-outs? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, order! Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber! 15:00 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Pratt, I can certainly tell you that it's not by taking competition policy advice from the Greens political party. When the Nationals and the Greens are dictating the coalition's economic policy, you know the Liberals are in trouble. As we've heard, today's Australian had several unnamed Liberal MPs expressing angst over their supermarkets policy. I wonder who they could have been. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt, resume your seat. Minister Watt, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 Who were those unnamed Liberals in the Australian today? Could they have been Senator Dean Smith, who in February said divestiture powers were 'ill conceived in the Australian context', or Senator Hume, who has said there's 'always concern with divestiture powers whether they will actually decrease prices'? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McDonald, a point of order? Senator McDonald 123072 The question was: what is the government doing to reduce supermarket prices? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt, I will direct you back to the question. Senator WATT 245759 Now the Nationals don't want to hear about their own supermarkets policy that they invented. We even had former Victorian Liberal premier Jeff Kennett say that this policy was 'madness' that 'would not bring down prices at the check-out'. Imagine being called mad by Jeff Kennett! That is the stage the modern Liberal Party has got to. To the Liberal moderates: if you want a balanced budget, come over here. (Time expired) Senator Wong 00AOU I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 56 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 56 15:03 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice asked by Opposition senators today. Most particularly, I want to take note of the answer given by Senator Gallagher to my question in relation to the treatment for neuroblastoma. The coalition has been calling on the government for some time to consider supporting patients with access to eflornithine, commonly known as DFMO, for Australian children with high-risk neuroblastoma. Neuroblastoma is extremely rare, and its diagnosis is absolutely devastating for families. This aggressive childhood cancer occurs mostly in young children, usually between birth and the age of five years. Tragically, 50 per cent of children diagnosed with stage 4 neuroblastoma will not survive. However, a groundbreaking new treatment is available in the US, and it's been shown that it increases the chances of survival to 75 per cent. DFMO is currently not registered or funded outside of the US. This means families are forced to fundraise hundreds of thousands of dollars to access this life-saving treatment for their children, and they have to travel to the United States with immunocompromised children in order to get access to this particular treatment. Among these families are Tyler and Alix Richardson, whose one-year-old son Harris—or Hazzy, as he's often referred to—has been diagnosed with neuroblastoma. The Richardson family have been forced to start a GoFundMe page to raise funds for Harris, and the family will need to risk flying all the way to the US to receive this treatment. However, DFMO data is well known to Australian paediatric oncologists, patient advocates, patients and their families. It is our hope that the government will support these families by listing this life-saving medicine and allowing access until DFMO is able to be listed on the PBS. This would support children like seven-year-old Holly Zerk, who is bravely battling neuroblastoma. With the support of her mum, Lee-Anne, and her dad, Travis, Holly has spent the past 13 months undergoing intense treatment, including multiple rounds of chemotherapy, which has left her seriously immunocompromised. Access to DFMO could potentially save Holly's life. It would support nine-year-old Zai, who was diagnosed with high-risk neuroblastoma in March 2023. To date, he's been through eight rounds of chemo, two surgeries, a bone-marrow transplant and 12 rounds of radiation. The side effects of this treatment include reduced eyesight, permanent hearing loss and infertility. Zai's parents, Kalee and Arash, are desperately trying to raise $300,000 so he can receive DFMO, which could save his life. It would support two-year-old Luna, who was diagnosed with high-risk neuroblastoma in July 2023. Luna has been through five rounds of chemotherapy, surgeries, stem-cell therapy, a bone-marrow transplant, radiation and immunotherapy. Luna's parents, Samantha and Taylor, are desperately trying to raise $500,000 so she can access DFMO, which could save her life. We know these children cannot afford to wait. Access to this potentially life-saving treatment is absolutely vital for these and many more Australian children. Unfortunately, Labor has a concerning track record of slowing down medicine listings as a way to save money. I truly hope this is not the case here. It is absolutely critical that the Albanese government does everything in its power to make sure that these children get access to this treatment because it will potentially save their lives. Compassionate access and act-of-grace payments are available to this government right now. They do not have to wait for the process to go through. This is available as an action the government can take today. The government must also be upfront with these families across Australia who are going through one of the most heartbreaking journeys anyone could imagine, supporting their child to fight neuroblastoma. They've spent days and days in hospital watching their children have to undergo the treatments that I have described of the three young people I have just mentioned. But there are many more young Australians who are going through this treatment, and their families are going on this journey with them. I think it is completely reasonable for these families to know from the government right now when the government is intending to provide the much-needed support so that they can access DFMO, and, hopefully, allow their children a greater chance of survival from this absolutely insidious condition. We ask the government: please, answer the calls of these families. 15:08 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland In taking note of answers given by ministers today, I want to return to the question asked by Nationals senator Senator Davey to the Minister for Finance. She framed Labor's most recent budget as 'big spending' and asked a question about whether this so-called cost-of-living relief would have an impact on interest rates. What is telling about this question from the opposition is that they don't believe in the cost-of-living relief that we delivered in our budget. In calling our budget 'big spending', what they are really saying is that we should not have spent money on providing cost-of-living relief to Australians. What they are really saying is that they would not have provided a tax cut for every single Australian taxpayer—only for some. What they are really saying by asking these questions about our budget is that they would not have provided power bill relief for millions of Australian households at a time when they also failed to do anything for 10 years to reduce power bills. What they are really saying is that they would not have provided $300 to every household to reduce their power bill. We know that; we don't need to look at the questions asked today. They voted against energy bill relief in this country. They voted against it in this chamber. What they are saying by calling this relief 'so-called relief' is that they don't believe in the measures that we have delivered in our budget. They don't support fee-free TAFE. They don't support extending paid parental leave. Is that what the coalition considers 'so-called relief'? I think extending paid parental leave is a very good economic measure that will provide cost-of-living relief for Australians. They say that we failed to tell them that the budget contained putting superannuation on paid parental leave. Are these the measures that the coalition say go too far? Are these the measures that they say Australians don't deserve? We on this side of the house, the Albanese Labor government, believe that Australians do deserve cost-of-living relief, and that's why we've delivered a tax cut for every single tax-paying Australian. That started on 1 July and will flow through to every single taxpayer, not just some. Our budget is delivering cost-of-living relief in the form of energy bill relief because we know it's important to every single household. It's why we're delivering cheaper child care and, importantly, the cheaper medicines that those opposite opposed on a number of occasions in this chamber. This is the type of measure in the budget that those opposite call big spending; I call it important relief for Australian households. Finally, I want to address the question that Senator Cash put to Senator Wong about legislation we passed yesterday in this house to allow workers to have a say about what happens in their workplaces. It is galling that those opposite come in here and claim that they are a friend of working people, because we know that time and time again they have voted against measures to improve working conditions in workplaces and to improve the way that pay rises are given to workers. They had an economic policy of driving down minimum wages in this country to ensure that people were paid less, particularly low-paid workers. Under our policies, we have seen minimum wages go up. On 1 July, 2.8 million low-paid workers in Australia received a pay rise because of our government. We have also seen, finally, a decision from the Fair Work Commission to ensure that, if you work the same job, you get the same pay. When the coalition come in here and ask questions about workplace relations or how we interact with workers and unions in this country, they would do well to consider voting for more legislation to support workers. The next time a bill to support working people comes in here, I hope that they vote for that as well. This government is keenly focused on ensuring that you keep more of what you earn, that you get a tax cut and that you get a pay rise. That is what our government is working for. 15:13 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I rise to take note of the response to the question from Senator Cash about the CFMEU and Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Withdrawal from Amalgamation) Bill 2024, which the Senate passed yesterday. Yet again, while listening to the answer on this issue and this legislation, I couldn't help but think of the old but very true saying, 'You are the company that you keep.' If people don't trust the company you keep, they cannot trust you. The company you keep is a reflection of who you are and who you aspire to be. There's one man who's never been elected to this Senate or to the other place yet who, until yesterday, may as well have been sitting on the government benches. That is, of course, the odious John Setka. His name has come up many times in this chamber. On our side of parliament, it's because of his odiousness, because he is a bully, because he intimidates women and because he does the bidding of the trade union movement—but who does the bidding of whom? He may as well have been sitting over there when the government repealed our legislation on the demerger. Then, astonishingly, he moved to the Greens benches, because they are now his biggest advocate. It is inexplicable to those on this side of the chamber. It is inexplicable how those opposite, including now the Greens, can keep company with and do the bidding of John Setka. Why don't you just nominate him as a candidate for your party? He may as well be here in this room. But the question is why? Why on earth would those opposite keep doing the bidding of somebody who courts have described as a criminal, a bully, a standover merchant and as someone who treats women, including his own wife, with the utmost disrespect? That is hardly setting the standard. In fact, it is anything but setting the standard. What we have seen with the introduction and passing of this legislation is nothing of astonishing. Minister Burke, the Prime Minister and all of those opposite have admitted that they failed, that they were wrong to do the union bidding in February when they repealed the demerger legislation. Guess what? They had to come back here in this chamber yesterday and reverse that legislation. They admitted they made a mistake. And, yet, the Greens supported this most odious of standover merchants, who has been threatening the AFL and whose conduct is again under consideration by the Fair Work Commission. We have heard the chants, as has everybody opposite, many times: 'Union power. Solidarity forever.' But we have seen it's not just a remnant of the bygone Communist era. It is alive and well today. 'Solidarity forever, comrades. The union makes us strong'—but it makes you weak and it makes you vulnerable to people like John Setka. Each and every one of you who repealed that legislation and now have your tails between your legs should hang your heads in shame. It should not be 'solidarity forever'. It should be, 'Support the unions that support their members and that respect their members and stand up for them.' There are ones that do it in a legal way. There are unions and representatives who respect women, who respect the law and who treat the rest of us with dignity. Shame on all of you on that side of the parliament who are still doing the bidding of John Setka. 'Solidarity forever' should never be uttered again, because for you, and now the Greens, it means solidarity with John Setka and the CFMEU. 15:18 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia I rise to take note of the answers to the questions asked by Senators Davey and Cash. Senator Davey asked a question about inflation and how cost-of-living measures, in her proposition, were going to drive up inflation. I'd like to deal with that as a matter of substance. When the Albanese government came to office, we had three wicked aspects of a problem that was left to us by the previous government. The first was inflation. Inflation had a 'six' in front of it, and it had been higher before that. The second was a budget that was in a state of disrepair. That was as a consequence of the fiscal policy of the two previous governments but particularly the Morrison government. We also had the difficulty of cost-of-living pressures and stagnant wages. Those are the three things that the government has endeavoured to address in its policy since. In relation to inflation itself, there was a slight uptick in the monthly inflation in the last month's figures. Ultimately, monthly inflation has proved volatile both here and around the world, but, if you look at the trend since this government came to office, you will see it's been a broadly downward one, and we'd expect that to continue. In terms of budget repair, this government has now delivered two budget surpluses. That puts downward pressure on inflation. In terms of wages and cost-of-living relief, this government has actually engaged in responsible and measured policies that will assist those who are on the downside of advantage or the people suffering most. I will start with minimum wages and wage increases because cost-of-living pressures are often highest for those who earn the least. From 1 July, a few days ago, the national minimum wage and the minimum award wage have been increase by 3.75 per cent by the Fair Work Commission, and that is in line with the submission that the government made in relation to its review. Over the three Fair Work Commission annual reviews since the 2022 election, minimum wages have increased by 5.2 per cent, 8.6 per cent and a 3.75 per cent, and 2.6 million workers on minimum wage are now directly benefiting from these increases. Across those three annual wage review decisions since coming to government, the wages of minimum wage earners have increased by $143 per week, or by $7,451 per year, and that is consequential for people who are facing financial pressures or finding it difficult. A full-time minimum wage earner's annual salary has gone from $40,175 to $47,627. Through a commitment to industrial relations reform and reversing some of the punitive measures that Liberal and National coalitions have implemented over their years in government, this government has also recognised the importance of the trade union movement, ensuring that working people in Australia receive good wages. The antipathy to that movement and for people who put themselves through collective action on the side of people who don't have power in a workplace and endeavour to lift their wages can be felt palpably from the other side. That's not just an immediate policy that assists with cost-of-living relief; it's also a longer-term policy that's of benefit to fairness and opportunity in Australia. In his book Battlers and Billionaires, Assistant Minister Andrew Leigh observed that unions have a vital role in fighting the rise of economic inequality in our society. Minister Leigh observed, 'A fall in union membership has been shown to be responsible for a significant portion of the rise in US inequality in the 1980s, and up to a third of the increase in inequality during the eighties and nineties was due to the collapse of union membership in Australia.' Unions stand on the side of working people in order to live their wages, and, from a cost-of-living perspective, the numbers I discussed earlier for the 2.6 million lowest-paid Australians are numbers that will make a real difference to people's lives. We've also heard about a tax cut for every Australian, and, in my home state of Western Australia, that's 1.5 million people who will receive a tax cut of around $2,000 on average. In terms of energy bill relief, in WA, the residents of our great state will receive $300 from the federal government and $400 from the state government. That's $700 in the next year. These are real measures that are putting money into people's pockets and they're helping on the ground. 15:23 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I too rise to take note of answers given by government senators to coalition questions today. I have to say it did amuse me to hear the Labor Party, who in their talking points—and you hear them trotted out all the time—claim to be so concerned about the cost of living, spend all their time talking about the coalition. They can't talk about what they're doing to deal with the cost of living, because, of course, they've broken so many promises with regard to cost of living since they came to government. These are things they said they would do before the election that haven't come to pass since the election. They talk about their $300 rebate for electricity prices, but, of course, that $300 rebate wouldn't be necessary if they'd kept their election promise to reduce energy prices by $275. It was a very clear promise made by the Prime Minister and the now government on no less than 97 occasions. So what they're now doing is spending taxpayers' money instead of keeping the promise that they made to reduce energy prices, making contributions to rising inflation and rising cost of living. They've spent all this time talking about the coalition, but of course they have to do that because their policies aren't working. They trot out the talking points and they think that, if they say the talking point enough times, they might come true. They're not convincing the Australian people, though, because what the Australian people are seeing is food prices up by 11.4 per cent, housing up by 14 per cent, rents up by 14.2 per cent, electricity up by 21.5 per cent and gas up by 22 per cent. They trot out the rhetoric about health, but of course costs there have gone up 11.1 per cent as well. And even education is up 10.9 per cent. When the Reserve Bank says to us, at Senate estimates, that the budget isn't shifting the dial, that means that the government isn't doing its bit and the Reserve Bank has to make extra effort, and that means holding interest rates higher and that contributes to higher inflation. That's what is happening, and that is what the previous Reserve Bank governor said to Senate estimates last year. Of course, the Reserve Bank now is being much more bold and saying that spending by governments, state and federal, is contributing to inflation, which is putting upward pressure on inflation—not downward pressure on inflation, which is what the government are claiming—and therefore that is impacting on Australians in the community. The government should be straight up and down and admit the failure of their policy and their broken promises. Question agreed to. Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023 59

Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023

15:26 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence (Senator Wong) to questions without notice I asked today on the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill. It's pretty remarkable to see a government so frightened of its own legislation that it's unwilling to even talk about it. And it would appear from the answers we got from Minister Wong that the minister hasn't even read the legislation. That is extraordinary, because the legislation proposes to establish a toxic nuclear waste dump barely15 kilometres from her own electorate office. You would have thought that an engaged minister, one trying to represent the state of South Australia, would have read the legislation and realised that in the legislation is a proposal—without consulting with her community, without consulting with First Nations peoples—to establish a toxic nuclear waste dump which can take the highest-level nuclear waste, barely 15 kilometres from Minister Wong's own electorate office. The refusal of the minister to even engage with that in the answers I thought was extremely telling. It's one of these 'don't ask, don't see, don't look and pretend it's not happening' things from the Labor Party. But how can a minister who, on one level, is meant to be representing the state of South Australia, not have realised what her own government is proposing to do, just there in Port Adelaide, barely 15 kilometres from the minister's own electorate office? And the disingenuous way in which the minister tried to deflect from that basic truth was plain for all to see. This is a government that says, on the one hand, 'Oh! The coalition is making a dangerous, uncosted and incredibly expensive proposal on civilian nuclear power'—and, to that extent, the Greens a hundred per cent agree with the Labor Party. But then the Labor Party is taking an extremely risky, uncosted, dangerous approach with AUKUS nuclear submarines, and, somehow or other, the Labor Party thinks nobody is seeing that base level of hypocrisy. For Minister Wong and the Labor Party, it's perfectly okay to have five floating nuclear reactors in Port Adelaide and a toxic waste dump delivered in Port Adelaide, and for the Minister for Defence to have the ability create another toxic waste dump anywhere in South Australia, anywhere in Central Australia or anywhere in the country, without talking to Minister Wong's community or any community or First Nations peoples. That's apparently okay, and we should all just pretend that that's not inconsistent with the Labor Party's opposition to the coalition's equally dangerous, equally ridiculously expensive proposal for civilian nuclear power! We can all see the hypocrisy, and the minister just tried to pretend it wasn't there. In fact, I think part of her answer was: 'I don't agree with the language that Senator Shoebridge has utilised for that bill.' Well, tell us what's wrong, Minister, because the answer comprehensively failed to do that. There is a huge, toxic nuclear elephant sitting in the middle of the Labor Party's legislative agenda here, and they think nobody can see it. That's the explanation for why the Naval so-called nuclear safety regulatory bill has not been brought to parliament this week—because it would expose that extreme hypocrisy from the Labor Party. When pressed on it, Minister Wong then went on to say, 'You don't need to worry about the nuclear waste, because the nuclear waste from the AUKUS submarines is not going to start being pumped out of the nuclear subs until the 2050s.' Well, that is cold comfort for anybody who has watched the way the UK and the US have dealt with nuclear waste. There is this idea that you can just put off till the 2050s a problem like toxic nuclear waste—and, let's be clear, the nuclear waste produced from nuclear submarines is vastly more toxic, far more problematic, even than the toxic waste produced from civilian reactors. But Minister Wong says: 'Don't worry about that. We'll sort it out in the 2050s. Something magically will happen between now and the 2050s.' Well, I'd invite anyone who was listening to Minister Wong's answer to go onto Google Maps and look at what the UK is doing. You can see every single one of their decommissioned nuclear submarines. They've been knocking out nuclear submarines since the 1960s. They've failed to get a solution since the 1960s, and every single one is sitting there rusting away, a serious risk, either in Plymouth or Rosyth. Have a look at the nonanswers from the UK and see if you're satisfied by the nonanswer from Minister Wong. Question agreed to. PETITIONS 60 PETITIONS Falun Gong 60 NOTICES 61 NOTICES Presentation 61 Postponement 62 COMMITTEES 62 COMMITTEES Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee 62 Reference 62 15:33 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Birmingham, I move: That the following matters be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 11 February 2025: (a) an assessment of the consistency in application of Australia's sanctions regime compared with Australia's key partners and allies, including the identification of any gaps and time lags in their application; (b) consideration of the evidence on how effective more timely, universal and predictable sanctions regimes are in targeting and addressing behaviour of designated individuals and entities; (c) identification and consideration of existing sanctions coordination and harmonisation frameworks and mechanisms between countries; (d) consideration of specific measures to improve the coordination, collaboration, timeliness and multilateralisation of sanctions; (e) consideration of mechanisms to freeze and confiscate assets belonging to sanctioned persons/entities and how the proceeds can be used to benefit peoples and countries impacted by the behaviour of sanctioned individuals and entities; (f) consideration of options to enhance the effectiveness of Australia's sanctions regime through engagement with the Australian community, civil society, financial institutions and other organisations; (g) identification and consideration of methods to assess the effectiveness of sanctions decisions and/or the extent to which sanctions are having the intended impact, and recommend any improvements; (h) consideration of how Australia's sanctions regime could better align with Australia's existing anti-corruption and crime measures, including to better target Australians involved in designated actions; and (i) any recommendations on improvements to Australia's sanctions framework. 15:33 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria by leave—I move: Omit paragraphs (a) to (i), substitute: (a) an assessment of the consistency in application of Australia's sanctions regime and in coordination with key partners and allies, including the identification of any gaps and time lags in their application; (b) consideration of the evidence on how sanctions regimes are in targeting and addressing behaviour of designated individuals and entities; (c) consideration of specific measures to coordinate, collaborate, and harmonise sanctions with partners and allies, and multilaterally, including how different interests can be taken into account; (d) consideration of mechanisms to freeze and confiscate assets belonging to sanctioned persons/entities and how the proceeds can be used to benefit peoples and countries impacted by the behaviour of sanctioned individuals and entities; (e) consideration of opportunities for engagement by the Australian community, civil society, financial institutions and other organisations in Australia's sanctions regime; (f) consideration of methods to assess the effectiveness of sanctions decisions and/or the extent to which sanctions are having the intended impact, and recommend any improvements; (g) consideration of how Australia's sanctions regime could better align with Australia's existing anti-corruption and crime measures, including to better target Australians involved in designated actions; (h) consideration of the role of sanctions in an increasingly complex global context, where geo-strategic competition is re-shaping our region; and (i) any other matters that are relevant to the effectiveness of Australia's sanctions framework. Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that business of the Senate motion No. 2, standing in the name of Senator Birmingham and moved by Senator Askew, and amended by Senator Ciccone, be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells being rung— Senator McKim JKM It was the Australian Greens who called this division, and I seek leave to cancel the division, if that's possible, please. Leave granted. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 63 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 63 15:36 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I move: That— (a) the Senate notes that the Treasury Laws Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Bill 2022 has sat before the Senate without debate for 84 sitting days; and (b) if the Treasury Laws Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Bill 2022 has not been finally considered by the adjournment on Wednesday, 3 July 2024: (i) the bill be made an order of the day for consideration as an item under non-controversial government business commencing at 12.15 pm on Thursday, 4 July 2024 and that it take precedence over all other business until determined, (ii) if the bill is not finally considered by 1 pm, the questions on all remaining stages of the bill be put, (iii) divisions may take place between 1.30 pm and 2 pm for the purposes of consideration of the bill only, and (iv) subparagraph (b)(ii) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142. 15:36 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I'm not sure if there's going to be an amendment moved on this motion. In any case, as I understand it, I've been advised that there is some further work to do, and that makes debating this not possible this sitting, so the government won't be supporting the motion. That work will need to be done, and it will need to be brought back after the winter recess. 15:37 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I seek leave to amend the motion. Leave granted. Senator McKIM JKM by leave—I move: Omit "3 July", substitute "14 August"; and omit "4 July", substitute "15 August" The effect of the amendment is to change the date in the motion from the Wednesday of this week to the Wednesday of the first week of the next sitting. Then, where the date in the motion relates to the Thursday of this week, the amendment seeks to change that date to the Thursday of the first week of the next sitting. Question agreed to. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion no. 546, moved by Senator Dean Smith, and amended by Senator McKim, be agreed to. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 64 DOCUMENTS Inspector-General of The Australian Defence Force 64 Order for the Production of Documents 64 15:39 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that order for the production of documents no. 541 relating to the final report of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force twenty-year review has not been complied with; (b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Defence to comply with the order by no later than 5 pm on 3 July 2024; and (c) requires that, should the order not be fully complied with by this time, the Minister representing the Minister for Defence attend the Senate at the conclusion of question time on 4 July 2024 to provide an explanation, of no more than 5 minutes, of the failure to comply with the order, and that: (i) any senator may move to take note of the explanation; and (ii) any such motion may be debated for no longer than 30 minutes, shall have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each. 15:39 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator GALLAGHER ING The government won't be supporting this motion. The Deputy Prime Minister has stated in his letter to the Senate of 2 July 2024 that the independent review sought in this order is currently under consideration by government. As part of this consideration more time is needed to undertake consultations with stakeholders including Defence, other agencies and families of ADF personnel who have lost their lives while serving. The government intends to respond to the order once this process is complete. Also Senator Lambie was offered and had accepted a confidential briefing to the review before cancelling that just before giving notice of the original motion. The offer remains open to Senator Lambie to take up that briefing, and the government is willing to extend that offer to any interested senator. Question agreed to. Cashless Debit Card 64 Order for the Production of Documents 64 15:40 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that order for the production of documents no. 542 relating to the latest evaluation report from the University of Adelaide in relation to the Cashless Debit Card has not been complied with; (b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services to comply with the order by no later than 5 pm on 3 July 2024; and (c) requires that, should the order not be fully complied with by this time, the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services attend the Senate at the conclusion of question time on 4 July 2024 to provide an explanation, of no more than 5 minutes, of the failure to comply with the order, and that: (i) any senator may move to take note of the explanation, and (ii) any such motion may be debated for no longer than 30 minutes, shall have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each. Question agreed to. Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts 64 Order for the Production of Documents 64 15:41 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator McKenzie, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development, by no later than midday on 12 August 2024, the following documents created between 18 April 2024 and 10 May 2024: (a) copies of any briefings, minutes, advice and talking points prepared by the department and provided to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government related to Bonza Aviation Pty Ltd; (b) copies of any communications between the department and Bonza Aviation Pty Ltd representatives; (c) copies of any communications between the department and Bonza administrators Hall Chadwick; and (d) copies of any communications between the department and 777 Oz Holdco Pty Ltd or 777 Partners LLC representatives. Question agreed to. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 65 Order for the Production of Documents 65 15:41 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, by no later than 5 pm on 15 July 2024, a document showing the full cost of the charter flight that conveyed Ambassador Kevin Rudd, High Commissioner Stephen Smith, Mr Julian Assange and others from the United Kingdom to the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and onto Australia, including: (a) the full cost of Mr Rudd and Mr Smith's travel with Mr Assange; (b) any additional costs for Australian officials associated with the travel; (c) the total costs being paid or reimbursed by taxpayers; and (d) the itemised costs being borne by other parties, and the identity of each of those parties. 15:42 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I seek leave to make a one-minute explanation on this. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 The Greens will be supporting this motion because we believe in transparency of the cost of flights such as this, but we note a couple of critical points. The overwhelming cost of this flight has been paid for by Julian Assange himself and had to be crowdfunded by millions of supporters across the country. It was some US$520,000 for the privilege, so to speak, of being flown out of a prison. He had to pay more than half a million US dollars to get himself out of prison and has had to crowdfund that. The coalition are seeking to somehow put that at the foot of the Australian government. It was a US government requirement that Assange pay for this himself. Thank goodness the Australian government supported it. On their own watch, the coalition quite rightly paid for the costs of flying Kylie Moore-Gilbert to freedom in Australia too. If it's good for one, it's good for the other. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 65 COMMITTEES Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee 65 Reference 65 15:43 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That the following matter be referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry and report by 28 November 2024: The integrity and efficacy of the Defence honours and awards system, with particular reference to: (a) experiences of Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel progressing through the honours and awards system; (b) the effect of awards and honours on maintaining morale within the ADF; (c) assurance of the integrity of awards to senior officers for conduct in the Afghanistan conflict; (d) the effect of changes in criteria for some honours and awards from 'in action' to 'in warlike operations'; (e) the operation of the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal, including any potential improvements; (f) any potential improvements to the Defence honours and awards system; and (g) any related matters. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that business of the Senate No. 5 standing in the name of Senator Roberts be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [15:48]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 32 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. 32 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. 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. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Education and Employment References Committee 66 Reference 66 15:50 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I move: That the following matter be referred to the Education and Employment References Committee for inquiry and report by 16 August 2024: The challenges being faced by Australia's charity and not-for-profit sector following passage of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022. 15:50 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator GALLAGHER ING We will not be supporting this motion today. We do recognise the very significant contribution to our communities made by the charities and not-for-profit sector, including as an employer of tens of thousands of Australian workers. The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Act 2022 addresses the misuse of fixed-term contracts while providing exceptions to allow their use where genuinely necessary and appropriate. We are committed to providing job security for Australian workers and we don't want to see people placed on rolling fixed-term contracts when their job could be an ongoing position; however we recognise that in some circumstances, such as non-ongoing funding, a fixed contract may be appropriate. A range of exceptions in the secure jobs, better pay act are intended to address these situations. We've taken on board feedback raised by employers in the not-for-profit sector, including the Community Council for Australia, about the operation of these exemptions. Senator Dean Smith 241710 I thought there was to be a statement about the matter being dealt with as a priority by the government. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, are you seeking leave again? Senator GALLAGHER ING I was seeking leave again, but I was running out of time. Leave granted. Senator GALLAGHER ING The government has advised the Community Council for Australia that we will take steps to address the issues raised by them as a priority. 15:52 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia by leave—Based on the minister's final statement, and as agreed previously, I withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 4. Environment and Communications References Committee 67 Reference 67 15:53 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales I move: That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by the last sitting day in February 2025: The consultation process undertaken on behalf of the Australian Government into the offshore wind industry, with particular reference to: (a) the efficacy of community engagement and benefit in planning, developing and operating the offshore wind industry; (b) community engagement within the existing Australian Government offshore wind industry regulatory and legislative frameworks; (c) the impact of the offshore wind industry on marine life and marine environments in Australian waters; and (d) any other related matters. 15:53 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria by leave—I move: That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by the last sitting day in February 2025: The consultation process undertaken on behalf of the Australian Government into the offshore wind industry, with particular reference to: (a) the efficacy of community engagement and benefit in planning, developing and operating the offshore wind industry; (b) community engagement within the existing Australian Government offshore wind industry regulatory and legislative frameworks; (c) the adherence to the principles of Free, Prior and Informed Consent from Traditional Owners of the affected Sea Country by the Australian Government and offshore wind industry; (d) the impact of the offshore wind industry on marine life and marine environments in Australian waters, including strategies for impact minimisation and management; and (e) any other related matters. 15:53 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator GALLAGHER ING The government is not supporting this motion and will also not be supporting the amendment of Senator Thorpe. The government recognises the importance of First Nations consultation as part of this process we are progressing as part of the Dyer review. The government will not be supporting the motion as a whole and, as such, as I've said, we will not support Senator Thorpe's amendment. We are working to implement the recommendations of the Dyer review by strengthening the governance of the Australian Energy Infrastructure Commissioner to enhance its independence and its ability to address misinformation, support First Nations people and improve complaint resolution. The government has run a considered, staged process to declare offshore wind zones, with multiple opportunities for feedback and community consultation throughout. We've run this process consistent with consultation requirements outlined in the Offshore Electricity Infrastructure Act 2021, as legislated by the coalition. Across the six zones, we've held face-to-face sessions with more than 3,800 people and reviewed more than 23,000 written submissions. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment as moved by Senator Thorpe be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [15:56]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 43 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hodgins-May, S. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 18 NOES Ayres, T. Chisholm, A. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 16:00 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that business of the Senate No. 7, moved by Senator Cadell and amended by Senator Thorpe, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:01]
(The President—Senator Lines)

31 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. 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. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. 30 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. 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. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 DOCUMENTS 69 DOCUMENTS Department of Finance 69 Order for the Production of Documents 69 16:03 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania I move: That, with reference to recommendation 12 of the Finance and Public Administration References Committee's final report on its inquiry into management and assurance of integrity by consulting services— (1) There be laid on the table by the Minster for Finance biannual statements on expenditure on consultancy contracts which provide for consideration to the value of $2 million or more, by all Australian Public Service departments and agencies. (2) The statements are due not later than the tenth day after the end of the preceding six-month period commencing 1 January and 1 July. (3) Each report is to include, in relation to each contract, details of the: (a) AusTender contract notice identification number; (b) dollar value; (c) subject matter; (d) duration; (e) contracting government agency; (f) firm or entity providing the work; (g) an explanation of what the contract is expected to deliver/purpose of the contract; (h) any changes or extensions; and (i) any matters of probity or conflict of interest that have arisen in the conduct of the work. (4) Each report is to include the total amount of all current consultancy contracts in each agency or department. (5) The order is of continuing effect until the Finance and Public Administration References Committee has reported to the Senate that recommendation 8 of the final report of the inquiry into management and assurance of integrity by consulting services has been implemented. 16:03 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory by leave—I move amendments to the motion as circulated in the chamber: (1) Paragraph (2), omit "tenth day", substitute "twenty-first day". (2) Paragraph (3)(a), omit "dollar value", substitute "contract value". (3) Omit paragraph (3)(i), substitute: (i) instances where a notification was received under the Supplier Code of Conduct in the conduct of the work I thank Senator Colbeck and his office for the engagement. Question agreed to. 16:04 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland by leave—I move the following amendment to the motion: Omit "$2 million" in paragraph (1), substitute "$500,000". The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the amendment, as moved by Senator Waters, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:05]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Thorpe, L. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 37 NOES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Canavan, M. J. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Davey, P. M. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Urquhart, A. E. Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Original question, as amended, agreed to.

 COMMITTEES 70 COMMITTEES Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee 70 Reference 70 16:08 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Due to my inability to be here for the vote on business of the Senate No. 5 in the name of Senator Roberts, I seek leave to ask that that motion be put again, please. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, you need to explain the reason for your absence. Senator HANSON BK6 I was in a press conference with Minister Bill Shorten. Leave granted. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that business of the Senate No. 5 be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [16:14]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 32 AYES Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Van, D. A. 31 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. 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. Thorpe, L. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 MATTERS OF URGENCY 71 MATTERS OF URGENCY National Security 71 16:16 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter, dated 3 July 2024, from Senator Scarr: 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 stand with our allies in investigating the listing of the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir as a terrorist organisation in light of the group's praise for Hamas's October 7 terrorist attacks in Israel and revelations Hizb ut-Tahrir has sought to radicalise students on our campuses and use Australia as a safe haven to run digital influence campaigns here and overseas." Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 16:16 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Albanese Government to stand with our allies in investigating the listing of the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir as a terrorist organisation in light of the group's praise for Hamas's October 7 terrorist attacks in Israel and revelations Hizb ut-Tahrir has sought to radicalise students on our campuses and use Australia as a safe haven to run digital influence campaigns here and overseas. I rise to speak in relation to this matter of urgency—and it is an urgent matter and a matter which the coalition progressed through the answering of questions by the Labor government earlier this week, in particular with regard to an extremist group called Hizb ut-Tahrir and its potential listing as a terrorist organisation under the laws of the Commonwealth of Australia. There is an urgent need for the Albanese Labor government to investigate the listing of this extremist group as a terrorist organisation following its activities after the dreadful Hamas attacks of 7 October last year. It is deeply concerning that, in response to our questions earlier this week, the Labor government referred to statements of a previous Attorney-General years ago instead of focusing on the current context and the current activities of this hateful organisation. I note that, in January this year, one of our closest allies, the United Kingdom, declared Hizb ut-Tahrir a terrorist organisation. It begs the question: why hasn't Australia taken such action under our laws? We have laws similar to the United Kingdom with regard to the proscription of entities as terrorist organisations. Why has the United Kingdom taken this action? Why has Germany outlawed this organisation? Why have other countries, including Indonesia, one of our closest neighbours, outlawed this organisation while we haven't taken the necessary action under our laws here in Australia? The opposition is calling for all senators to support this motion, which calls for—I want to make this very clear: The need for the Albanese Government to stand with our allies in investigating the listing of the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir as a terrorist organisation in light of the group's praise— its praise, of all things— … for Hamas's October 7 terrorist attacks in Israel and revelations Hizb ut-Tahrir has sought to radicalise students on our campuses and use Australia as a safe haven to run digital influence campaigns here and overseas. This is deeply, deeply disturbing, and urgent action is required, especially in light of the fact that the United Kingdom took the action which we called for back in January. Months have passed. Months have passed without appropriate action being taken, and action needs to be taken. I want to quote from the debate in the House of Commons in relation to the proscription of this terrorist organisation in the United Kingdom. This is what the minister for security said in the House of Commons: I want to make something very clear: I am a champion of freedom of speech, and I have no issue with people saying things that I regard as insensitive, uninformed or wrong, but this is different. Free speech includes neither the promotion of terrorism nor the celebration of terrorist acts. It is not acceptable to describe Hamas as the "heroes" of Palestine or the events of 7 October as a "long-awaited victory". It is not acceptable to refer to the killing of Jewish tourists by an Egyptian police officer as— and this is what this organisation said— "a simple example of what should be done towards the Jews". Can you believe it? This hateful organisation which has a presence here in Australia is sowing the seeds of division. It is calling for, endorsing, promoting and advocating for acts of terrorism. The Australian government should be undertaking an urgent investigation and finding its way, through our laws and regulations, to have this dreadful, evil organisation declared a terrorist organisation. We should be united with our allies overseas, including the United Kingdom. The fact that the United Kingdom, back in January, declared this organisation a terrorist organisation and we have failed to do so—and it is now July, nearly six months later—is deeply, deeply concerning. This is a matter of urgency, and the Labor government should act. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 72 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Launceston City Council 72 16:21 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I'd like to acknowledge in the gallery the mayor and two councillors from the great city of Launceston. Welcome. Honourable senators: Hear, hear! MATTERS OF URGENCY 72 MATTERS OF URGENCY National Security 72 16:22 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria This is a really disappointing motion from those opposite. I have to say that I'm pretty disappointed with Senator Scarr for engaging in this politicisation of security issues. Senator Scarr 282997 I have a point of order: imputation of motive in terms of me pursuing this as a political matter as opposed to a matter of national security— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Thank you, Senator Scarr. There's no point of order. Senator Walsh, please continue. Senator WALSH 252157 This is by its nature politicisation of security issues. As a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I can say that this motion complete ignores the formal, considered and appropriate ways that terrorist organisations are, in fact, listed in this country. It is not the Senate that makes these decisions, because these matters of national security go well beyond this chamber. They go beyond politics. It is not for the Senate to decide whether to list an organisation as a terrorist organisation. It is not up to Labor senators, Liberal senators, National senators, Greens senators or other crossbench senators to decide when to list a terrorist organisation. There are legal processes for this set out in the Criminal Code. It is the law that sets out the processes that need to be followed. The law sets out how these decisions are appropriately then scrutinised by the parliamentary joint committee. These processes must be followed. Critically, decisions to list terrorist organisations under the law, under the code, are informed by the advice of our intelligence and security agencies. These agencies serve the Australian people. They are not there to pander to the whims of senators in this place. They are there to serve the Australian people, to keep Australia safe and to keep Australia protected. Those opposite are well aware of this. The process for dealing with this matter is the one that must be followed, not this political motion in this chamber today. And the process will be followed. The government has been clear. The government has of course condemned the hateful comments made by the members of this group, Hizb ut-Tahrir. These disgraceful statements and the glorification of terrorism have no place in Australia. That is why it is so disappointing that those opposite want to deal with the issue in this way. When they were in government they of course followed the processes appropriately, just as this government does, too—and just as any government should. And I think they respected those processes then, when they were in government. So they should respect them now, today, as well. At the time, the then Attorney-General, George Brandis, rejected listing this organisation, and he followed the process. The decision was based on the strong view of ASIO at the time that the group did not fit the definition of a terrorist organisation in the Criminal Code. That was the process then. It's the same process now. The parliament has set up this process through the Criminal Code. At that time, back then, the Leader of the Opposition, when he was the Minister for Home Affairs, correctly said that the government relies on the advice of our intelligence and security agencies in deciding whether to list Hizb ut-Tahrir. That is exactly what is being done in this matter today. If those opposite don't have the confidence in our intelligence and security agencies, they should say so, because they know that these decisions are made beyond this chamber, as agreed to, in this parliament. But, regrettably, we see—and we see it all too often—that those opposite just can't pass up the opportunity to politicise issues that really should be beyond politics: issues that should be about working together to keep people safe, to meaningfully address issues that may cause harm or that divide our community, to make sure that that doesn't happen. That is the responsibility of both sides of politics as parties that form government. So, while this process is undertaken and we let our national security and intelligence agencies do their important work, we need to remind ourselves that the issue being debated here is not exclusively dealt with by listing this group as a terrorist organisation. There are a range of mechanisms in place to keep Australians safe, and that is what this government will do. 16:27 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Unlike the previous speaker, I actually thank Senator Scarr for raising this important matter in such a timely manner. And it's due to the lack of guts, I should say, from the government, who won't call it out. That's why there are so many problems around the world, especially in Britain, at the moment, with this organisation spreading its tentacles around the world. By any reasonable measure, Hizb ut-Tahrir is an extremist terrorist organisation with goals completely out of step with Australian values. The best example of this is the infamous video which came to light in April 2017 depicting members of this group endorsing husbands beating their wives into obedience and submission. That's more than a simple cultural difference. It's an endorsement of a violent act, illegal in any Australian jurisdiction. Let's hope it doesn't become compulsory if they ever get control of our parliaments. There are now 813,000 Muslims in Australia—3.2 per cent of the population. But I must add, in no way am I saying that law-abiding people of the Muslim faith are terrorists or associated with Hizb ut-Tahrir. But Hizb ut-Tahrir have gone much further in recent times. They have celebrated the murder of more than a thousand Israelis on 7 October last year. They promote the genocide of Israelis and Jewish people across the world. Thanks to the profound weakness of this Labor government, they are inciting gullible and ignorant university students to celebrate murder and genocide as well. This mob calls for the establishment of a global caliphate ruled by sharia law—again, completely incompatible with Australian values and our Constitution. Go and ask Britain how it's working for them. Muslim countries like Indonesia, Turkey, Bangladesh and Pakistan have banned it, as have most Arab nations. Even they can see the danger that this group represents. Why is Australia so blind to the threat posed by this mob and others that promote Political Islam? Last month, a story in the Age revealed the Australian Taxation Office had given charity status to an organisation led by a Hizb ut-Tahrir member. Have we given tax breaks for terrorism funding? This week, we heard news of a Muslim political bloc being formed to target Western Sydney seats held by Labor ministers in order to force the ALP to recognise the terrorist state of Palestine. They've announced candidates and, no doubt, they will leverage the high number of Muslims living in those electorates. In fact, two of those electorates, Blaxland and Watson, I mentioned in a previous speech in 2017 for their high Muslim populations. I said that Labor's dependence on the Muslim vote was frightening. As we can see, Labor today is hopelessly compromised on an issue that Australia can do absolutely nothing to change: the conflict between Israel and the terrorists seeking to destroy it. I've been warning Australians about this for years. In my first speech in the Senate, in 2016, I warned that Islam does not support democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly nor, especially, the separation of church and state. I said Islam supports a theocracy. I said it doesn't separate religion from politics. I said it may be a religion, but it's also much more than that. It has a global political agenda and a system that dictates and regulates every aspect of a Muslim's life. It is a system they plan to impose on all of us. I warned that we were importing Islamic extremism that had led to the Australian tragedies like the Lindt Cafe siege, the murder of Curtis Cheng and the stabbing of two police officers in Melbourne. At the time, we were also exporting Islamic extremism, with radicalised Australians rushing to Iraq to join the maniacs in Islamic State. Pictures of an Australian child holding a severed head shamed our nation and appalled the civilised world. Equally appalling to many Australians is the appeasement and coddling of Islam while the majority religion in our country, Christianity, is routinely demonised and persecuted. 'We can't offend the Muslims,' say the proponents of multiculturalism, but Christians are fair game. I have repeatedly warned Australians about the dangers of allowing unrestricted migration of people from countries where this ideology is dominant. Political Islam has no place in Australia, and everyone in this parliament has an obligation to kick it out. This parliament has no legitimacy if it does not stand up to Political Islam. This parliament has a constitutional, moral obligation to reject, resist and outlaw any movement which seeks to overthrow our democracy and fundamentally change our way of life. A good start would be by listing Hizb ut-Tahrir for what it is: a terrorist organisation. (Time expired) 16:32 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I commend Senator Scarr for bringing this urgent motion to the Senate, because there is an urgent need for the Albanese Labor government to stand with our allies and investigate the listing of the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir as a terrorist organisation, particularly in light of the group's praise for the Hamas October 7 terrorist attack on innocent Israeli citizens—a horrific massacre—and the revelations, in more recent times, that Hizb ut-Tahrir members sought to radicalise students on our campuses and in fact infiltrated the pro-Palestinian encampment at the University of Sydney. I very strongly say that I condemn Senator Walsh for reflecting on Senator Scarr as she did in this debate. It is wholly inappropriate and a complete falsehood to reflect on Senator Scarr's motivation in bringing this very important issue forward for debate. The fact that she questioned the coalition's, and particularly Senator Scarr's, support for our security and intelligence organisations is, frankly, disgraceful. Senator Scarr has a long history of being an incredible advocate not just for the rule of law but for our security and intelligence organisations. So for Senator Walsh to go the political attack as she did is completely inappropriate. The terrorism listing rules in our country are very clear. If any group is involved in promoting, fostering, encouraging and even praising terrorist activity, that is grounds, under the Commonwealth Criminal Code, for such an organisation to be listed as a terrorist organisation. This debate is about highlighting the importance of this issue in the Australian Senate. How dare members opposite reflect on our intentions to ensure that this receives the highest priority from this government? We have seen deeply disturbing revelations, particularly as exposed by Nick McKenzie and other reporters in the Age, in the Sydney Morning Herald and on 60 Minutes, about the infiltration of the encampment at the University of Sydney which, frankly, are shocking. Then, of course, we saw the University of Sydney, rather than stand strong, appease those protesters by entering into a most improper agreement with that group of students under circumstances where that should never have happened. Even worse, as we now know, the university was put on notice that members of this extremist group were on the campus from as early as 6 May, yet the university took no action. On behalf of the coalition I have also called for the Albanese government to urgently investigate all revelations concerning the infiltration by this extremist group at the University of Sydney. It is very concerning that the Minister for Education, Mr Clare, has not raised concerns about this at all, just as he never condemned the encampment and never directly condemned the encouragement of children chanting 'intifada' at the encampment at the University of Sydney. So we continue to call for an urgent inquiry into how this happened. How could one of our most prestigious and oldest universities allow these extremists onto their campus and not take any action? We have asked urgent questions in relation to this. Everyone on a university campus deserves to be safe, everyone in our country deserves to be safe, and we need to see that the government does not compromise our safety in any respect. This is a very important motion. Again, I commend Senator Scarr for bringing this to the Senate, and I call on the government to take this seriously. 16:37 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I rise to support Senator Scarr's motion. I'd like to firstly address the comments by members of the government as to the reason for them not supporting this motion, claiming that for members of the Senate to raise this is somehow politicising the issue. I served on the intelligence and security committee for nine years and was involved in the listing or relisting of a number of terrorist groups. Whilst the coalition was in government, the coalition members of that committee were calling for the listing of Hezbollah, for example, even though agencies were indicating that they didn't support that action for a range of reasons. But, with the support of members of the Labor Party—now the government—members of the coalition called, outside the committee and through committee reports, for the listing of the entirety of that organisation, which was eventually done. This parliament—this Senate—has a role, just as it does in civil control of the military, to ensure control of the representatives of the Australian people over the legislative basis and the actions of our national security agencies. In a case such as this, where the element of glorification of terrorist acts is not specifically listed—as it is in the UK, which gave them the ability to outlaw this particular group in question, Hizb ut-Tahrir—it's quite legitimate for members of this parliament to call for legislative change to enable that listing to occur. It is the case that this parliament has acted in the past where we see foreign influences affecting the safety and unity of Australian people and, particularly, bringing foreign concepts and ideas into our universities. The Confucius institutes, which have been the matter of some contention over the years, are a good example of that. They have come under appropriate scrutiny, and universities have been required to register and be transparent about their relationships, and that has substantially reduced the influence of those institutes in shaping the conversation, the views and the attitudes of both lecturers and young Australians. So it's quite appropriate to highlight where we see what is considered by any reasonable standard to be a malign influence on our university campuses, affecting the thinking, the behaviour and the actions of both students and academics. We are not alone in that. There are some people who would say that any such discussion about a group that has a religious identity is somehow vilifying that particular group, but I note the fact that around the world a range of nations have banned Hizb ut-Tahrir—not only the United Kingdom and places like Germany but Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Libya, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia and Turkiye. They have all banned this group because the Islamist agenda crosses the line not only between religion and politics but also of the use of violence to see their will enacted. That's why it's important to also realise that, whilst it's not our approach, you can see nations like Morocco, a 99 per cent Muslim country, that have banned certain teachings, particularly Wahhabist teachings, because of the association with the Islamist view and the violence. They've also banned the manufacturing, importation or sale of things like the burqa because of the association with that teaching. Even in relation to the glorification of this kind of violence and the teaching that goes along with it, the AFP have written in their guidance to parents about how to identify radicalisation and extremism in children—the fact that, even in things like games, any socialisation or glorification of this kind of violence can lead to radicalisation. So Australians should be concerned, and I support the call for the government to look at what is required under legislation to ban this organisation and also for the responsible agency, whether it's Treasury or the Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, to look at the DGR status that was awarded to a group that is closely linked with Hizb ut-Tahrir to make sure that we are not allowing any of these groups to establish themselves and remain as a malign influence in Australia. 16:42 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria Social cohesion has been tested in Australia, more than at almost any time in our history, since the events of 7 October. Hamas's decision to launch a terrorist attack on Israel, killing more than 1,200 Israelis and kidnapping hundreds more, has had profound reverberations here. On one level, that is natural and understandable. The Jewish community is, of course, deeply distressed by these attacks, which saw the most Jews killed on a single day since the end of the Holocaust, and the continued holding of innocent hostages in Gaza. It's also understandable that Australians with connections to Gaza are also greatly concerned by the loss of life there, including of innocent civilians, as the IDF has attempted to remove Hamas from power and free the hostages. In a pluralistic, multicultural democracy, conflicts overseas always have the potential to be flashpoints for domestic disharmony and contention. But our ability to navigate these differences of opinion is made much harder by extremist groups who seek to weaponise foreign conflicts for their own reasons. One such group is Hizb ut-Tahrir. Thanks to the investigative reporting by Nick McKenzie and his colleagues at 60 Minutes, we now have a much better understanding of the operations of this group. They have successfully infiltrated the pro-Palestinian protests in Australia since 7 October, especially the university based encampments. They are using them as an opportunity to recruit and radicalise students with extreme rhetoric and their hateful ideology. They have propagated vile antisemitism, and they openly seek to undermine our democratic institutions. For many years, it has been argued that this group and their conduct are awful but lawful, that they might be extremists but they are non-violent. If that ever were true, there is good reason to doubt it now. One imam associated with Hizb ut-Tahrir is Sheik Ibrahim Dadoun. On 8 October, long before any IDF response in Gaza, he spoke at a rally in Western Sydney to celebrate Hamas's attacks. He said: I'm smiling and I'm happy. I'm elated. It's a day of courage. It's a day of pride. It's a day of victory. This is the day we've been waiting for. He's not alone in that view. As Alexi Demetriadi of the Australian revealed last week, Hizb ut-Tahrir issued a media release in Arabic on 7 October. It has since been deleted from their website, but it praised the brave Muslims of Palestine and urged Israel's neighbouring Muslim countries to attack and eliminate Israel. Australia's counterterrorism laws are clear. It is of course an offence to directly participate in a terrorist attack or recruit or fundraise for a terrorist organisation, but the criteria to be listed as a terrorist organisation is also broader than that. It includes advocacy of terrorism. As the Attorney-General's Department explains, advocacy includes someone who counsels, promotes, encourages or urges the doing of a terrorist act, someone who gives instruction on the doing of a terrorist act or someone who directly praises the doing of a terrorist act whether there is a substantial risk that that praise might lead someone to engage in a terrorist act. It is for reasons similar to this that our close partners in the United Kingdom took the decision to list Hizb ut-Tahrir as a terrorist organisation under their own regime in January. As UK home secretary James Cleverly said, HUT is 'an antisemitic organisation that actively promotes and encourages terrorism, including praising and celebrating the appalling 7 October attacks.' Disturbingly, on Sunday in the Herald Sun, James Campbell reported HUT was shifting its activities from the UK to Australia because we had inadvertently become a safe haven for their global activities by failing to proscribe them. It is for these reasons that the Australian government must urgently commence its own investigation into whether HUT meets the criteria for terrorism listing here. On behalf of the coalition, I offer the government bipartisan support for listing Hizb ut-Tahrir as a terrorist organisation. If the government believes that our current terrorism proscription regime is not fit for purpose and can't capture groups like HUT, we should immediately consider reforming them so that it does. We would of course work with the government in a bipartisan way to address this. But, if the government does not act, we will, because nothing less than our social cohesion is at stake. I also want to address the comments by Senator Walsh directed to Senator Scarr during this debate. I'm very happy to compare my credentials or Senator Scarr's to anyone opposite on supporting our security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies. But we're a liberal democracy. We are not a security state, and it is entirely appropriate for the elected representatives of the people in this place to give voice to their concerns over these issues and to ask questions about whether or not our laws need to be reformed to better protect our country. That's exactly what we're doing. Question agreed to. Legal Aid 76 16:48 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 The Senate will now consider the proposal from Senator Thorpe: 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 Australian Government to urgently fund the $215.3m funding shortfall for legal assistance services for the 2024-2025 fiscal period, as per Dr. Warren Mundy's Independent Review of the National Legal Assistance Partnership 2020-2025 (NLAP). Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 16:48 Senator THORPE 280304 Victoria I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Australian Government to urgently fund the $215.3m funding shortfall for legal assistance services for the 2024-2025 fiscal period, as per Dr. Warren Mundy's Independent Review of the National Legal Assistance Partnership 2020-2025 (NLAP). Thank you to Senator Paterson for allowing me to do this. Legal assistance services are so crucial. They provide life-saving support for women and children trying to escape family violence. They help Aboriginal mothers whose children are targeted for removal. They help marginalised people who have been targeted by police They help children to break from cycles of incarceration. These services are on the front line, helping the most vulnerable people, but, due to years of neglect from successive governments, these services are crumbling, overstretched and unable to do their jobs. Over 52,000 women were turned away from life-saving legal services last year. That number is growing, and Aboriginal women suffer the most. We are 45 times more likely to experience family violence and at least 25 times more likely to be killed or injured by a former or intimate partner. At the start of March, the Attorney-General received an independent review into the dire strait of the sector. When Dreyfus received the report, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services were calling for it to be released so they could discuss the recommendations with the government. But the Attorney-General refused to be open or honest with the sector. He even refused my order to produce documents that had majority support in this chamber. The government were doing all they could to keep the report from the sector until after the May budget so they wouldn't come under scrutiny or pressure to fund these essential services. So much for working openly and in partnership with First Peoples! When we finally saw the report, after the budget, we found out it contained $215 million worth of recommendations for this year to keep legal services afloat. But Labor only gave $41 million to the sector in their budget, leaving the sector shortchanged by $174 million. Still, today, the Attorney-General hasn't given a formal response to those recommendations. Instead, he has just ignored them. So the sector has been kept in the dark and left critically underfunded. To make it worse, the government had this report at the same time that the National Cabinet convened for their emergency meeting about family violence. What a joke! But the report wasn't fed into the process. They hid it, despite it having clear recommendations about family violence prevention. This whole saga has demonstrated shocking neglect, secrecy and a lack of goodwill from the Labor government. We've seen again how far Labor will go to avoid scrutiny and accountability and to shut out First Peoples. Shame! That brings us to this week. We've heard that Dreyfus and the state A-Gs are expected to meet on Friday morning here to finally discuss this report together for the first time. They've been trying to keep this meeting secret, too. It beggars belief that they've waited for four months to have a meeting on this issue given how urgent it is and that people's lives are at risk. This is the opportunity they have to make up for their shocking neglect and bad-faith actions and offer the life-saving help that is so desperately needed. The government must understand the gravity of their failure to properly fund legal services. There is a direct connection between underfunding and increased risks of harm, trauma and loss of life on Labor's watch. It will have impacts on health care, housing, child protection and incarceration. Women turned away from legal services are often turned back into violent situations. Thirty-nine women have been killed violently already this year. The government can't continue to underfund this sector and keep a clear conscience. They have had to turn that around this week. So, Labor, if you are fair dinkum about preventing violence against women in this country, stop sitting on your hands and fund these underfunded services that will actually save people's lives. 16:53 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I rise to speak on this urgency motion in regard to legal assistance services and the report by Dr Warren Mundy, an independent review of the NLAP. As most people in this chamber know, I have had a very constant and personal connection to the work that this government is doing on the prevention of family violence. I think everyone in this chamber knows how important and imperative it is for us to take action on family violence and to commit to funding the services that require support, taking preventive action and making sure that we never forget that, at the end of the day, this relates to families, particularly women who face the extreme consequences of deciding whether to stay in a violent situation or to leave that violent situation. I want to thank very deeply and sincerely the people who work for these legal services. I know that many of them, in North Queensland particularly, do an incredible job. I really am thankful that they provide not just expertise but also care and advocacy. It's that advocacy that has led to our government providing extended and increased funding for this sector. We continue to work with the sector while the 2025 NLAP is being prepared. The Albanese government recognises the pressure that legal assistance services are under and the importance of strengthening the sector. Legal assistance is essential to ensuring access to justice and equality before the law. Dr Mundy's report is important. We respect the findings. We know that there have been so many reviews, so many inquiries. Unfortunately, under the last government we saw very little investment in the legal services sector. We had community legal services, in particular, here many times, before many budgets, asking for assistance—assistance that never came. Unlike the Liberals when they were in charge, this government is listening to the legal assistance sector. After a decade of neglect, the Attorney-General is working incredibly hard to ensure that we can invest more money in the sector. We have invested $270 million more in legal assistance funding since the October 2022 budget. That funding is incredibly important for legal assistance services. I acknowledge the very sincere way in which Senator Thorpe moved this motion, but it's not true to say that the government is not providing additional funding to legal assistance. We have done so since the October 2022 budget. We also announced in this budget, very importantly, $44.1 million of urgent funding to assist legal assistance providers to address current resource and workforce issues until the new NLAP commences on 1 July 2025. This was an important injection of urgent funding, exactly what the sector needs at this time to ensure that there isn't a gap before the new NLAP commences. We'll continue to work with the sector and the states and territories towards a better agreement than those opposite delivered. We know that it's important that we work with the states and territories on how we can combat family violence and how we can provide the legal services assistance that is so desperately needed. Just on the partnership, while I have a short amount of time left, it was really important that there was a review. It is really important that we get the funding agreement right. That is what our government is working incredibly hard to do. We are taking the findings of the report into consideration, and we'll make sure that we respond to the themes that it covered, including increased investment in access to justice and sustainable sector reform and funding arrangements to ensure that we can have sustainable services into the future. (Time expired) 16:59 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory The coalition opposes this motion, and the first reason is to do with Dr Mundy's review itself. There are significant fair and legitimate criticisms of the Mundy review. Dr Warren Mundy was first commissioned over 10 years ago, by the then Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, to conduct a report into the legal sector during the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd days. In both reviews, Dr Mundy adopted an access-to-justice approach. The reality is: this review has been informed by stakeholders with entrenched political and vested interests. That is why it's appropriate to apply scrutiny to it and examine its true independence. The review recommends that taxpayer money be spent on things like the community legal centres engaging in law reform and advocacy rather than assisting clients. Fifty-nine per cent of CLCs wanted to be funded to spend somewhere between one and three days per fortnight solely devoted to advocacy work; 25 per cent of CLCs wanted funding for up to 50 per cent of their time to be spent on advocacy and also in an attempt to support LGBT Australians and the legal needs of sex workers. This is not to say that the whole report should be disregarded. It makes important recommendations: for example, the competing interests of Legal Aid and family violence prevention legal services. Often, these groups are in direct competition. So there's a need to get the balance right regarding this funding; it warrants close attention. However, given some of the more overt political aspects, it needs to be interrogated in a robust way and approached with a degree of scepticism. The NLAP was set up by the coalition government and the review was commissioned for the purpose of renegotiating the NLAP. A key tenet of the NLAP scheme as set out by the coalition was that it required full buy-in from states and territories and thereby recognised that the funding for legal services was not simply the responsibility of the Commonwealth but, rather, a joint effort. This is another reason we do not support this motion: it undermines that partnership that is the foundation of this scheme. The current government is doing a terrible job, mind you, of administering NLAP. We don't need to look any further than what's happening with the spectacular failings of NAAJA in the Northern Territory, where there have been over 90 unrepresented clients since October 2023, 27 of whom have been remanded due to inadequate service delivery at NAAJA and not enough lawyers in place. A grant controller was established in December 2023 because NAAJA, in fact, was not administering funds appropriately. The Federal Court recently found that former CEO Priscilla Atkins was unfairly dismissed by the board after she raised allegations of corruption against the financial officer at NAAJA. The recent chair of the board, Hugh Woodbury, was appointed to his position in March 2024 when the board knew that he had pled guilty to charges of domestic violence against his pregnant partner in 2020. The deputy chair of the board, Colleen Rosas, admitted that NAAJA rejected requests from the NIAA and the Northern Territory government to observe NAAJA board meetings. Leeanne Caton, the deputy chief executive and the most senior female executive, left NAAJA on 21 June 2024, only five months after coming in to the position. There were notices issued by the Northern Territory government to recoup approximately $2.69 million unspent from NAAJA. An audit is of course being undertaken regarding NAAJA's possible misuse of funding. The redirection of any funding under the NLAP, as sought by Senator Thorpe, should reflect the agreement of states and territories in accordance with how the NLAP was founded. This motion is not a productive or an effective way of achieving this, and that's why the coalition will not support this motion. 17:03 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I rise to say that I, together with my colleague Senator Cox, support this motion. I thank Senator Thorpe for bringing it to the chamber. On 5 March this year, the Attorney-General received the Mundy report into NLAP, a report the government itself commissioned—an independent report commissioned by the government, to work out how to fix the crumbling Legal Aid, CLC, First Nations legal services and domestic violence legal services across the country. This was an independent report from a highly-credentialed expert who knew his stuff. He went out and he spoke to all of those services. He consulted in detail with them. He looked at hundreds of submissions and saw the crying need. At the core of the recommendations that came back in the Mundy report is an urgent need, in this financial year that's just started, for an additional $215 million in urgent funding, just to stop services collapsing. That's the shortfall that's been caused in the sector by a disgraceful lack of funding by the coalition government over the last decade. So, it's no wonder coalition senators come in here and oppose this motion, because they are, in large part, responsible for the crisis we see in the sector. You might think $215 million is a lot of money, and for any one individual or any one organisation it's of course a huge amount of money. But for a government that's willing to spend $45,000 billion on a couple of ships? Or $368,000 million on nuclear submarines? You're telling me you can't find $215 million to fund community legal services, Aboriginal legal services, domestic violence legal services? You're telling me that can't be found? This is about choices. Instead of $215 million, what did we get from the government? Well, after interrogating them at length in budget estimates, we found out that the total additional funding that the government is offering to the sector this year is $44 million, and most of that is just an indexation to keep up with this year's inflation. It's not just treading water but watching the sector slowly drown over the next 12 months. That's what the Albanese Labor government have offered. And when we're talking about $215 million, of course it's a lot of money, but this year the government chose to have a $9 billion surplus. This is a $9 billion surplus, paid for in part by First Nations women who can't get legal support when they're leaving domestic and family violence. That's, in part, how this surplus is being paid for. The government knew this. I want to repeat: the Attorney-General had this report from 5 March—months of time—in order to put into the budget the $215 million needed to save the sector. This report says that the sector can't wait and that, without some urgent injection of funds from the Commonwealth, this next 12 months will see disastrous job losses, service cuts and, potentially, the closure of a series of critical services. I've been around the country and spoken to many of these services. I remember being in Tasmania and talking with some of the women's legal services. They said they can't deal with the scale of the problem. Many of them just get legal funding. But when a woman walks into a domestic violence legal service in Tasmania, they often don't just have a legal problem; they've got a counselling problem, a financial problem and a housing problem. They've got this package of problems. Again, the Mundy report says, provide the wraparound services, fund these services as though women are full human beings, not just a legal problem, and the same for First Nations legal services. Legal problems don't walk in the door of these centres; human beings, with complex problems, walk in the door, and that's what should be funded. I want to highlight some of the recommendations that were ignored. Recommendation 17 of the Mundy report was that an additional $12 million to ATSILS and $4 million to family violence prevention legal services should be funded. What did the government give? Not one cent. Recommendation 18 said that $44 million is needed for legal aid. And what did the government give towards that independent recommendation from the independent report about legal aid for the next 12 months? Not one cent. There's a chance for the government to turn this around, but it requires money, it requires listening and it requires implementing this independent report. 17:08 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I also rise, as Senator Shoebridge said, to support this motion that has been brought by Senator Thorpe here today and echo my colleagues' comments. Family violence prevention legal services do an important job, as we have heard during the course of the inquiry into the missing and murdered First Nations women and children. For 25 years these organisations have been going—since 1988. The reason they were put together is that the victims and victims-survivors of violence needed a specialised and culturally safe place and the support that was necessary on the back of the Aboriginal legal services being in place, because there was a perceived conflict of interest, or a professional conflict of interest, that women, particularly victims-survivors, who needed that support were up against alleged offenders in the justice system. These essential services are a beacon, as Senator Shoebridge and others in this chamber here tonight have already said. These services are essential. And what we heard in the course of this inquiry was that it isn't just about family violence; it is about housing and it is about child protection. It comes with a whole raft of issues and experiences that these women have had. We tell these women: 'Come forward. Come to services. Come and disclose.' To who, when these services are not funded to the adequate level? The Mundy review goes right to the heart of that—the $215 million that Senator Shoebridge just talked about. We ask them to come forward, and then we criminalise those women. We criminalise them through the systemic failures that have been in place under the family violence and child protection regime in this country. The National Family Violence Prevention Legal Services Forum said they need an urgent injection of $100 million in the sector. Some of these services do work that is outside of the contracts that the Commonwealth currently provide. They are providing, in a huge gap, essential services that are missing in our communities. They have got wraparound for their victims-survivors, and it's not just immediate. They've got long-term clients who have lost family members due to homicides. That's what we heard during the inquiry. These families need ongoing help. These are families that are coming interstate to seek out services because services are not funded in some states and territories. Services are not operating, and they're not willing or able to support our women and children. This destroys the heart of what's happening in our communities. 17:11 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory It's a national disgrace that, in the middle of a crisis of family and domestic violence, with 47 women murdered so far this year—almost two per week—we have more than a thousand people being turned away every day from community legal services in this country. This morning I attended a roundtable organised by the member for Goldstein, from the other place, with frontline family and domestic violence service providers from around the country. They are despairing at their funding shortfalls. Here in the ACT, DVCS is facing a $1.6 million hole in their operating budget after the federal government didn't increase funding for services that are more in demand than ever. They're already at a point where they can't answer every call. This means that even more cries for help are going unanswered. Last week I met with a huge delegation from the National Family Violence Prevention Legal Services Forum, who told the same story of overstretched resources and being unable to meet demand. I was proud to sign onto Senator Thorpe's letter to attorneys-general this morning. I thank her for putting forward this urgency motion today. I do not understand how or why a government can commission an independent review, receive a report saying that $215.3 million is urgently needed to sustain critical legal services until a new agreement can commence and then only provide only $41.4 million in the budget—a fifth of what is needed and a fifth of what has been recommended by a report that you commissioned. In the same budget, $45 million has been provided to explain the stage 3 tax cuts to Australians. Apparently, this is stage 3 tax cuts week; that's all the government has wanted to speak about. Australians would be horrified to know that they have a government that is spending more on advertising stage 3 tax cuts to Australians than they've provided in additional funding to overstretched community legal services around the country. The government have to step up and match their soaring rhetoric of ending family and domestic violence in a decade with the measures that need to go alongside that for there to be any chance of that happening. How can you have a report telling you the breadth and depth of the problem, and the funding required, and then just put in a little bit and say, 'Here you go. Thanks for the work you do. Good luck with it'? I understand the budget's under pressure. We know that. We also know that we're happy to give our gas away for free. When the government has the petroleum resource rent tax and the Treasury recommends changes to get more from this gas that we're happy to give away to multinationals to be shipped overseas, with no PRRT and very little corporate tax paid, the government goes for the weakest and most cowardly option. They say: 'We'll just bring forward some of those payments. We don't need more to be able to fund the sorts of services that women and children desperately need around this country.' I think this is shameful. Thank you, Senator Thorpe, for raising this. The government needs to step up and do better. 17:16 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania Thank you, Senator Thorpe, for affording us the opportunity to speak on the funding shortfall for legal assistance services. People going through their most vulnerable moments are being turned away from legal assistance services because these services just don't have enough resources or funding to help everyone who needs them. Imagine how you would feel if that was you in one of the worst situations of your life. It might be a domestic violence situation, a relationship breakdown or maybe even a criminal offence done out of desperation. You've been broken down. You've been pushed to your absolute limits. You just need someone to talk to you to help make sense of it all, and then you're told that no-one can help you. What is someone supposed to do in that situation? Legal assistance services don't want to turn people away. It's heartbreaking for the staff at these services to say no to people who desperately need their help, but there are only so many of them and only so many hours in a day. Governments past and present have failed to ensure that legal assistance services have adequate funding. These services are running on the smell of an oily rag. They're struggling not only to keep the lights on in their offices but also to pay their staff the wages they deserve. Funding for legal assistance services has been indexed by only 1.9 per cent over the past five years. This means that the services have basically been watching their funding go backwards. Staff are being poached to work in private firms that can offer attractive salaries and better working hours. Tassie has one of the lowest ratios of legal practitioners per population in the entire country. There are just not enough lawyers to go around, so when someone leaves legal aid or community legal services to go to work for a private firm, there's no-one to fill the gap. It's hard to persuade people to come and work in beautiful Tassie when you can only offer a short-term contract on less attractive wages. The Mundy review of the National Legal Assistance Partnership 2020-25 has highlighted all of these issues and more. The review estimates the funding shortfall for legal assistance services right now is around $215 million. That's not small change. The Labor government say they help the most vulnerable people in our communities and that no-one will be left behind but, because of their failure to adequately fund these services, thousands of people are being left behind every single day. For these people, the consequences of not receiving help could be devastating. That's why all attorneys-general from every state and territory, including the federal Attorney-General, need to urgently commit to funding legal assistance services to the levels the Mundy review recommended. Every day they don't means more people will be at risk. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 The question is that the motion moved by Senator Thorpe be agreed to. A division having been called and the bells being rung— Senator Thorpe 280304 What? I thought the ayes had it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 They called for a division, Senator Thorpe. Senator Thorpe 280304 Weak! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Do you want to cancel the division? Senator Thorpe 280304 Cancel it. Come on! An honourable senator interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Cancel the division. The original call will apply. Question agreed to. PETITIONS 81 PETITIONS Live Animal Exports: Sheep 81 17:20 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria by leave—I table a non-conforming petition signed by 64,385 Australian citizens fighting to keep the sheep and overturn Labor's live sheep export ban. Refugee and Humanitarian Visas 81 17:21 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory by leave—I table a non-conforming petition calling on the government to grant humanitarian visas to people fleeing Gaza. Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 81

Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024

17:21 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory by leave—I table a non-conforming petition which opposes the government's migration removals and travel ban bill. DOCUMENTS 81 DOCUMENTS Consideration 81 COMMITTEES 81 COMMITTEES Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee 81 Additional Information 81 17:22 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria On behalf of the chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, Senator Green, I present additional information received by the committee on its inquiry into the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024. Scrutiny of Bills Committee 81 Scrutiny Digest 81 17:22 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria On behalf of Senator Dean Smith, I present Scrutiny digest 8 of 2024 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, together with ministerial correspondence received by the committee. I seek leave to incorporate a tabling statement in Hansard. Leave granted. The statement read as follows— As Acting Chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, I rise to speak to the tabling of the committee's Scrutiny Digest 8 of 2024. Scrutiny Digest 8 of 2024 reports on the committee's consideration of twelve bills which were introduced into the Parliament during recent sitting weeks, as well as amendments made to two bills. In this Digest, the committee has identified potential scrutiny concerns in relation to seven newly introduced bills. In particular, I wish to draw Senators' attention to the committee's comments on the Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024. The bill raises scrutiny concerns in relation to automated decision-making. The increased use of automated decision-making across legislation is an issue the committee is closely considering where it arises. This bill seeks to provide that the Chair of the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) can arrange for the use of computer programs to take administrative action under proposed Part 24B of the Telecommunications Act 1997 in relation to an SMS Sender ID Register. Administrative law typically requires decisionmakers to engage in an active intellectual process in respect of the decisions they are required or empowered to make. A failure to engage in such a process, for example, where decisions are made by computer rather than by a person, may lead to legal error. In addition, there are risks that the use of an automated decision-making process may operate as a fetter on discretionary power, by inflexibly applying predetermined criteria to decisions that should be made on the merits of the individual case. These matters are particularly relevant to more complex or discretionary decisions, and circumstances where the exercise of a statutory power is conditioned on the decision-maker taking specified matters into account or forming a particular state of mind. In this case, the bill includes a number of welcome oversight and safeguard mechanisms, including: administrative actions taken by a computer are treated as taken by ACMA, preserving the right to merits review of such decisions; ACMA may substitute an automated decision if satisfied that the decision is not correct or if the decision to accept sender IDs related to IDs the ACMA is satisfied are spoofing or scam IDs; the Chair of ACMA must take all reasonable steps to ensure that automated administrative action is action that the ACMA could validly take under the relevant Part of the Act; information about automated arrangements must be published on ACMA's website; and ACMA's annual report under section 46 of the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act 2013 must include information on the number of substituted decisions, the kinds of decisions that were substituted, and the kinds of automated decisions that the ACMA was satisfied were not correct. The inclusion of these safeguards and oversight measures on the face of the bill are welcome. The explanatory memorandum further notes that 'where a decision involves the exercise of discretion or an evaluative judgement, a computer program will not be programmed to take action'. The committee's position is that administrative automated decision-making should only be applied to non-discretionary decisions. While this intent is reflected in the explanatory memorandum, this protection would be strengthened by being included on the face of the bill itself. The bill further provides for criteria relevant to automated decisions to be set out in legislative instruments. The inclusion of this additional criteria in legislative instruments limits the ability of the committee to assess whether or not such criteria could be considered discretionary and therefore whether it is appropriate for those decisions to be subject to automated decision-making. The committee welcomes the considered safeguards in the bill and detailed information about automated decision-making in the explanatory memorandum and notes the department's genuine engagement with this important matter. It is heartening, from a scrutiny perspective, to see such consideration given to the automation of decisions and the recommendations of the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme Report. Nevertheless, the committee has requested the minister's further advice in relation to these additional concerns. I encourage all parliamentarians to carefully consider the committee's analysis contained in the Digest. With these comments, I commend the committee's Scrutiny Digest 8 of 2024 to the Senate. Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee 82 Delegated Legislation Monitor 82 17:23 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria On behalf of the Chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I present the Delegated legislation monitor—monitor7 of 2024together with ministerial correspondence received by the committee. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. Question agreed to. Economics References Committee 82 Report 82 17:23 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales On behalf of Senator Bragg, I present the report of the Economics References Committee on the Australian Securities and Investments Commission together with the accompanying documents. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee 82 Additional Information 82 17:24 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I rise to speak to the additional documents tabled by the minister regarding the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's inquiry into the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024. Amongst the documents that have now been tabled were hundreds of individual responses from community members across the country. When I say hundreds, I mean there were hundreds and hundreds of responses from community members across the country that to a person said: 'Don't pass this bill. It's deeply discriminatory. It's an attack on diaspora communities. It's an attack on multicultural Australia.' In fact, there were so many individual submissions that it's been pretty tough for the secretariat to present them. I really do want to commend the secretariat for the work they've done in trying to collate these submissions and put them forward to the Senate as rapidly as they can. Indeed, it would be remiss of me not to also point out the professionalism of the secretariat in the work that they do with the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. They are some of the most competent people I have the pleasure to work with, and they are also committed to their work. It's been a real challenge for them because so many people wrote to the Senate and said to the government, 'Don't pass this bill.' That's why there's a delay in publishing: the sheer numbers who said Labor's proposal here is deeply discriminatory. It could separate their families. It could permanently sever diaspora communities here from their families, loved ones, friends and connections in the countries from which they came. One of the strongest communities that spoke out against the government's bill was the Iranian community. They feel absolutely targeted by Labor in this. They feel betrayed. If you read the individual submissions, you get that sense of genuine betrayal. When the Iranian diaspora here worked across its political complexity—I think anyone who's dealt with the Iranian community here would know there's political complexity in their diaspora. But they worked across that complexity and they came as one to support the Woman, Life, Freedom movement and to call out what that brutal regime is doing, particularly to women and girls in Iran but also to anyone who is standing up for democracy. Members of the diaspora, many of them on bridging visas, on temporary visas, who have outstanding asylum applications or have been refused by the fast-track, often stood beside Labor senators and MPs to call out the brutality of the Iranian government. They saw these Labor senators and MPs stand next to them and also call out the brutality of the government, but do you know what the difference between the two of them was? It turns out that the Labor MPs and senators could then walk into this chamber and vote for legislation that would permit the minister to deport those Iranian women and men who had been calling out and opposing the regime. It turns out those Iranian community members are some kind of disposable political asset for the Labor Party. I've got to tell you the sense of betrayal in the broader Iranian community here about what Labor has done is very real. They ask themselves: what did those Labor MPs and senators mean when they stood up and said that they supported the calls, particularly to protect women and children in Iran and to protect those women and children here who potentially face deportation back to Iran? It's pretty extraordinary. Amongst the other documents that have been presented by the government is this answer to the question on notice that was put about how many so-called 'transitory persons'—that is, people who have been referred from regional processing countries to Australia—are presently in the community as either what the government describes as 'unlawful noncitizens' or holding bridging e-visas. How many people? Now, these were the one class of people that the government was targeting with their urgent legislation that they rushed into parliament. I remember asking the Home Affairs secretary: 'Who are you targeting the with your deportation bill? How many people are you targeting? What countries are they coming from? What visa classes are they in?' Home Affairs couldn't answer. It was genuinely embarrassing. The secretary of Home Affairs, who no doubt on her advice rushed this legislation into parliament—legislation that was accepted by both ministers, O'Neil and Giles, rubber-stamped by the Prime Minister and brought into the parliament while it was still warm from the photocopier, because they wanted to rush it through. Home Affairs couldn't say how many people they were targeting with this part of it. We now find out, and the information is as at 31 March—which is hardly timely, but that's Home Affairs all over—that there were 246 people who met that definition of transitory persons, of which 198 were transitory persons in the community, 43 were on expired bridging E visas and awaiting a further bridging visa, and five were babies born in Australia—to quote the government, 'Babies born in Australia pending administrative detention.' 'Five babies born in Australia pending administrative detention by this Labor government.' I don't know how they wrote 'that there are five babies born in detention pending administrative detention'. How do you write that and not realise how wrong it is? How do you give as an answer that there are five babies that Labor is just desperately trying to put into administrative detention and then deport? How does Labor write that answer and not realise how wrong it is? We now find out, months after this legislation was brought by the government that they actually want to target this legislation at babies. They want the power to put babies in detention and then deport babies. That's what Labor wants with this bill. No wonder it took months for this answer to happen. No wonder it took months for Labor to tell us the truth about who they're targeting. Labor's targeting babies. They want to be able to detain them and then deport them under this legislation. How much more proof do we need that this legislation is cruel and should never have been brought? And how much more proof do we need that the legislation should be pulled by the Labor Party? Show some decency. Don't tell us about how you're going to deport and jail babies. Tell us about how you're going to keep babies safe, then maybe you'll start building some bridges back with multicultural Australia. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee 84 Delegated Legislation Monitor 84 17:31 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I present Delegated legislation monitor No. 7 of 2024and move: That the Senate take note of the report. Monitor 7 reports on the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee's consideration of 42 legislative instruments registered between 14 May and 23 May 2024. I would first like to draw the chamber's attention to the committee's comments on the Jervis Bay Territory Rural Fire Rules 2024. The instrument is made under the Jervis Bay Territory Rural Fire Ordinance 2014, to provide for fire management services to the Jervis Bay Territory. The committee previously sought the advice of the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories in relation to broad discretionary powers conferred on the minister, including to impose conditions on a person's listing on the Jervis Bay Territory Rural Fire Service member register and determine whether a member is 'a fit and proper person'. The instrument and its explanatory statement did not meet the committee's expectations under scrutiny principle (c), that instruments conferring discretionary powers on a person should set out the factors which the person must consider in exercising the discretion. The committee welcomes the minister's recent advice that conditions typically imposed on member listings relate to the individual's physical limitations or health conditions. The committee thanks the minister for helpfully providing an example to illustrate circumstances in which a condition would be imposed on a member's listing. This includes imposing a condition to prevent a fire service member with asthma from attending a bushfire incident, and instead assigning the person alternative duties. The committee is now seeking the minister's advice about whether the explanatory statement can be amended to include this useful information. The committee also sought the minister's advice on whether the explanatory statement can be updated to include other helpful information provided relating to a source to access applicable service standards which are referenced through the instrument, and the applicability of privacy frameworks and safeguards including the Privacy Act. The instrument also empowers the minister to make decisions in relation to whether a person is a fit and proper person. While the committee notes the minister's advice that broad ministerial powers are necessarily proportionate to the significant powers that fire brigade members are empowered with in exercising their duties, the committee is seeking further justification as to why the minister's broad discretionary powers are necessary and appropriate. The committee has also asked whether an example could be provided to illustrate how the minister may, in practice, determine that a person is not a fit and proper person and the factors that may be considered in making this decision. The committee also sought the minister's advice on the definition of the terms 'careless' and 'inefficient' in the context of a fire service member committing a breach of discipline in discharging their duties. The committee raised scrutiny concerns, as it was unclear how the terms would be interpreted and applied to disciplinary actions. The minister noted that the arrangements for the Jervis Bay Territory rural fire service reflect New South Wales Rural Fire Service arrangements and legislation and that, accordingly, it would not be desirable to define the terms 'careless' and 'inefficient' in case of inadvertently creating inconsistencies between the two bodies of legislation. While the committee acknowledges the importance of uniformity between legislation, how the terms would apply in practice remains unclear. The committee expects that key terms of an instrument be clearly defined so that individuals to whom the instrument applies can fully understand their rights and obligations. This is particularly important for this instrument, as the relevant terms relate to breaches of discipline and to disciplinary actions taken against a fire service member. The committee thanks the minister for her advice thus far and looks forward to engaging further on this matter and other scrutiny concerns raised in relation to this instrument. I would also like to draw the chamber's attention to the committee's concluding comments in relation to the Biosecurity (Electronic Decisions) Determination 2023. The committee has been engaging with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry since Delegated legislation monitor 1 of 2024 about a range of scrutiny concerns regarding safeguards for the use of automated decision-making under the instrument. The minister has since implemented an undertaking to amend the explanatory statements to include further detail provided in relation to automated decision-making. The committee has now concluded its examination of this instrument and has resolved to withdraw the notice of motion to disallow the instrument. The committee thanks the minister for his prompt implementation of the undertaking and would like to note that it considers that the explanatory statement to the instrument provides an example of the best-practice approach to explaining the use of automated decision-making. The committee is of the view that this could be of considerable assistance to other ministers and those interested in the area of the automation of any decision-making. With those comments, I commend the committee's Delegated legislation monitor 7 of 2024 to the Senate. Economics References Committee 85 Report 85 17:37 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I rise to present the report of the Senate Economics References Committee inquiry into the Australian Securities and Investments Commission investigation and enforcement and to make some remarks in relation to the inquiry. This is a committee of inquiry which has run for almost 20 months. The reason this committee inquiry was established was to get to the bottom of why ASIC had not been a successful corporate regulator. I was very concerned that people in Australia were not getting the services of the corporate cop they should have been getting and that too many corporate crimes were going unpunished. In establishing this inquiry, there was a significant amount of interference from the agency itself, which had sought to influence the vote the Senate took to establish this inquiry, which was quite improper. Nonetheless the Senate decided to establish this inquiry, and I thank the crossbench for their support in establishing this important inquiry, which I think anyone who has a reasonable view on things would say has unearthed a lot of very good evidence, which the committee secretariat has put together. We tried to look at the way in which ASIC goes about its business through looking at cases, looking at the culture of the organisation and looking at its structure. The government and ASIC filed a lot of public interest immunity claims, which hampered the Senate's ability to do its work. I would say that ASIC went out of its way to obstruct the inquiry, and there was no reason for ASIC not to provide redacted case files so we could see their investigative methods. Professor Alan Fels, who gave evidence to our committee, made the point that there is nothing secret about the investigative methods that ASIC is using. He made the point that, if ASIC was a particularly good regulator, maybe there would be something secret. But there was nothing secret to be hidden. I think ASIC, in the main, just wanted to obstruct the Senate's work. ASIC really has one job, and that job is to be a law enforcement agency. We come to Canberra, we pass laws—corporate laws, financial services laws and the like—and we expect that the regulator will try and enforce those laws by pursuing civil and criminal cases, building a brief of evidence and winning a conviction in the court. Sadly, that is not the case in Australia, and that is why I believe that Australia has become, in many respects, a haven for white-collar crime. There are so many cases that could have been catalogued in our committee report, but we decided to look at a few cases: Dixon Advisory, Nuix, Kalkine and Courtenay House. In all these cases, ASIC was given multiple opportunities to enforce the law quickly. We saw the US agencies moving very quickly on the FTX collapse, and they were able to build a brief of evidence and put someone away for many years. ASIC seems to take months and months—sometimes years—to respond to complaints. Often the complaints have been made by insiders—whistleblowers. Whistleblowers are treated appallingly in this country. So many opportunities to stop what was a very bad situation with Dixon, Courtenay House, Nuix and Kalkine slipped out of ASIC's hands. Kalkine is still happening as we speak. The real impact in the community is that fair-minded people who think they're living in a country where financial services laws and consumer protection laws are enforced are, frankly, getting destroyed financially in many cases because of the inaction and the slow pace. When it comes down to it, the investigation that we undertook looked at the culture, the leadership and the structure. In terms of culture, through our inquiries, we were able to discover the staff survey of ASIC, and it found that staff motivation was at 20 per cent. Staff satisfaction was below 20 per cent. It's a very sick agency. We also, unfortunately, had to spend a lot of time looking at the massive dysfunction at the commission level. Commissioners were at war with one another, leaking to the media and engaging in all sorts of unsavoury business and activity. Unfortunately, there were also secret investigations into commissioners which weren't made known to the public and which were covered up by ASIC. I think the culture of the organisation from top to bottom is extremely sick. In terms of structure—and I don't want to be too unfair on ASIC—the structure that it has been given by this parliament means that it can't be successful. Since the Wallis inquiry of the mid-nineties, ASIC has been given more and more things. We started out with two peaks in a 'twin peaks' model: APRA, which was given prudential supervision by the Reserve Bank, and then ASIC, which was supposed to be focused on consumer protection. But, since 1997, every time there's been a problem in Canberra, it's been given to ASIC, and ASIC is now a monolith. It is so big that it can't possibly be successful as a sprawling financial services regulator and as a companies regulator. It does the registration of businesses. It looks after market integrity, derivatives, insurance, liquidators, investment banks, private equity and takeovers. It is far too big, which is why we have recommended a new structure for corporate law enforcement in Australia, which would mean a splitting-up of ASIC and the creation of two new bodies: one, a companies regulator and the other, a financial services enforcement agency. There would be two separate bodies, one focused on companies and the enforcement of the corporate law, and one focused on financial services regulation. We think that is a very important structural change. Secondly, there needs to be much more transparency around how complaints are handled. Where there are convictions recorded against people or organisations and criminal or civil penalties, there should be a searchable register. People should be able to see what has happened in the past. I believe that we should be rewarding whistleblowers who take risks—often risking their own lives—to call out appalling conduct in corporate and financial services in Australia, so we've made strong recommendations not only in relation to whistleblower protection but also in relation to whistleblower rewards. In terms of the structure of the new agencies, if they are adopted by this parliament, I think the idea of a commission structure is dead. There are too many opportunities for buck-passing, and, in the future, there should be a statutory appointment of a CEO of each of these new agencies, which can be held to account by parliament and stakeholders more easily. In relation to the funding for these new bodies, we ought to find a way to lighten the load on small business. Small businesses, particularly in the financial sector, are paying enormous levies to ASIC, and I think that there is a better way that we can do that. I want to make two final points before I sit down. This is the third such Senate inquiry into ASIC in the last few decades. There was one in the early nineties, which was done by Chris Ellison, and there was another one done by the Labor senator Mark Bishop about 10 years ago. They both made what I would say were 'deck chairs on the Titanic' style recommendations. We have gone for a complete change here—to new agencies and the end of ASIC—because I don't think it can be fixed culturally or structurally. That's why we have made this perhaps controversial recommendation. But I think it's the only way you can fix the situation. This has been a process which has asked a lot from a lot of people who didn't have to engage with the parliamentary process. But they have, often for no personal benefit other than to make sure that we could catalogue the evidence. The evidence is that, when ASIC receives complaints and warnings, it doesn't act. I want to thank all the people who have bravely come forward: whistleblowers, insiders, people who've been wronged. Your voice has been heard, and your voice has now been put into what I believe are very strong recommendations, which have been adopted in large part by the government and by the Greens, because there are no dissenting reports. This is a report of the Senate with some qualifications from government senators, but, largely speaking, I believe we have done the job here which the public expects: we've tried to work together to find common ground. I want to thank the secretariat very much for the huge body of work that they've done here. They are such fantastic public servants, who make us look really good. I want to close by thanking all the people that came forward to put on record their very concerning evidence. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION 86 PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION Tyrrell, Senator Tammy 86 17:47 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement about my new status as an Independent senator. Leave granted. Senator TYRRELL 300639 I inform the Senate that I have resigned from the Jacqui Lambie Network and now sit as an Independent senator for Tasmania. I also inform the Senate that I should be designated as a whip for the purposes of standing order 24A relating to the Selection of Bills Committee. DOCUMENTS 86 DOCUMENTS Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force 86 Order for the Production of Documents 86 17:48 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I table documents relating to the order for the production of documents concerning the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force 20-year review. 17:48 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. BILLS 86 BILLS Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024 86

Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024

First Reading 86 17:49 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 87 17:49 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania 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 Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024 strengthens existing Commonwealth criminal offences and creates new offences to respond to the online harm caused by deepfakes and other artificially generated sexual material. Digitally created and altered sexually explicit material that is shared without consent is a damaging and deeply distressing form of abuse. This insidious behaviour is degrading, humiliating and dehumanising for victims. Such acts are overwhelmingly targeted at women and girls and perpetuate harmful gender stereotypes and gender-based violence. This Bill will deliver on a commitment made by the Albanese Government following the National Cabinet held in May to address gender-based violence. This commitment recognised the urgent and collective need to respond to the growing challenges associated with artificially generated sexual material. The Bill creates a new offence that applies where: a person transmits sexual material depicting an adult person, using a carriage service, and the person knows the person depicted does not consent to the transmission of the material, or is reckless to whether the other person consents. The new offence will carry a maximum penalty of 6 years imprisonment. It will apply to sexual material depicting adults, with child abuse material continuing to be dealt with comprehensively in a separate Division of the Criminal Code which includes detailed offences and heavy penalties. The Bill repeals previous offences in the Criminal Code dealing with non-consensual sharing of private sexual material. The new offences are based on a 'consent' model to better cover both artificial and real sexual material. The Bill also introduces two new aggravated offences. The first aggravated offence applies where the person transmitting the material is also responsible for creating or altering the material. The second aggravated offence applies where a person has already been found liable for similar conduct at the civil standard under the Online Safety Act 2021 on three occasions. These aggravated offences carry a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment to reflect the seriousness of this offending. The Bill includes specific defences to ensure the offences are targeted and proportionate. Conclusion The Bill will hold perpetrators to account for causing harm through the non-consensual sharing of deepfakes, and ensure Australia's criminal offences keep pace with new technology. The Albanese Government is committed to keeping Australians safe from technology-facilitated abuse. I commend this Bill. Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111. Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024, Excise and Customs Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2024, Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023, Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill 2024 87

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

Excise and Customs Legislation Amendment (Streamlining Administration) Bill 2024

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

Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill 2024

Assent 87 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS 88 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS Migration Amendment (Graduate Visas) Regulations 2024 88 Disallowance 88 17:50 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I, and also on behalf of Senator Shoebridge, move: That the Migration Amendment (Graduate Visas) Regulations 2024, made under the Migration Act 1958, be disallowed [F2024L00748]. These regulations are yet another cruel blow to international students from the Albanese government and yet another example of their absolute disregard for the wellbeing of international students. These regulations concern the 485 temporary graduate visa, which provides the opportunity for international students who have recently graduated from Australian educational institutions to remain here to live and to work temporarily, following the completion of their studies. These regulations reduce the length of stay permitted under this visa and also close the subclass 476 visa, which provides engineering graduates with the chance to work in skilled occupations in this country for up to 18 months. Of most concern, however, is the government's decision to reduce the age limit of these visas from 50 years to 35 years. The government went some way to amending this really bad policy when it backflipped on its previous position and created a carve-out so that PhD and master's by research students were not subject to this age reduction, but bachelor's and master's by coursework students will still not be eligible for a temporary graduate visa, even those who are graduating this semester, if they are older than 35 years. This just shows the complete lack of thought and consideration that is put into devising these policies, when the government has to backtrack on a big chunk of this policy after having announced it. It's a classic example of policy on the run. The Labor government has made this decision with no regard for current students who have applied for, commenced and, in some cases, essentially completed their studies. Students who enrolled in their courses before May this year did so expecting that they would be eligible for a temporary graduate visa, as long as they were 50 years of age or younger upon graduation. Many had planned to stay in Australia but are now no longer eligible to do so, and their lives have been totally up-ended. Many students completing their studies this semester will only receive their completion letters in mid-July, two weeks after the cut-off date for their applications to apply under the old rules. Students who have made plans for making their lives here—for employment, for housing—now have their futures entirely up in the air. Prior to these changes, any international student under the age of 50 was able to remain temporarily in Australia to work following the completion of their studies. Now, students between the ages of 35 and 50 in coursework degrees are no longer eligible. Even the students who are still able to access the temporary graduate visa, where their universities have not issued early completion letters, have now been plunged into employment uncertainty. Students who have contacted me have reported extreme stress, extreme anxiety and fear over their futures. One student said: 'I don't know why such changes are being made suddenly by the government that puts everyone under pressure. I'm sure you're all feeling the same pressure as us, as we all come to know of the changes at the same time.' The student goes on to say, 'Everyone is under pressure at the moment, and the students have totally lost their focus.' Instead of preparing for final exams, students have been spending their time organising petitions, contacting Home Affairs and pleading with their universities to do something. When all this failed, one student simply said, 'We don't know what to do now,' and expressed feeling 'completely numb'. To make matters worse, the government introduced these regulations on the last sitting day before they came into effect, leaving no room to debate or disallow this before it started. Not only have the recent visa changes sent a clear message to current international students that they are not welcome but the government's message is also being heard by prospective students who no longer see Australia as a welcoming, supportive place to study and are reconsidering their decision to even apply to universities here. Treating international students with such disrespect and callousness is really appalling. Once again, this has outed the Albanese government's bid to try and win this despicable race to the bottom with the Liberals on who can be the worst for people of colour, and they have no concern for who is harmed on the way. This decision and the last-minute, cruel way in which it has been introduced has done nothing but place extreme pressure and stress on international students and increase pressure on universities as well as some push to provide completion letters ahead of time so their students are not disadvantaged. These regulations are yet another example of the Labor government's atrocious treatment of international students. They have thrown so many lives into limbo and caused so much angst. It is yet another example of bad policy, and it should be scrapped. What do you have against international students? They pay exorbitant fees. They work in jobs no-one else takes up. They are exploited. And all you want to do is kick them out and stop them from coming here. And perhaps it is because they are people of colour and they can't vote. Anyone who cares about international students should vote for the Greens' disallowance. 17:57 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I join my colleague Senator Faruqi in moving the disallowance of the Migration Amendment (Graduate Visas) Regulations 2024, which is designed to target and harm international students in this country. It's part of an ugly race to the bottom that the Labor Party is involved in, with the coalition, to see who can be crueller on issues of migration and asylum seeker rights. At the moment, Labor seems to be just touching out the coalition on that race to be the most cruel. Perhaps one of the worst things about this particular debate is that we've seen both the coalition and Labor engage in this process of trying to blame migration—in this case, international students—for crises they've created themselves, for a housing crisis that's been created through both parties' refusal to invest in public housing and end the tax concessions that are putting housing out of the reach of so many. We've seen a lack of core investment for over a decade in core services by the coalition, and then for both Labor and the coalition to join in this rhetoric of trying to blame every problem, many of which they've created themselves, on people who have come to this country from other parts of the planet, is a pretty obscene thing to watch. There's the latest attack on international students. Labor says they're pressing with this because it is somehow associated with the housing crisis. That's Labor's approach to what they say is a housing crisis: don't build more public housing; don't remove the tax breaks that keep housing out of reach of people but try to scapegoat international students here. It's pretty ugly politics from Labor, and it's been jumped on, exaggerated and highlighted by the coalition who, I think, want to run the next election as some kind of ugly contest of cruelty and scapegoating against migrants in this country. The Greens won't join in on that. This temporary graduate subclass visa, which has been so radically changed by the government, was a way of allowing international students who come here to study to work temporarily in Australia following the completion of their studies. These regulations are designed to make that next to impossible for many international students. Perhaps the worst change is reducing the upper age limit from 50 to 35 years. That is striking at the heart of the plans of thousands and thousands of people who came to this country in good faith thinking they could complete their studies and then, having completed their studies, gain critical skills by working in an Australian workplace and also gain some economic independence and pay off, in many cases, the thousands and thousands of dollars they've spent on getting the education in the first place. It was a fair bargain that was offered to international students. That fairness has been ripped away by the Albanese government. I'm sure the idea in the Albanese cabinet, when they discussed this, was that they could perhaps beat up on migrants to gain a few votes from Peter Dutton and engage in this grubby race to the bottom—I'm sure that was the discussion in the cabinet. I'm sure that Labor thought that they were very clever in targeting people who can't vote, but I think they've failed to understand that the community in Australia looks beyond those. There are millions and millions of Australians who see what's happening. They see their friends, their colleagues, their fellow students and their workmates being harmed by this. Their friends and their community are being harmed by this. Every week my office hears from distressed international students who are telling me and anyone else who'll listen that they've been misled by this government. They were told to apply under one set of rules—and paid tens and tens of thousands of dollars under one set of rules—only to be harmed at the last minute by Labor literally ripping the rug from under them. International students contribute some $36 billion to the Australian community. They're one of the largest exports, if you can call it that, that Australia has. This visa change will have far-reaching implications. It will also drive division between Australia and many communities in the region. I know that I've spoken with people from the Pakistani diaspora who feel targeted by this, people from the Bangladeshi diaspora who feel targeted by this and people from the broader Indian diaspora who feel targeted by this. They feel like they're being singled out by this government, and that's because they are. I want to share with you one letter that we got. This was a letter from Curtin University. They said: 'Curtin University has more than 7,000 international students from diverse countries including Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, the Philippines and Colombia. Most of the postgraduate students are international and most are over 35 years of age. Many older students move with their families and need time post study to allow their children to complete key schooling milestones. Students have also been here during the cost-of-living crisis, meaning their expenses have been greater than expected. Previously students expected they'd be able to recoup some of their expenses through a period of working here after study. This period of working also adds value to their study through Australian work experience.' Is it only the Greens who can read this kind of clear submission that's coming from the university sector? Has nobody else read these letters? They've been given to every senator. Every senator has been provided with a copy of them. Of course, the Greens believe there should be a very large influx of public funding into our universities so our universities aren't so reliant on international students. But the Greens also recognise the benefit that international students bring to this community. We recognise that these thousands and thousands of students came here expecting a fair deal. That fairness has been rubbed out by this. Another letter from a constituent said: 'International students contribute a great deal to our campus, to our course and to the economy and society of Western Australia. With the announcement of these proposed changes and the uncertainty surrounding them, our students are currently in a state of extreme distress, and the university has made additional counselling and other services available to them'. I'll just stop there. Isn't anyone in the government or the coalition concerned that policy changes are causing so much stress to these students, members of our community, that universities are having to put in additional counselling and other services to deal with it? Is no-one else concerned by this? The letter goes on: 'Students feel betrayed, having planned years of their lives around one set of rules, and are now in a state of shock and grief that the rules have changed and their plans will suddenly disappear. They expected to gain a qualification and work experience in Australia that they could take back to contribute to their own countries. Many will not be able to complete their degrees if they do not have the opportunity for the post-study employment that enables them to pay off their debt that is often well over A$50,000. Many of our students are from low-income countries. They've made financial sacrifices to study here and, in some cases, have given up jobs and homes. They've also been here during the cost-of-living crisis, meaning their expenses have been greater than expected. They now face the very real prospect of serious indebtedness with no prospects for earning the kind of income they require to pay down the debt. They are worried for themselves and their families.' This is the reality of these changes. That's why, together with my colleague Senator Faruqi, we're moving this disallowance motion today. If you believe in fairness—if you believe in even just sticking to the deals you offered to thousands and thousands of people who came to this country looking for their education and looking to secure their economic and their professional futures—I would urge you to support this disallowance. 18:06 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria The Minister representing the Minister for Education, Senator Watt, belled the cat in the Senate yesterday, when he said: … 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. The government's failure to manage Australia's international education sector with the requisite certainty and fairness is causing economic harm to Australian universities, private higher education providers, English language course providers and the vocational education and training, or VET, sector. After opening the floodgates to international students, the government covertly implemented policies which discriminated against regional and smaller universities and private higher education and VET providers by targeting the processing of student visa applications from these institutions. While the opposition won't be supporting the Greens disallowance motion, we continue to raise serious concerns about the damage the government is causing to Australia's international education sector. This is an immigration mess of the government's own making. 18:08 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The reality is that voting to disallow these regulations is a vote for unsustainably high migration and for a less targeted migration system. Of course, we can trust the Greens to not listen to the Australian community and to vote for unsustainably high migration while they also do everything they can to stop the government's agenda to build more homes in Australia and make it easier for Australians to get into the housing market. They continue to vote with the Liberals to block our housing measures while, at the same time, they take positions on these sorts of debates that would lead to unsustainably high migration. You can also trust the Liberals, particularly Senator Henderson, to misrepresent my remarks in the Senate yesterday. For reasons known only to her, Senator Henderson chose close to omit some of my comments yesterday—words to the effect that the pressure on our migration system and our migration numbers that is caused by the explosion in international student numbers is a direct result of the broken migration system and the broken international education system that the Liberals and Nationals put in place when they were in government. I can't imagine why Senator Henderson forgot to include that part of my remarks to the Senate yesterday. The changes to graduate visas in these regulations make three significant changes: firstly, they reduce the length of temporary graduate visas; secondly, they reduce the age eligibility from 50 to 35; and, thirdly, they simplify and rename the visas to make them easier to use. These were all recommendations of the migration review and of work completed by the Grattan Institute. These are key changes to help reduce migration back to sustainable, normal levels. Treasury forecast that, overall, these changes will reduce net overseas migration by 54,000 cumulatively over the next three years. The changes also build a fairer and more targeted migration system. The migration review found that graduates are among the largest cohort of permanently temporary migrants, who are vulnerable to exploitation. These changes that we're introducing help reduce the number of people who are permanently temporary while still providing pathways for the skilled workers we need. These regulations are critical to fixing our broken migration system that we inherited from the coalition by bringing down migration levels and by building a more targeted system. 18:10 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move: That the question now be put. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Senator McKim, I think, there being no other questions, that we were about to go to that question anyway. Are you happy to leave that motion? Senator McKIM JKM If that's the will of the Senate, that there are no other questions, then I withdraw that motion, which will allow you to put the substantive question. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU That would seem to be a more efficient use of the time of the Senate, Senator McKim. The question before the chamber is that the motion in the name of Senators Faruqi and Shoebridge for the disallowance of the Migration Amendment (Graduate Visas) Regulations 2024 be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [18:15]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Fawcett)

 11 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 27 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Fawcett, D. J. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. 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. Watt, M. P. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 COMMITTEES 91 COMMITTEES Economics References Committee 91 Reference 91 18:23 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Colbeck be agreed to.    

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

 31 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. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 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. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 BILLS 92 BILLS Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (More Support in the Safety Net) Bill 2024 92

Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (More Support in the Safety Net) Bill 2024

Second Reading 92 18:26 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory The Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (More Support in the Safety Net) Bill 2024 obviously seeks to increase the maximum rate of Commonwealth rent assistance by 10 per cent, or some $9.40 a week. While any increase is welcome, this obviously doesn't come close to what is needed. It also ignores two consecutive years worth of expert advice from the independent Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee. Last year, the EIAC recommended that the government increase the rate of CRA to reflect the long-term reduction and its inadequacy and reform its indexation to better reflect rent paid. While the Albanese government made much of its decision to raise CRA in last year's budget, the $30-per-fortnight increase in the minimum rate was wholly inadequate in the face of skyrocketing rents and fails to deliver on the committee's recommendations. As the committee pointed out, since 2000 the impact of rents growing faster than the rate of CRA has led to the maximum rate of CRA for singles falling, as a share of average housing costs from nearly 50 per cent to just above 30 per cent. The Henry tax review in 2009 recommended linking the maximum rate of CRA to the 25th percentile of paid rents in capital cities. This would represent an increase of over 190 per cent in the maximum threshold and an increase of 206 per cent in the maximum CRA payment. While things like the Henry tax review and many other good pieces of work by committees and experts that the government commissions to do reports often gather dust in some corner of a minister's office, this is urgent for so many Australians. More and more Australians are starting to ask why we're not seeing the government, in a meaningful way, address the growing wealth divide in this country and rising inequality, including rising intergenerational inequality. This year the EIAC's top two recommendations were to substantially increase JobSeeker and related work-age payments, as the increases in last year's budget were inadequate, and to improve the indexation arrangements and increase the rate of Commonwealth Rent Assistance. According to PropTrack average rents have increased 11.8 per cent since 22 June last year. That immediately wipes out any gains from this increase. In some areas it's even worse. Rental unit prices in Sydney and Melbourne have gone up by 19 and 17.5 per cent respectively over the last year. There are 1.2 million Australian households in rental stress. The vast majority of people receiving the payment continue to pay rents above the maximum amount of Commonwealth Rent Assistance—CRA. This means that CRA is not adequately addressing the additional costs faced by renters on government payments. As well as being the right thing for a wealthy country like Australia to do, it also costs the government far less to keep people in safe, secure housing now than dealing with an ever worsening homelessness crisis. Again, I would like to come back to the bigger question around housing in this country. What is housing for? Is housing something that everyone in our communities should be able to afford and should have access to—a roof over their head and somewhere to call home? We know that it is fundamental to human flourishing. I would say that everyone in this Senate wants the communities they represent to be able to flourish. Yet when it comes to housing we're not willing to actually go after the root causes of the issues that we're seeing around this country. When you look at housing availability and affordability, and a tax system that sets housing up not as something that should be affordable and accessible as a human right but rather as something that's an investment vehicle. That's how our tax system is set up and it's working exactly as intended, where if you're a first-home buyer and you turn up to an auction, chances are there will probably be an investor there who will outbid you. Investors get all sorts of tax incentives to do that. They can negatively gear their fifth, sixth, seventh investment property. We have a system where it is arguably easier to buy your second home than your first. That has to change, and that's not going to change by having a grab bag of policies that are all doing $20,000 here, $10,000 a year there, $30,000 over five years. We've got to start to go to the root cause of the cost-of-living crisis and address housing in a meaningful way. All options should be on the table and we have to be able to talk tax. We also need to be looking at our social security system. I believe we should be proud to be a country that chooses to have a safety net, that chooses to say to people, 'We actually have systems in place to look after you when you need support,' because we're an incredibly wealthy country and I think most people would agree with the egalitarian ideal that Australians hold dear, but that we're seeing fray and under increasing pressure as we kick the can down the road regarding serious reform when it comes to housing and to our social security system. As an incredibly wealthy country, we're saying to people, 'We have a social security system, but you'll be living below the poverty line.' Australia is a country where, whether we like it or not, to actually deal with things like inflation, unemployment needs to rise. We have to move past this rhetoric of lifters and leaners, and ensure that people who need the support can actually live above the poverty line. We saw what that did for singles and families doing it tough during COVID. All of a sudden, they didn't have to fret about how they were going to put food on the table. They didn't have to fret about the decision to go and see a doctor, to fill a script or to eat. They could actually look at how to get a job. What do I want to do? Is there a short course that I need to do? This is reinforced by expert advice saying that having a social security system that leaves people in poverty is actually an impediment to getting people back into work. This is costing us money in the long term. The government thinks it can save money by keeping people in poverty and by posting a budget surplus. But we're all going to pay at some point. We're already paying for that through people putting off health care, ending up in hospitals and people not having the services they need. Not more than a few hours ago, we were talking about the lack of investment in community legal services. Many people may see that as the ambulance on the bottom of the cliff, but that is also part of prevention, of giving families, particularly young people,  the early access to support they need to break that cycle. Yet, we've got a government that talks a big game about not leaving people behind but then celebrates increasing payments to a level that still means people are living in poverty. And, yes, we'll hear the government talk about the pressures on the budget. It may be a valid point and one I'd be willing to entertain if we were looking at things like the amount of gas we export for free. We're gifting our gas—the Australian people's gas—to multinationals to ship overseas and not pay petroleum resource rent tax and, in many cases, minimise their tax to less than one per cent. How is this a system that we're happy with? How can we, hand on heart, say to Australians doing it the toughest, to Australians who won't benefit from the tax cuts that we've heard the government crowing about this week, they won't benefit from that? What do we say to them about the fact that we're happy for them to live in poverty while we ship off our resources for free? INPEX, come and take our gas. You can send it offshore. Don't worry about the petroleum resource rent tax on that. Don't worry about your corporate tax. You can do some accounting where you carry forward your losses. That doesn't cut it. And that's what I hear from the people I represent here in the ACT. They want major parties to take this seriously. We are squandering our resources. We're giving them away, and, at the same time, we're saying we can't afford to have a system of Medicare that's universal access. We hear people talk about universal access. What I'm hearing is that that is not the case. Look at the statistics. That is not the case. We need to do better. This myopic focus on the short term has to end. Let's lift our gaze. Let's start to consider the next generation. Let's stop externalising costs onto the health system and the criminal justice system, where we pay the cost, and think we're saving money by having a system where people are living in poverty on JobSeeker and youth allowance. We're saying to a whole group of young people in placement poverty, when they go to do their placements: 'From next year, there's a select group that we're going to help out. To the rest of you, good luck. If you didn't happen to be born to wealthy parents, we're sorry about that. You'll have to make a plan.' We need to do better, and I urge the government to do better on this. You posted a budget surplus. There is a huge amount of money that we're just allowing to be shipped offshore. Do the right thing by Australians. Do the right thing by young Australians. This is possible. You have a Senate crossbench that is urging you to do better. We'd love you to raise the petroleum resource rent tax. We'd love to see you impose a windfall profits tax on companies that are making billions of dollars from the war in Ukraine and from the COVID pandemic. They didn't plan for those profits, and they didn't anything ingenious or special to deserve those profits. We've seen jurisdictions across the world recognise that and say, 'Actually, we're going to claw some of that back to deal with the problems we face.' Here in Australia, it's crickets from the major parties. They're very happy for these companies to walk away with billions and for us to turn around and say to people struggling to pay the rent, 'Here you go. Here's an extra $9.40 a week. We're doing a lot. We've got your back. No-one will be left behind.' Let's move beyond this as a country. I would urge you to act in line with what Australians want. If the major parties don't act, then Australians will continue to decide to vote for people who are actually going to come into this place and put Australians and our communities first and, as a wealthy country, map a way forward that deals with these issues. On that note I move: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes that: (i) the Bill increases the maximum rate of Commonwealth Rent Assistance by $9.40 per week, (ii) average rents across Australia have increased by 11.8 per cent since 22 June last year, completely negating the value of this increase to Commonwealth Rent Assistance; and (iii) the increase in assistance will therefore fail to reduce rental stress in the Australian community; and (b) calls on the Albanese Government to heed the consistent advice of the Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, and the previous advice of the Henry Tax Review, to substantially increase Commonwealth Rent Assistance and to reform how the payment is indexed". 18:42 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania This bill, the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (More Support in the Safety Net) Bill 2024, will provide welcome support for some of the most vulnerable people in our communities, and I'm proud to support that, even though, as many of my colleagues have mentioned, there's a lot more we can do in this space. But in a debate about Centrelink payments I couldn't really miss the opportunity to point out the glaring mistake that Labor has failed to fix, and it is that those receiving JobSeeker payments aren't exempt from paying income tax. This hasn't been a problem in the past; the payment hasn't gone above the tax-free threshold of $18,200. But because of increases to the payment and to indexation, JobSeeker payments have gone above the tax-free threshold for the first time ever. Around 25,000 people in Tasmania receive JobSeeker payments. This loophole means they'll have to pay back around $1,000 in tax to the federal government. A thousand bucks, to the federal government, is nothing. They wouldn't even stop to pick it up from the ground. But to someone on JobSeeker, having to shell out $1,000 to the government is absolutely devastating. It's the equivalent of two weeks payment. That could be their rent payment, it could be the difference between keeping their heater on or not, or it could be taking the kids to the doctor for a specialist appointment. Tasmania has the oldest, sickest and poorest population in the country, and some of the people doing it the toughest right now are those on JobSeeker payments. They're making difficult choices about whether to put food on the table, to put petrol in the car to fulfil their mutual obligations or to go to the doctor to check out that cough that's been hanging around for weeks. I know what it's like to live pay cheque to pay cheque. When I first left school, I worked on farms and in factories. It paid okay, but not a lot. I relied on Centrelink to make up the difference and to keep me afloat when the season was done and I was in between jobs. If someone told me back then that I'd be losing about $1,000 to the income tax man every year, I would've been devastated. It's a hit I wouldn't have been able to afford. The Labor government say they're doing all they can to help people doing it tough, but, if they really wanted to help people, they would have fixed this loophole already. Instead, the federal government is giving money with one hand to the most vulnerable people in our community and taking it away with the other. Before anyone can stand up and say, 'We can't make JobSeeker exempt from income tax for this reason or that reason,' let's put it into perspective. The age pension is exempt from income tax. If pensions aren't taxed, why is JobSeeker? It's meant to be a hand up, not a handout, so why are we forcing some of the most vulnerable people in our country to lodge a tax return and hand money back to the government? I'm calling on all parties to support my amendment to immediately fix this issue. I foreshadow my amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (More Support in the Safety Net) Bill 2024. 18:45 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I rise to speak to Senator Tyrrell's foreshadowed amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (More Support in the Safety Net) Bill 2024 in regard to the call that it makes for the government to make JobSeeker payments tax free. I want to be very clear that we have the utmost respect for Senator Tyrrell and for the motivation behind this amendment, which is absolutely to improve the lot of people on JobSeeker payments. As I've pointed out this week in the Senate and as others in the Australian Greens have pointed out this week in the Senate, people who are on JobSeeker payments are unemployed or underemployed through no fault of their own. Either they've been shifted from other forms of income support onto JobSeeker payments because of punitive policy changes over the last few decades from governments made up of establishment political parties or they are unemployed or underemployed because the employment market in Australia is deliberately structured as a matter of establishment party policy to ensure that there are more people seeking jobs than there are jobs. The reason that that is done by establishment political parties is very simple. It's because it keeps wages low. We found that out while listening closely in particular to former senator Cormann who said the quiet thing out loud when he said that low wages were a feature of the policy of the former Liberals-Nationals government in Australia. He said that when he was the finance minister. I well remember him saying that quiet thing out loud. The fact that low wages are a feature of Liberals-Nationals policy wouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone watching politics closely in this country over the last 30 or 40 years, but to have it stated so boldly and so overtly did come as a bit of a surprise. But the fact that it was stated so explicitly allows people who want to understand why people are unemployed or underemployed in this country to have that understanding: that low wages are a design principle of our employment policies in this country. That statement applies equally to governments from either side of the establishment spectrum here in Australia. The mechanism for delivering on that policy of keeping wages low is ensuring that there are more hours of work being sought in Australia than there are hours of work available. Then, of course, the laws of supply and demand kick in, and wages are lower than they otherwise would be. None of those words are Senator Tyrrell's. She may agree, or she may not; I don't know. But what I do know, having listened to her contribution, is that she has come in here today to try to make the life of people on JobSeeker better and she's trying to make sure they have more dollars in their pockets. Do they need more dollars in their pockets? Absolutely they need more dollars in their pockets. That's why it's been a longstanding position of the Australian Greens that the JobSeeker payment should be raised to $88 a day. This would lift people on JobSeeker out of poverty. In fact, we don't only have a policy of raising JobSeeker to $88 a day; we have a policy of raising all income support payments to $88 a day. That would allow people who are unemployed or underemployed through no fault whatsoever of their own to lead a dignified life. That would allow them the opportunity to have a decent home; to be able to put food on the table for themselves or their families, if they've got a family; and to engage in other aspects of life that so many of us have the privilege of being able to take for granted but that people on JobSeeker can only dream of because they simply can't afford to engage in those elements of life that we all in this place would undoubtedly take for granted because of our financial privilege. I do want to say, through you, Acting Deputy President, to Senator Tyrrell, that the Greens aren't in the business of making tax policy on the run, so we're not in a position to be able to support Senator Tyrrell's amendment today. But I do want to thank her for bringing it on, to acknowledge the generosity of spirit that is behind this motion and to explain to the chamber, again, that, rather than effectively taking JobSeeker payments outside the tax system or raising the tax-free threshold—it's not clear which of those mechanisms Senator Tyrrell's motion would trigger—it is the Greens position to raise JobSeeker to $88 a day. In effect, that comes from the same place as Senator Tyrrell's second reading amendment on this legislation, and, for avoidance of doubt, that place is where a motivation to improve the financial circumstances of people on JobSeeker stems from. While we aren't able to support the mechanism proposed by Senator Tyrrell's amendment, we do acknowledge her and thank her for bringing this on. Through my contribution today, I hope colleagues can come to an understanding that the Australian Greens absolutely believe that the financial circumstances of people on JobSeeker in this country need to be improved. Poverty in Australia, in a wealthy country like this, is a political choice, and it has been made by too many governments of both political stripes, the establishment parties, for far too long. Something needs to change. The way the Australian Greens will go about changing that situation and improving the financial lives of people on JobSeeker and, in fact, of everyone on all streams of income support is to raise all income support to $88 a day, which would haul so many Australians out of poverty and allow them to lead a dignified life. 18:54 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I'd first like to thank all senators who have participated in the debate on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (More Support in the Safety Net) Bill 2024. The Albanese Labor government is working for all Australians and, with our measures in this year's budget, we are providing responsible cost-of-living relief that eases pressure on people and doesn't add to inflation. The measures in this bill are complemented by new power bill relief, cheaper medicines, the extended freeze on social security deeming rates, strengthening Medicare and, of course, the delivery of tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer. From this week, on average, Australian taxpayers will receive a tax cut of $36 each week. Through this bill, we are further strengthening Australia's social security safety net with targeted and responsible cost-of-living support which eases pressure on people and does not add to inflation. The government recognises that many people are struggling with high rental costs, and this bill increases the maximum rates of Commonwealth rent assistance by a further 10 per cent, providing recipients with more support to manage their rental pressures. This builds on the Albanese government's increase to maximum rates in the last budget and means that, combined with indexation, by 20 September 2024, when this measure is due to commence, maximum rates of rental assistance will have increased by over 40 per cent since the Albanese government was elected in May 2022. Regular indexation will be applied on top on the same day. This bill also expands eligibility for the higher JobSeeker rate, extending access to single recipients who have been assessed as only being able to work less than 15 hours per week due to a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment. These recipients will receive at least an extra $59.90 in support each fortnight. Subject to the passage of this bill, this measure will also commence from 20 September 2024. This is the same day as a regular indexation of JobSeeker payments, which means the actual increase will be higher. This measure builds on our changes to payments in the last budget, including the $40-per-fortnight base rate increase for working-age and student payments and extending the higher rate of JobSeeker payment to single Australians aged 55 or over who have been on payments long term down from 60. Expanding eligibility for the higher JobSeeker rate to those cohorts is designed to strengthen the system by better targeting support to people based on their age, stage and circumstances. Alongside the targeted increase in income support, the government remains committed to our workforce participation agenda. The third measure of this bill introduces more flexibility for carer payment recipients to manage their work commitments and caring responsibilities, aligning with the government's road map in the employment white paper to remove barriers to employment and improve workforce participation. This includes provisions to change the 25 hours per week participation limit for carer payment recipients to instead allow up to 100 hours over a four-week settlement period, effective from 20 March 2025. Changes will also be made to ensure education and volunteering activities will no longer be counted in the participation limit. This measure also introduces a six-month suspension period for recipients who work over the new flexible limit, meaning, if their circumstances change, they won't need to reapply to access the carer payment. They will also retain their pensioner concession card during this period. Policy changes will remove travel time from the calculation of the 100-hour participation limit. Policy changes will also provide for the use of single temporary cessation of care days for one-off or occasional instances of exceeding the participation limit. Combined, these measures are designed to give carers, who are predominantly women, greater flexibility and choice to structure their work, study or volunteering commitments around their caring responsibilities. These measures provide responsible relief, including to some of the most vulnerable in our community, and help to remove barriers to work for carers. The Albanese Labor government believes in a strong and sustainable social security system, and, with these measures, we are providing more support in the safety net. I will now touch on Senator Tyrrell's second reading amendment. The government will not be supporting this amendment. The social security system already provides tax offsets and support for income support recipients. A range of tax offsets ensure that most income support recipients with low to moderate levels of private income pay no or limited tax. For instance, the beneficiary tax offset is available to recipients of allowance payments, such as the JobSeeker payment. The tax offset directly reduces the amount of tax an income support recipient may have to pay. An income support recipient already pays no tax for the year if they receive any of the qualifying allowances and payments, and have no other taxable income. The low-income tax offset is also available to individuals with taxable income below certain thresholds. This is currently $66,667 for recipients of JobSeeker payments and other taxable allowances. Where there's an expectation they will undertake paid work, taxability of their payment avoids the situation where a person in receipt of a benefit for part of the year and in work for the remainder of the year could be better off than a person who worked for the whole year for the same total income. I commend the bill to the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 There are two second reading amendments, and I will put the questions on those. I note, of course, that there will be no divisions this evening and that any divisions required will be held over until tomorrow. The first question before the chamber is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator David Pocock be agreed to. A division having been called, the division will be held tomorrow. Senator Tyrrell, earlier today you foreshadowed your second reading amendment. Can you now formally move it? 19:03 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania I move: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes that: (i) for the first time ever, individuals receiving Jobseeker payments for the entire 2023-24 financial year will earn above the tax-free threshold, (ii) these individuals will need to pay income tax to the Government on those payments; and (iii) the Age Pension is tax-free; and (b) calls on the Government to make Jobseeker payments tax-free". Question negatived. 19:04 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania by leave—I withdraw the call for a division tomorrow. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 The question in front of the chamber is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator David Pocock be agreed to. Question negatived. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee 97 19:06 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland At the beginning of the committee stage, it's important that we engage with the substance of the bill before us, the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (More Support in the Safety Net) Bill 2024. Yet this bill is of extremely little substance. JobKeeper is a poverty payment. With rents soaring and groceries going through the roof, people on income support are increasingly hungry and homeless, and I think that it's a special kind of cruelty to force people into poverty, tell them you're doing what you can to help them and then have the government only offering a handful of payment increases. We are a wealthy country, and we should be increasing income support for people who are on the lowest incomes in the country and who, as Senator Pocock and Senator McKim said earlier, are not going to benefit from the stage 3 tax cuts that the government has been telling everybody that everybody is getting. Minister, do you think that people living on income support, which is well below the poverty line, should be forced to continue to live below the poverty line? 19:08 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I'm a little bit offended by that question. Of course the Australian Labor government is doing everything that it can to ensure that targeted funding goes to where it is needed. This is a bill that shouldn't be viewed in isolation, and I went to great lengths, I thought, in my second reading contribution to talk about what the Albanese government has been doing over the last two budgets, since we got elected, to put in place targeted relief for people who are on the social services system. I'll say this again: the measures that are in this bill build on the government's safety net measures in the last budget, which increased working-age and student payments by $40 a fortnight; expanded eligibility for the higher rate of JobSeeker; expanded parenting payment (single) to parents until their child turns 14; and increased the maximum rate of commonwealth rent assistance by 15 per cent. As has been said in a number of the contributions so far today, the contribution that's in the bill before us builds on the 15 per cent contribution delivered in the last budget. There have been two rental assistance contributions in a row, which taken together amount to an increase of 40 per cent. I think Senator Allman-Payne is well aware of those commitments. As someone who has actually lived on unemployment benefits, I'm quite well aware of the need to have assistance going to the most vulnerable in our society. 19:10 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland To be clear, I'm well aware of the other measures that the government has taken. However, the government's own hand-picked Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee has stated that income support payments, in their view, should be increased at least to 90 per cent of the pension. This goes nowhere near that. I also appreciate that the minister has said that they themselves have been on income support. I would suggest to the minister that it hasn't been recently. What we know is that income support has not increased much beyond indexation for far too long. We have one of the lowest income support payments in the OECD. We had hundreds of submissions and advocates telling the government that increasing income support above the poverty line is the single biggest thing you can do to assist people in this country—the three million people in this country who are living in poverty, the one in six kids in this country who are living in poverty—and the Labor opposition went to an election telling people that no-one would be left behind. So, again, I ask the minister, is it the view of the government that people on income support should still be expected to live below the poverty line? 19:12 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania Since the Albanese government was elected, the base rate of JobSeeker for a single person has increased by $120 per fortnight. This is as a result of the government's real increase to rates in the last budget of $40 per fortnight along with regular indexation. This is an increase of 18.7 per cent in two years. This is the largest ever nominal increase to unemployment benefits per cent in a two-year period, providing over $3,100 in additional support a year. It is the largest increase in real terms in more than 40 years. JobSeeker is designed as a temporary payment to support people while they look for work or are temporarily incapacitated or unwell. It is not supposed to replace lost wages or earnings. For those who do face barriers to work, there are higher rates of payment available. This includes parents with dependents as well as older Australians. As a result of the government's measures in this bill, job seekers with an assessed partial capacity to work of less than 15 hours a week will also be able to access the higher rate. This builds on the government's measures in the previous budget to extend eligibility for the higher rate from people aged 60 and over, to people aged 55 and over, who are on payments for nine continuous months. For these cohorts, shifting from the base rate to the higher rate means they receive more than $4½ thousand each year in additional support since this government was elected. That's an extra $170 per fortnight. The government is doing what we can to provide more support to those who need it most while balancing other fiscal responsibilities and putting downward pressure on inflation. 19:15 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland Minister, I'd like to put it to you that 20 per cent, 18 per cent, of hardly anything at all is not much. It still doesn't get those people who are living below the poverty line above it. Minister, this is the second year in a row that the government has ignored the advice of its own hand-picked Economic Inclusion Advisory Committee, which is headed up by a former Labor minister. Is it the permanent position of the Labor government that you will never raise the rate above the poverty line, as the Liberal government did during the COVID pandemic? 19:16 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania The government acknowledges and thanks the members of the committee for the important work they do. I'd also like to make the point that the committee's report this year included 22 recommendations. In addition to its recommendation on the adequacy of working age payments, it recommended a further increase to Commonwealth rental assistance, the removal of barriers to employment and support for families as well as a recommendation around the purpose of the social security system. On rent assistance, over the course of the last two budgets the government has delivered two real increases to maximum rates, providing more support to almost a million recipient households to help them manage rental pressures. If this bill passes, from 20 September maximum rates, combined with indexation, will have increased by over 40 per cent since the Albanese government was elected. We are also implementing the committee's recommendation in this year's report for changes to the carer payment to remove barriers to workforce participation. More broadly, the advice of the committee is used to inform a range of policy processes across government, not just budget measures, including the Measuring what matters report and the employment white paper. 19:17 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland Minister, we've heard a lot of late about the fact that we're in a skills crisis and that we have significant skills shortages across our economy. I live in regional Queensland, and I can attest to the fact that we have a shortage of doctors, nurses and other allied health professionals. As you know, I was a teacher. I have a partner, a daughter and many friends who are teachers, and I can tell you categorically that we have a teacher shortage. When the committee heard evidence in relation to this legislation and also during the poverty inquiry, we heard from large numbers of students who told the committee that many students are choosing not to continue their studies or are falling behind in their studies because they can't afford to live on youth allowance. Does the government understand or accept that by again refusing to raise the rate of youth allowance and support for students who are studying they are in fact contributing to the skills crisis that we are currently experiencing? 19:19 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania As I've already stated, the government is doing what we can to provide more support to those who need it most, and this budget and the last budget demonstrate that commitment. 19:19 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland Minister, why has the government taken the decision to move 4,700 JobSeeker participants onto a higher rate rather than the disability support pension? (Quorum formed) 19:22 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania The disability support pension is intended for recipients that have a physical, intellectual or psychiatric condition that is likely to persist for more than two years. The condition must be diagnosed, reasonably treated and stabilised and the person must also be assigned a qualifying score under the DSP impairment tables. Unlike DSP, the JobSeeker payment is intended for people with a temporary incapacity to work. The JSP recipients with a PCW of zero to 14 hours per week have been assessed in terms of whether there will be a functional improvement within two years. A higher payment rate would assist impacted jobseekers to support themselves to a greater extent while still pursuing work for its social and economic benefits. The JSP recipients with a PCW may also be eligible for a temporary incapacity exemption from mutual obligation requirements. 19:24 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland Minister, I'm interested in how the government calculated moving JobSeeker recipients with partial capacity to work of zero to 14 hours per week to a higher rate. What considerations did the government have as part of that decision? 19:25 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania The higher rate is recognition that some people face barriers to work. 19:25 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland Could you please explain, then, Minister, why this bill moves those with a partial capacity of zero to 14 hours onto a higher rate of JobSeeker, instead of, for example, those with a partial capacity of 15 to 22 hours? 19:25 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania The change targets additional assistance to those who, in the cohort with a partial capacity to work, have the most significantly reduced capacity to work. Recipients with a partial capacity to work of 15 or more hours a week are more likely to engage in the workforce and supplement income support with earnings. For instance, around nine per cent of JobSeeker payment recipients with a partial capacity to work of less than 15 hours report earnings. JobSeeker payment recipients with a partial capacity to work of 15 to 29 hours per week are more likely to experience the benefit of work, with around 62,000 recipients reporting earnings—around 18 per cent of the cohort, which is broadly consistent with the overall JobSeeker payment population. 19:27 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland Minister, what percentage of households in rented accommodation will receive the rent assistance increase? 19:27 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania The Commonwealth rent assistance payment goes to recipients inside the social security system. 19:28 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland Minister, are you telling me that you don't know the percentage of households in rented accommodation that will receive the rent assistance increase? I didn't ask if they were inside or outside. I simply asked what percentage of households in rented accommodation will receive the rent assistance increase. Senator Carol Brown F49 Sorry, Senator Allman-Payne, I just want to clarify. Are you asking how many people will receive Commonwealth rent assistance? Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 For clarity, there are probably two questions there. The first question is: what percentage of households in Australia who rent will benefit from this rent assistance increase? That's of all renters, and I would expect the department to have figures on the percentage of people who rent. Then I'm happy to add a second question, which is: of the people who currently receive Commonwealth rent assistance, what percentage will receive this increase? 19:29 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania It's around a quarter of the households that rent. Progress reported. ADJOURNMENT 100 ADJOURNMENT Cost of Living 100 19:30 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia I want to rise today and wish everybody a very happy 1 July, for Monday. We are at the beginning of the financial year. As much as we didn't see a countdown on the television on Sunday night to midnight and we didn't see fireworks on Sydney Harbour Bridge, it is a momentous point in time when we deserve to have a celebration by talking about exactly what happened on 1 July to make the lives of all Australians better. We know we've got a significant financial crisis that has been brewing around the world for a number of years, and people are really, really feeling the pinch. Monday 1 July marked the day that every single working Australian got a tax cut. That's 13.6 million Australians who, from Monday, get to keep, on average, $1,900 more of what they earn each year. That's 84 per cent of taxpayers who are better off under Labor's plan. The previous tax plan by the previous government, those opposite—the Liberal and National parties—was targeted just for those people who have so much more. Under Labor, we are delivering for people who are low and middle incomes. From Monday, we not only saw 13.6 million Australian taxpayers receive a tax cut but also saw Australian households receive $300 off their energy bills. We saw 2.6 million workers get their third consecutive pay rise. We saw the maximum cost of PBS medicine frozen and many more new medicines added to the PBS. That's before we start talking about the significant improvements we've seen for people doing it tough through things like our fee-free TAFE to help people study and learn and get into those jobs they dream of and before we start looking at the cheaper child care moves we've made, which are having a significant impact on the economic circumstances of women, in particular, across our country in being able to put their children into child care and afford to work more if they wish and to go back to work if they wish. Two extra weeks of paid parental leave also come into play this week. These are significant changes that are going to make a difference in people's lives. They're going to make a difference to those families and to those people out there we know are struggling and making challenging decisions every single day with their household budgets. Of course, it's not just that. Over here, on the Labor side, we understand that cost-of-living pressures are many and varied. Therefore, we know that we need to do a range of different things. This isn't just about a sugar hit to the economy of putting money in people's bank accounts for a one-off scenario, as much as it sounds attractive. What we're doing is fundamentally restructuring our economy. We are doing structural things that will make a difference long into the future, not just a one-off. It will be an ongoing advantage to people out there to help them cope with the challenges we know that are front and centre. But we're also putting downward pressure on inflation. Again, I'm coming to that structural piece. We have much lower gross debt now, which results in—funnily enough!—lower interest payments. People understand that. When interest payments go up, you pay more and more. We have gross debt down to the point where we're paying $80 billion less than at the peak of those interest payments under the coalition government. That goes to being able to rechannel things and make a difference to those people who are struggling. We have a vision. We are looking at a sustainable future for Australia where low- and middle-income people are cared for as much as anyone. (Time expired) North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency 101 19:35 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia Where there are vulnerable people, there are those seeking to exploit. We must leave them nowhere to hide and nowhere to thrive. Failures in governance are foreseeable, preventable and potentially fixable, but there are some that are simply not. Adequate criteria, reporting, evaluation, assessment, regulation and legislation should be enough, although history tells us it is not. It is high expectations and courage to act that make the difference. On this measure, this government's performance is woeful. The Albanese government has watched the chaos that is the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency for some 12 months, looking for excuses not to act. A board that's led an organisation into chaos is not likely the one that's going to fix it. Surely, there are enough smart people in the Albanese government and in the Attorney-General's Department to run the ruler over the discharge of director duties? There have been up to five acting CEOs in 12 months. Countless employees have come and gone. There's been silence, near nothing, from associated and other Aboriginal community controlled organisations. The Albanese government has been slow, irresponsible and gutless, even, in doing something practical, timely and effective to address it. How is that possible, when crime rates are going up in the Northern Territory and so is family violence, children in child protection and people being incarcerated at record levels, that NAAJA has nearly $3 million in unspent funds? There were clearly indications something was up. I've been told in Senate estimates this government conducts due diligence before deploying taxpayers' money, but how can that be true? How can due diligence have been done when simple searches and questions uncover the following? Government funded organisations are employing people without police checks or working-with-children checks such that convicted criminals are making critical operational, contractual and financial decisions. Government agencies are unable to confirm they or the organisations they fund are compliant with the Commonwealth's own child safe framework. There's also a community controlled organisation recently funded by this government that the regulator's website reports has four directors and a membership of four. So every single member is a director. Organisational charts read more like family trees, with so many employed relatives it reflects a family business, only it's funded by taxpayers. An organisation given millions for the extension of a trial program required no reporting and no evaluation until the program was long finished. Organisations have been funded where not even directors are registered with their own corporate regulator let alone compliant with minimum government standards. Many organisations exist where there's not a single director with formal qualifications in accounting, law, governance or human resources, despite receiving millions in taxpayers' money—not a single director. How can that be? If it weren't so serious, it would be considered laughable. But this is far from funny. When services don't deliver, there are victims, and they are the very people the services exist to serve. For them, we should demand even better. If you are going to be on a board there are financial responsibilities, delivery responsibilities and regulatory compliance responsibilities. All directors should have the capacity to discharge their duties as directors, whatever the sector. When these organisations are Aboriginal community controlled, indigeneity is not the only thing they should have in their CV or that they happen to be interested in the job or are available. I say taking an interest, acting on anomaly and expecting high performance are a must when delivering to vulnerable people. Instead, this government is ignoring the obvious, rewarding poor performance and turning its back on what matters: the vulnerable clients depending on it. This government knows these examples of poor governance, maladministration and maybe even fraud and corruption need further exploration. None of it would pass the pub test, let alone the legislation or regulation that enables it. I've raised these issues with ministers in Senate estimates, in budget estimates and in this chamber, yet the Albanese government, the Australian Greens and their friendly Independents still reject any suggestion of an audit. An audit is long overdue. The evidence is in for an audit. Drain the swamp. Let the greens shoots sprout and prosper. Use community standards, common sense, regulation and legislation to lead the way to a right and proper outcome. Bring on the audit. Neuroblastoma 101 19:40 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania 'The lengths you have to go to in order to save the life of a kid. The desperation, the hopelessness, and a health minister telling you on the phone that, unfortunately, we just have to wait. There is no tomorrow for some kids.' These are the words of Tyler Richardson, whose son, Harris, is currently battling high-risk neuroblastoma, a highly aggressive cancer that affects young children. Tyler is the lead singer of a well-known and beloved Tassie band, Luca Brasi, and has been able to use his profile and platform to raise awareness of neuroblastoma. I sincerely thank Tyler and his family for speaking out on this insidious disease during this very tough time. As a father myself, I can't begin to imagine what Tyler and Alex and so many others are currently going through. Only 50 per cent of children diagnosed with high-risk neuroblastoma survive, typically after enduring intensive and painful treatment that can result in permanent hearing loss, organ damage and infertility. The rate of relapse for these children is 50 per cent, and the survival rate for those who do relapse plummets to around five per cent. But, critically, there is hope. There's a drug called DFMO that has demonstrated excellent results in reducing the risk of relapse. We know this drug can save lives. The US recently approved it, yet our government is senselessly letting paperwork and approvals get in the way of Australian children receiving the potentially life-saving treatment both here and overseas. DFMO has been lodged with Australia's TGA, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, and has, thankfully, been granted a status which exempts Norgine, the pharmaceutical company making the drug, from a range of fees that normally apply to registration. However, Norgine's application could take up to 255 business days, up to a year, to be processed by the TGA. Sadly, some children battling neuroblastoma don't have a year to wait, and some Australian families are having to personally fundraise hundreds of thousands of dollars to travel to the US, which is the only way they can access this life-saving drug. But this overseas travel comes at an exorbitant cost, not just financial but also emotional. The drug must be taken several times across a two-year period, meaning families must uproot their lives and make multiple trips overseas simply to access a couple of tablets. This is a risky and inefficient approach, as children treated with high-risk neuroblastoma are immunocompromised. They should not have to travel overseas when they are so vulnerable, only to go to a hospital to be administered a few pills, especially when there's a simpler solution. It's one I've written to health minister Mark Butler about. The federal government could fund the estimated $5 million to $15 million for DFMO treatment over two years in Australian hospitals under a special access scheme. That $15 million is 0.1 per cent of the federal health budget. This funding is a drop in the ocean compared to the $368 billion the government plans to spend on nuclear submarines or the $11 billion in annual federal subsidies going to polluting fossil fuel companies who make millions of dollars in profits. Governments make decisions about priorities, and how can it not be a priority to try and save the lives of children and make such an incredible difference to their loved ones who are supporting them? To deny children the right to life-saving medicine is unimaginably cruel. We need a solution urgently. We need funding urgently. Children with neuroblastoma do not have the time to wait for paperwork and approvals. Equity and accessibility of drugs that save lives is needed now to give kids like Harris the best possible chance of survival. Manufacturing Industry, Warrington, Mr Michael (Wally), Tasmanian JackJumpers 102 19:45 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania Well, this is another historic day in this building, with the Albanese Labor government proudly introducing its Future Made in Australia legislation into the parliament. I'm very proud as an Australian and even prouder as a Tasmanian, because I know Australia has a reputation for inventing and producing world-class products in all sectors of our economy, and we are blessed with the resources, intelligence and ingenuity to build everything we need for our future. We can be self-sustaining with everything we need, and we can make it right here in Australia. Australia has leading industries, world-class resources and the smartest workers on the planet. Put simply, A Future Made in Australia is about seizing the opportunities of the move to renewable energy while becoming a country that makes more things in its own backyard. This is a significant commitment, and I thank the Minister for Industry and science, the Hon. Ed Husic, for the work he and the department have put into the nation-building policy. During 2022, Minister Husic visited northern Tasmania and witnessed firsthand how Tasmania has continued, for over 100 years, making things in my home state. We visited Waverley Woollen Mills and were both inspired by Tasmanian workers making world's-best products from Tasmanian wool at the oldest working mill in the country. If we can replicate this type of achievement, hard work and resilience across the rest of the country by making more things right here, we will be an even stronger and better country for it and we certainly will have a stronger economy. We can no longer rely on the rest of the world for the products that we need when we have the capacity to make them right here. The Future Made in Australia fund is a $22.7 billion funding commitment that, over the next 10 years, will be put into businesses considered critical for the net-zero transition, as well as sectors that boost the national economic resilience and security. This is a plan for Australia's future, a plan for economic security. We never saw anything like this plan from the former government over their decade in government. For businesses to benefit from the policy, they will need to adhere to five community benefit principles, including secure and well-paying jobs, social goals and skill development. I'm immensely proud of this policy. Australia has everything we need to meet our goal of net-zero emissions by 2050 and become a renewable energy superpower. We're backing Australian inventors, our innovators and our manufacturers to build the next generation of solar cell batteries and clean energy technologies right here in Australia. I'd now like to turn to another issue. I'm so proud of our democracy, but to have a democracy and to be here in the Senate we rely on many people. We rely on our clerks to guide us through the process, but it's also the Senate attendants who look after us day in, day out, and I'd like to pay recognition to Wally Warrington, who has been doing that for 15 long years. Who knows how many senators he's seen pass through this place? I am going to last a little bit longer than Wally, but I wanted to put this on record, because I know I speak for every senator in saying that we appreciate the smile when you walk through the door first thing in the morning. The attendants are there to deliver a lectern or a glass of water to you when you need one, but it's just knowing that you have those people that are reliable and are always going to look after our interests. So a big shout-out to Wally. Fifteen years in this place is a long time. All the very best for your future. We all greatly appreciate your contribution to democracy. Now I want to turn to Tasmania again and to the great Tasmanian JackJumpers. We have two basketballers in the Boomers Olympic team. They played China last night, and it was Jack McVeigh, an outstanding JackJumper who has made basketball what is in Tasmania—a great game last night. (Time expired) Senate adjourned at 19:50