DOCUMENTS

2024-08-13 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Tuesday, 13 August 2024

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

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 12:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised. MOTIONS 1 MOTIONS Middle East 1 12:01 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I seek leave to move a motion relating to Palestine, as circulated in the chamber. Leave not granted. Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Pursuant to contingent notice of motion standing in the name of Senator Waters, I move: That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion in relation to Palestine, and give precedence to the motion in relation to that subject. The Australian Greens motion today is asking the Australian government to take action that is within its control, to place sanctions upon members of the Netanyahu government. This motion is an opportunity for the government to take decisive action and to send a meaningful message that the actions and words of those leading a genocide are not acceptable to our community here in Australia. Let's be clear. The Australian government uses autonomous sanctions all the time. The question is: why, 300 days into this invasion, has the Australian government not placed sanctions on any individuals responsible for the genocide that is being perpetrated by the State of Israel? The Australian government has placed 703 autonomous sanctions on the Republic of Iran, 568 on Syria and over 1,300 upon the Russian Federation—and, yet, this government is yet to place a single sanction upon any individual responsible for the genocide in Gaza. Today's motion comes to the Senate in the context of Netanyahu's finance minister, Mr Smotrich, despicably stating that starving two million people 'might be just and moral'. This government has noted that starving millions of people is a war crime, yet we have seen no tangible consequence. Think about that: a senior minister of the Netanyahu government describes starving two million people as something that 'might be just and moral', and there is no sanction from the Australian government—no tangible consequence. The global community is demanding action. The International Court of Justice handed down an advisory opinion that stated clearly that the State of Israel's continued presence in the occupied territories is unlawful. To comply with this ruling, the Australian Centre of International Justice has called on the Australian government to take decisive action, including applying targeted sanctions and imposing an arms embargo. The genocide has been going on for over 300 days. That's 300 days of war crimes, and over 40,000 Palestinian people have been killed in that time. The community expects the Australian government to do what is in its control—to say, 'Enough is enough.' The motion today would draw a clear line in the sand. The individuals who are responsible for perpetrating genocide are to face consequences for their actions. Today the Greens and the community ask senators to vote yes to recognising the State of Israel's actions for what they are—war crimes and crimes against humanity—and to demand that their perpetrators be held accountable. The Australian government must cancel their contracts with weapons and arms manufacturers such as Elbit Systems. We must expel the State of Israel's ambassador to Australia. We must sanction Prime Minister Netanyahu and his security cabinet, and we must keep calling for peace until we have a permanent ceasefire. 12:06 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania This is yet another piece of one-sided grandstanding by the Greens for their own political purposes. What we have here today is a suspension of standing orders to allow debate on a motion which doesn't mention Hamas, which doesn't mention the Islamic Republic of Iran and its terrorist network, and which doesn't call for hostages to be released. The context in which the Australian Greens seek to suspend standing orders to debate this stunt today is that this week the Islamic Republic of Iran regime is broadcasting its intention to mount a massive attack on Israel and Israeli civilians. The IRI regime is openly stating its intent to do so in coordination with designated terrorist organisations Hezbollah and Hamas—once again putting the civilians of Gaza and Lebanon in danger, as those terrorist groups fire rockets from within civilian areas and hide beneath civilian homes to use innocent people as human shields. Any reasonable and responsible person knows and accepts that since 7 October the Islamic Republic of Iran has used its terror network to put the lives of civilians in danger, not just in Israel but also in Gaza, Lebanon, Iraq and elsewhere. Yet, as the IRI openly threatens to massively escalate this war, today we have the Greens once again coming into the Senate and seeking to suspend standing orders with a one-sided stunt designed to appeal to their political base, which attacks Israel at every opportunity. It is a sign that, again, the Greens seek to foster division in Australia for their own political advantage and to grandstand on an issue that indeed does involve enormous human tragedy. None of us like to see this loss of civilian life and the tragedy that has occurred. We all wish to see a peaceful end to this conflict, but a peaceful end means that hostages must be released and that the terrorists must be disarmed. Of course, we must demand an end to the repeated threats from the IRI regime to eradicate Israel, which are even being circulated here in Australia. Instead of making those necessary and important points, this attempt by the Greens to suspend standing orders today completely ignores them. This is an attempt to focus the news cycle on anti-Israel sentiment at the exact same time that the Islamic Republic of Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah are plotting a potentially catastrophic attack on a democratic partner of Australia. Israel is a democracy. That means there is democratic accountability at the ballot box for elected officials, their statements and their actions, and there are legal processes in place for those who are alleged to have broken the law. But what the Greens are attempting to do here is suspend the standing orders of this chamber to pronounce judgement on officials in another democracy, while simultaneously refusing to reference in any respect the terrorist actions of the IRI regime of Hamas and Hezbollah. The bipartisan motion that both chambers of this parliament passed last October unequivocally condemned the terrorist attacks of 7 October on Israel by Hamas, including the targeting and murder of women and children, the taking of hostages and the indiscriminate firing of rockets. These attacks resulted in the biggest loss of Jewish life on a single day since the Holocaust. Hamas still holds around 120 hostages captive, and Hamas hides those hostages, just as it hides its terrorist militias and terrorist military equipment amongst Palestinian civilians and civilian infrastructure, increasing the tragic toll on innocent Palestinians. Hamas and supporters in Hezbollah continue to fire rockets indiscriminately at Israel, seeking to inflict maximum pain and death on Israel's civilians and soldiers alike. They and their supporters in Iran continue to call for the death of all Jews and for Israel's destruction. No nation could or would live with this sort of threat to its citizens. In our bipartisan motion last October, the chambers of this parliament resolutely made clear that we stand with Israel and we recognise its inherent right to defend itself. We acknowledged the devastating loss of Israeli and Palestinian life and that the innocent civilians on all sides are suffering as a result of the attacks by Hamas and the subsequent conflict. This motion made clear Australia's support for humanitarian access to Gaza, the protection of civilian lives and the observance of international law, and that remains the position of the coalition. Israel has every right to defend itself in response and to deter future attacks and other acts of aggression, coercion and interference. 12:11 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The government does not support this suspension of standing orders, and, as we've said a number of times, there are ample opportunities in this chamber to pursue arguments in relation to the conflict in the Middle East if the Greens should choose to do so. We have MPIs and urgency motions—a whole range of time and daily allocation that could be used—and a suspension will not be supported by the government. I would say, since we've last met in this place, I think everyone in this place and, indeed, around the country has watched with concern and horror at the continuing conflict in the Middle East and at some of the escalation that we've seen happening in the Middle East. The government has made its position very clear on a number of occasions, including three Fridays ago, in a joint statement with Canada and New Zealand, about its views around what's happening in that part of the world. The deaths and devastation in Gaza cannot continue, and the escalation that we're seeing in that region makes a ceasefire even more urgent, if that's possible. We condemn the unacceptable deaths of innocent civilians as a result of Israel's operations in recent weeks, and we have been calling for a ceasefire for nine months now. We've called on parties to immediately agree to President Biden's UNSC endorsed ceasefire proposals, and we acknowledge that civilians are caught in the middle and that they must be protected. At the same time, hostages must be released, and humanitarian access must be increased. But let's be clear about what this suspension from the Greens is all about; it's for Australia to cut diplomatic ties with Israel altogether. There are 160 countries with diplomatic relations with Israel. We have diplomatic relations because it is in our interests to do so, because this is how we put our views and advance our interests in the international community. We've put our view that we need an immediate ceasefire, an increase in humanitarian access, the release of hostages and the prevention of regional escalation. We've put our view that Israel must adhere to international humanitarian law and that civilians must be protected. This includes when we joined with partners in condemning the comments by the Israeli finance minister about starving civilians, because the deliberate starvation of civilians is a war crime. On the subject of sanctions, the government has already imposed sanctions on several Israeli extremists and will deny anyone identified as an extremist settler a visa to travel to Australia. As for further sanctions, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade advises that no countries have applied the sanctions that the Greens have called for. Moreover, governments never speculate on sanctions, which the Greens know, but they have decided to play political games with this issue. They are trying to reproduce the conflict here for their own gain, as other members of this government have drawn to the public's attention, despite all the warnings about the cost to our community from taking this approach. The international community is trying to dial down the temperature in the Middle East. It would be nice if some in this chamber tried the same approach. I move: That the question be put. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the closure motion as moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to.

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

36 AYES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 11 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

12:21 The PRESIDENT 112096 I'll now put the suspension motion as moved by Senator Steele-John. The question is that the motion to suspend as moved by Senator Steele-John be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:22]
(The President—Senator Lines)

11 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 35 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sharma, D. N. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

Consideration of Legislation 4 12:26 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024, allowing it to be considered during this period of sittings. The Albanese Labor government has introduced a bill to ensure a clear pathway to enable the appointment of an administrator to all branches of the Construction and General Division of the CFMEU. To senators today, there are times when legislation comes to this place that we need to deal with expeditiously, and this is one of those pieces of legislation. I'm calling on everyone in this chamber to agree to exempt the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 from the cut-off. I know that senators have been provided with copies of the legislation—it was introduced yesterday—and that briefings have occurred. Everything the government could have done to ensure that people are briefed on this legislation to allow this motion to proceed has been put in place, and I would say that the people of Australia are expecting a strong response to the allegations that have been raised publicly about the behaviour of some elements within the CFMEU across this country. That is what this legislation seeks to assist in resolving by appointing an administrator. We don't have time to have this sit around for weeks. We want to respond quickly. The issues are fairly clear. The allegations are serious, and I think the Australian public expect us to respond quickly and put in place arrangements that can provide assurance to the public and the members of that union that steps have been taken to make sure that the problems identified, the allegations raised, are being dealt with and that the union can continue to go on and represent its members across the building and construction industry. It's essential, because of the nature of the work that's done in that industry, that members are represented by a strong union. We know that that is an important part of ensuring workplace safety on the building sites, but serious allegations have been raised, including those that involve outlaw bikie gangs, and the government needs to respond. That's what this legislation does. All the motion before the Senate today does is allow for this bill to start being debated and for us to start working through our process. The government would like this bill dealt with in this chamber this week so that it can go to the House and be dealt with in that chamber. We think it is important that we are able to leave this week's sitting with a very firm view from the Senate that this legislation is the right way to proceed. I know that a lot of work is being done by the minister to make sure that people are briefed and to make sure that, where there are discussions about possible amendments or areas of the legislation that need to be clarified, that work is done and people aren't held up. But this Senate cannot, and should not, get in the way of this legislation passing. It is urgent. We have all seen the stories of the unacceptable behaviour that is alleged to have been occurring on building sites in this country, and this is one way to ensure that proper processes are being put in place. We acknowledge that the union has taken some steps under the national secretary, but we believe that more needs to be done. This bill will allow those arrangements to be put in place quickly and allow the work to start rebuilding the union to occur. There is no reason to delay. If there is any advice people need, any briefings people need or any assurance people need, officials are available and able to brief people. Anything that seeks to delay the passage of this bill is pure politics, when it is no time for those kinds of games. It's all about getting the job done and making sure we get this legislation passed and an administrator put in place across all branches of the CFMEU so that the recovery work for that union can begin, to make it the union that its members need it to be. We know there's a lot of politics attached to this, and we have no doubt that the opposition will provide some commentary in that space as soon as I sit down. But, in relation to this piece of legislation, this is one time that this Senate can get together and do the right thing, which is to put in place those arrangements as quickly as possible and not leave the parliament this session without that job being done. The people of Australia expect us to respond quickly when we need to and when we have to, and this is exactly one of those types of situations. I urge everyone to support this motion to exempt the bill from the cut-off but, more than that, to support this legislation and get it done quickly. We could pass it today if it were the will of the Senate. There is no reason why we cannot sit and pass this legislation today and get it to the House tomorrow. They can deal with it then, and we can have this legislation and an administrator in place as soon as possible. That is the challenge I throw out to the Senate. I think it's a reasonable challenge considering the allegations that have been raised, and I urge senators to support this motion. 12:32 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I also rise to speak on the motion in relation to the exemption of the bill from the cut-off. Let me be clear: the coalition will be supporting this motion. But I have to say, in relation to the speech just given by the minister, Seinfeld could not have scripted it better, because there is a pattern of behaviour in relation to this government—literally. Labor slams the coalition for refusing to rush migration bills through the Senate. Labor slams the coalition and the Greens for refusing to rush the HAFF bills through the Senate. Labor slams the coalition for refusing to rush NDIS laws through the Senate. Labor slams the coalition and the Greens for refusing to rush the closing the loopholes bill through the Senate. Labor slams the coalition and the Greens for refusing to rush the AAT appeal bill through the Senate. Does anybody see a pattern of behaviour here? This is a government that couldn't care less about the Australian Senate. In fact, I'm quite surprised you don't actually move to abolish the place, because, as far as you are concerned, we have no role at all. You dump a piece of legislation in this place, and you then demand that we put it through with no scrutiny. That is not the way this place operates, in particular—and Minister Watt would love the Australian people not to understand this—when the purpose of the legislation is best summed up by a very famous saying: 'The fox is guarding the henhouse.' This legislation is nothing more and nothing less than a hollow attempt by the Australian Labor Party to try and pull the wool over the Australian public's eyes and pretend that it's doing something to curb the behaviour of what is now the most militant union in this country: the CFMEU. But, quite frankly, what is even more gobsmacking to hear in the speeches is the fact that, apparently, this legislation is so urgent because of the nature of the behaviour. Seriously? Is that some type of joke? Let's talk about urgency when it comes to this type of behaviour. In 2019, a number of years ago now—five years ago, if you want to talk about urgency—the former coalition government brought forward the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill. Do you know what this bill would have done five years ago to clean up the joint—the CFMEU and the system? It would have included certain serious criminal offences as a new category of prescribed offence for the purposes of automatic disqualification for registered organisations' officials who break the law. But guess what? It wasn't good enough for Labor back then, was it? They turned a blind eye to everything the trade union royal commission had put on the table and said was occurring. Blind Freddy could have told you what was occurring, because of the trade union royal commission. We brought forward the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill, and it would have started the clean-up process for the system, to hold these union officials to account. Do you know what the Australian Labor Party did? They fought us every step of the way. Senator Murray Watt was the chief protagonist— Senator CASH I0M in actually ensuring that this legislation did not go through the Senate, and he now jokes in this place as if it's a bit of fun. Well guess what, Minister Watt? Five years ago, we had the opportunity to start cleaning up the CFMEU, and you fought against us every step of the way, and this legislation did not get over the line. It didn't stop there, though. There was another bill that the coalition brought forward at the time, because the trade union royal commission had told us what Senator Watt and Senator Gallagher have suddenly turned their minds to. It was called the Fair Work Laws Amendment (Proper Use of Worker Benefits) Bill. Do you know what this bill was designed to do? It was designed to ensure that members who gave funds to registered organisations could actually rely on that registered organisation to expend the funds in their best interests. In fact, this is in the explanatory memorandum: The examples of corruption, financial misconduct and mismanagement outlined in the Report— the trade union royal commission report— have demonstrated that the existing regulatory framework is not satisfactory in preventing fraud and financial mismanagement, or ensuring acceptable standards of democratic governance in the interests of members. A consistent theme in many of the case studies considered by the Royal Commission was a lack of transparency and accountability of the financial affairs of registered organisations and their associated entities. That is a bill the former coalition government brought forward: 'proper use of workers entitlements'. And guess what? The Australian Labor Party again fought us every step of the way. In the first instance you've got the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Ensuring Integrity) Bill that would have commenced a clean-up of this system, a system that we have known for years and years is, quite frankly, corrupt. Those on the other side, Minister Watt in particular, stand here and say, 'It's time. Under the former coalition government you did nothing,' but we didn't have the numbers in this place. But we had the guts in 2016 to go to a double-dissolution election. We staked government on restoring the Australian Building and Construction Commission because we wanted to clean up the building and construction sector in this country. We wanted to stand up for the thousands and thousands of workers who, every day, were being abused by members of the CFMEU. We went to a double-dissolution election. That was the extent of our commitment. I was the minister at the time, and I remember Minister Watt throwing everything at it to say no. We needed an additional 10 votes from the crossbench at the time. Guess what? We managed to get those votes, and we managed to do it because the Australian public voted us back in. They wanted a tough watchdog on the beat. But we needed the crossbench and their 10 additional votes. You know why? It was because of the Australian Labor Party, the party which has just woken up to corruption in the CFMEU, the bullying and thuggery. Seriously, you've got to go back and watch the videos of former Senator Cameron and now Minister Watt at estimates seriously defending these people and their behaviour. Butter wouldn't melt in their mouths. You have got to be kidding me, seriously! We went to a double dissolution in 2016 and were fought every step of the way by the Australian Labor Party. I remember the campaigns because I travelled around the country at the time. I remember the abuse. But we were prepared to take that abuse. Why? Because it was in the best interest of the Australian people, and it was in the best interest of the construction sector in this country. We also stood up the Registered Organisations Commission. Why? Because all registered organisations should actually have to comply with the law. They have a very privileged status in society. A lot of people wouldn't know that unions don't pay tax. How do you feel about that every day, Australian people? How do you feel about that, mum-and-dad small business? Every time you get up, every day, guess what? You earn a dollar, and the government's going to take some from you. You know what happens if you don't pay it? The tax man will come after you, but not when you are union. They have all these privileges, and yet the trade union royal commission showed they were abusing them. Do you know what Labor did though? They fought us on the ensuring integrity bill. They fought us on the workers entitlement bill. They fought us on the Australian Building and Construction Commission, which we successfully stood up. They fought us on the Registered Organisations Commission bill, which we successfully stood up. There was no bad behaviour—to quote Mr Albanese and Senator Watt and every other Labor member: 'There's nothing to see here in the construction industry. Why do they need a separate watchdog? They should be treated like any other industry. The behaviour is no better and no worse.' So the money flowed. There was $6.2 million—I mean you have got to be kidding me!—which flowed from the CFMEU to the Australian Labor Party. That is big money in any analysis. No-one knows where it came from. There are plenty of ideas, but no-one knows where it came from. It's since Mr Albanese became the Leader of the Opposition, and you know what the deal was? Mr Setka made it very clear. When you get into office, you abolish the tough watchdog on the beat. Minister Watt will tell you it wasn't successful. If it wasn't successful, why was the ABCC found by the court in over 91 per cent of cases to be successful? Why did the courts impose in excess of $15 million in fines against the CFMEU in particular? If it was not successful, why did John Setka give Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister of Australia, his instructions to abolish it? Because if it wasn't successful, Mr Setka and Mr Albanese, what did the CFMEU have to be scared of? We know exactly what you were scared of—the law. That is why you gave the $6.2 million to the Australian Labor Party, and that is why, as one of their first items of business, they came into this place and said: 'There is nothing to see here. The CFMEU are upstanding citizens. There's no bullying, no thuggery and no intimidation.' I was casting my mind only the other day back over the Hansard of when we were in office. Question time after question time after question time, we prosecuted the abuse against women in the construction industry—the harassment, the intimidation, the bullying and the thuggery. And do you know what those on that side of the chamber said at the time? They said we were embellishing it. We were making it up. It wasn't occurring. And now they have been exposed while they are in government. Despite everything they did to ensure the corruptness of the system when they were last in opposition, when we tried to clean it up, despite everything they have done since they got into government to ensure that everything on John Setka's wish list has been ticked off, despite every cent of $6.2 million—seriously, if I was the Australian public I would have real concerns about where this money from the CFMEU has come from. It's from bullying, thuggery, intimidation, outlaw motorcycle gangs, bikies—you name it—but Mr Albanese says there's nothing to see here in relation to this money. Suddenly they come in here and say the Senate has to pass this legislation. As I said, we will support the exemption from the cut-off, because this bill does need to be debated. The reason it needs to be debated is it's one of the biggest jokes to come before this Senate. I hope we will at least be able to inquire into it, because that's what the stakeholders want—to see what actually needs to go in a scheme of administration. As I said, at this point in time it is a shell and nothing more. It's a shell that entitles the minister to assume, quite frankly, the identity of the fox guarding the henhouse. With the legislation currently before the parliament, the minister has given himself powers to do certain things that not even the parliament can challenge. Quite frankly, to the Australian Labor Party, you can say what you like. I hope the journos are smarter for once and actually look at Labor's conduct when they were last in opposition, because if you hadn't fought us every step of the way, a lot of this behaviour would not be occurring. What has occurred is on your head but as is always the way, the coalition will help you clean up your own mess. 12:47 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Just over six weeks ago the Greens had the opportunity to vote with the whole chamber and allow the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union to hold a secret ballot—a secret ballot that would enable the TCFU to run their own race. This was a few weeks before the shocking revelations from the Nine newspapers and 60 Minutes of the behaviour of John Setka and the CFMEU leadership—the bullying, the extortion, the links to organised crime. But the Greens voted against letting workers have a free vote and backing in Australia's worst union—an ugly stain on the whole union movement. This is from a party whose leader proudly proclaims that he is a feminist. I commend the government for moving quickly and bringing, finally, legislation that will determine a scheme for the administration for the CFMEU. I can assure you it's been a long time coming. Now the blue team are asking for stronger measures. I have to ask them: what were they doing for the nine years they were actually in government? And sorry, but the ensuring integrity bill doesn't cut it. That was an omnibus bill. Get serious! That had some good laws, but it had other unions put in the same basket. You never needed to do that. You wanted to throw them all into one. That is where you come unstuck, so don't go blaming the other side. I watched this play out. You've been just as bad. And while you're there, there's a Dyson Heydon report sitting locked away. Why don't you ask them to present it out here? I read that 100-page report, and it was shocking! I don't know what you paid him for, but I can assure you he never got the job done, otherwise we wouldn't be sitting here discussing this today. We would never have been discussing it today. You lacked the ability to get the job done, so you're as bad as each other! Unfortunately, you always have to watch out for government bills that have the word integrity in the title. They had a royal commission that failed utterly and brought no control over the bully boys of the CFMEU; it just gave them huge fines. What's that ever going to do? What we don't need is more inquiries. Thanks to whistleblowers and journalists, Australians are in no doubt whatsoever about what the leadership of this union has been up to. It has been absolutely—I don't even have a word for it! It has been shameful, and they've got away with it for this long. You cannot tell me that the ETU isn't attached and didn't know what was going on. There are members of your own party over there who've known exactly what has been going on for years. You'd better make sure this bloke is doing the job properly, this administrator. I can tell you there's a hell of a lot more filth to come out, and there are going to be people's names attached to it, if it is done properly. If you're not going to do it properly, then you might as well stop it now, because I don't want to waste any more time. A Senate inquiry won't bring any more evidence against the bully boys of the CFMEU. I'll be looking forward to having the Comancheros and the Rebels sitting before me, because you people won't get witnesses coming forward. They're too scared. They won't come forward. They've got lives. They've got families. They will not dare to come in here. But I look forward—and I'm sure the chair, Senator Hanson, does—to standing in front of John Setka and his bully mates. We have no problem. But that's all you're going to get at a Senate inquiry. It will be a waste of time because nobody in their right mind, without proper whistleblower laws, is going to come forward; they're just not. I'm hoping that you people are not going to grandstand over there in the coalition. Seriously, I'm sick of it. I don't want any more grandstanding. I just want a job that's done properly to finally set these bully boys where they need to be. My God, they are shocking! But what about the Australian Greens? What will they do? What will they do? What will they do? Most Australian women are unionist. They are teachers. They are nurses. They are childcare workers. And they are textile workers, something you didn't stand for last time. The Greens have a lot to say about women on the website, including: 3. Women have the right to equal access and participation in decision making processes in all areas of political, social, cultural, intellectual and economic life— except when it comes to the CFMEU and their bully tactics. Apparently, according to the Greens, women in the union movement have no rights. Otherwise, you would have stood up for them six weeks ago instead of the bully boys of the CFMEU. You aren't listening to those women who are asking all of us in this place to take action against the union that has a culture of misogyny, bullying and harassment. This is the underbelly of the Greens. That's who they are—the underbelly. My goodness! This is where you've got to. This is your hypocrisy on full display. So are you going to vote with us today? Are you going to finally have the courage to put the CFMEU in their place? That's what I want to know from the Greens: where are you going to be today? I can tell you: what an embarrassment for you guys. You should get up with it. Some of us knew that 60 Minutes report was coming. I want to know what you're getting from the CFMEU. Why didn't you vote for those women? And, if you don't vote against the CFMEU and start putting them in their place today, I want to know what you're getting. What are you getting? Election ads? Is it a handing out for the Greens on election day? The Greens just love telling Australians that their emissions don't stink, that they are always the ones that stand on the moral high ground. The moral high ground hey? Look what they did to those textile women six weeks ago. If that is the moral high ground, blow me away! All I want to know from the Greens is a simple question: are they standing in the gutter with the thugs that lead the CFMEU, or are they actually going to stand, finally, behind what they say—their high and moral ground? 12:53 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I'm standing here not surprised. We have seen this government time and time again avoiding scrutiny and treating this place, the Senate, with contempt. And we're seeing that happen here with the rushing through of this legislation without the proper scrutiny that it requires. In the 24 hours we've had to look at the bill, we've already seen that there are significant gaps and holes within it. We need to be able to properly examine it. We don't need an extensive amount of time; this can be done quite expeditiously. But the way that this government is rushing this through shows contempt for this place. Now, this is, of course, a very serious matter that is of no surprise to anyone in this place—except the government, who are trying to pretend that this is almost like the first they're hearing about it. I mean, we're seeing the line-up of ministers, from the Prime Minister down, standing up at press conferences and acting all surprised at these incidents of intimidation and thuggery and of misuse of funds occurring, as if it's the first time they're learning about them. Yet you only need to go back to Hansard, even for just the five years that I've been here, and have a look at Senate estimates, where we've had none other than Senator Murray Watt, the minister, sitting in front of estimates, while the coalition and other senators—there and in other inquiries we've had—have outlined quite thoroughly the incidents of intimidation and unlawfulness that the CFMEU, or certain members within the CFMEU—officeholders—have been able to perpetrate in workplaces across Australia. These issues were brought to the minister, who was sitting at the table, along with, at the time, the ABCC and other officials—even the department themselves—who were in front of us in estimates, and the minister would defend them. The minister would just bat the questions away, saying, 'Oh, it's not an issue,' or, 'The ABCC is just there dealing with frivolous issues like flags and stickers, not dealing with serious issues.' But we were able to bring forward evidence that the CFMEU had been involved in serious misconduct in workplaces. Yet we're seeing Minister Watt, the Prime Minister and others—Minister Burke, before him—standing up at press conferences, and in this place and in the other place, and acting like this is the first they're hearing about it, acting with some sort of urgency! Well, they've known about the thuggery and the unlawfulness that occurs through this organisation for years and years and years. It's nothing new. It's just the BLF replaced with the CFMEU. I mean, it's continuing. So we need this issue to be taken with some seriousness. We've already uncovered, in the limited and short amount of time we've had, some serious gaps in the legislation before us. We're saying: this should go to an inquiry. We should have a couple of days to look at it. You've got a great chair in Senator Sheldon, who will, no doubt, oversee that inquiry with the fairness with which he usually operates—and I know that Senator Roberts would agree with me: that we could get this done. I'm prepared to stay over the weekend if we have to. I don't mind. I'm the deputy chair of that committee. I don't mind. Let's get it done. I realise that we have to deal with this urgently, because we can't allow this organisation, and those mongrels within this organisation, to treat their workers with such contempt in the way that they do, with little backhand deals and brown paper bags. These things need to be dealt with, and they need to be dealt with quickly. But we need a couple of days to properly scrutinise this legislation, to reveal the gaps and the holes that have been provided through this legislation. For the CFMEU, this legislation, if it were to pass, would just buy some time. The CFMEU would really just need to allow a little bit more time to go by, because there's a sunset clause with this bill, and then they'll be right back at it. And that's what they know. The minister will have the powers without any scrutiny in this place and without it being disallowable by the Senate. That's the first thing that needs to change. That's something we've revealed and been able to look at in just the short time that we've had to look at it. But let's hear from stakeholders, let's get some evidence from all sides of this debate and let's make sure that we have proper and thorough legislation to properly deal with it once and for all. The first thing that should be happening—and this bill should include it—is the restoration of the ABCC. As Senator Cash was saying, it was the first piece of legislation in one of the first tranches of legislation that came through this place on this. We now have a union body for that industry that has been operating without any tether, without any checks and balances, since this government has come in. So the issues have got worse, because they know that they've got a friend in this place. They know that they've got those sitting on that other side of the chamber and in the other place right within their grips, because their preselections and their funding that comes into their coffers are controlled. We saw Senator Cash say that over $6 million has come from the CFMEU into the Labor Party in recent years. Where is the government standing up, saying, 'We will hand that back'? Of course they are not doing that but they should. They should hand that money back. I saw the powers that be within the Labor Party say, 'The money has already been spent. It was a previous campaign.' Too bad. Take it out of the money raised already for this campaign. Hand it back or give it to charity—I don't care—but certainly don't give it to the CFMEU. Don't give it back to them. This government won't do that, of course, because they are addicted to the funding, addicted to the control and the power that comes from this organisation. There are many sitting on that side of the chamber who are here because of the support they received from the CFMEU. Their preselections are controlled by the powers who have that control. That is the nub of what is going on here. The government should be restoring the ABCC. They should be taking from the ensuring integrity bill that we brought into this chamber in the last parliament, when we were in government. I remember sitting on that inquiry, going around the country and hearing case after case after case of the sorts of things that are coming forward now. Of course, it's a surprise to that side. We heard it then. The now government, with the crossbenches and the Greens—sadly, some of the Independents sided with the then opposition—voted against the ensuring integrity bill, which would have brought the checks and balances necessary to ensure union organisations, registered organisations, operated within the standards expected of them by their members and, indeed, by the wider Australian public. Here are the other things they should do: restore the ABCC, implement measures in the ensuring integrity bill and do it properly. Let's deal with that. We already have legislation that has been through extensive inquiries. Senator Ayres was on that committee at the time. We sat there together and heard the evidence time and again. We have the data; we have the evidence; we have what we need. Let's do that properly, ensure we can proceed in a way that is consistent with standards that are acceptable to Australians, not to those who are beholden to this organisation. So don't come in here with your pretend, forced surprise and outrage against what is occurring in this organisation. Don't pretend this is some kind of revelation to you. We know this is the worst-kept secret in this country. Everyone knows; it is baked in. I speak to people about this. They see it on the front page of The West Australian in my state or in The Australian. They see it and they go, 'We know this has been going on forever. Why is it only now we had a royal commission into this issue. Why is it only now the government is trying to act?' As I explained, we know why: because they are beholden to them. We have an opportunity here. Let's have a proper inquiry into this. We don't need an extensive amount of time to do it. Senator Sheldon can work expeditiously. I worked with him as deputy chair of that committee. We will get the evidence we need, we will make sure we properly scrutinise this bill and we will put forward the recommendations as a committee that need to be made to improve this bill to make sure the pitfalls are not there—firstly, that we don't have a minister without accountability back to this place; I mean, that is the most obvious change that needs to be made. It can be done very quickly. We will support the cut-off. We will do that but we ask the government to work with this Senate to ensure a proper inquiry can take place. We will do it quickly, get it done and come back as soon as we can. 13:04 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland This place is supposed to look at legislation put before us without fear or favour. That's not the case when it comes to unions, especially the CFMEU. We know the Labor Party was based initially on unions. It was started by the workers of the country. It was supposed to back the workers by all means. But we've seen over the period of time since that the unionists have become so powerful that they are actually directing the Labor Party. This place is no longer without fear or favour. Instead it is controlled by the unions, as I see it. We know the problems that the CFMEU has been faced with. It's getting into bed with bikies and organised crime, committing criminal assaults on non-union workers just trying to make a living, and stalking and illegally intimidating non-union workers at their homes. When I first came back to the Senate in 2016, the ABCC bill was brought before me and my colleagues. After months of research and talking to not only unions but also building and construction workers and organisations, the thuggery and bullying that were going on were clearly shown to us—where subcontractors couldn't deliver or go on the grounds of the worksites. They actually had to hand over cash or they couldn't deliver their concrete. They were denied. They were told by the unions, 'If you don't comply with what we want, you won't get any more jobs.' That was dealt with by the ABCC, and I was pleased that it was our vote that actually got that bill up and brought it into play. It did very well during its time, as did ROC, the Registered Organisations Commission. They reined in what was happening and gave more accountability. I have to admit that One Nation voted against the ensuring integrity bill because, at that time, we looked at the legislation and we thought that we were not being told upfront what it actually entailed. I think that both sides of this parliament—the Labor Party and the Liberal and National parties—need to be upfront with us. I've only just received this bill that's come before us, and you're wanting it to come before the parliament. We only received it in our office this morning. That's when we got it. Knowing the record of the Labor Party, you're going to bring it on in the parliament, and, like 90 or 100 other bills, you'll guillotine it. You guillotine bills so they can't be debated. Is that your plan? Is that what you intend to do? Or will you have a full discussion about it because you know the effect being associated with CFMEU is going to have on the Labor Party? In one way, I don't trust what you're actually going to do. Let me refer back to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024. It's supposed to set up an administrator, but, under 323B, relating to the scheme for the administration of the Construction and General Division and its branches, it says, 'The minister may, in writing, determine a scheme for the administration of the Construction and General Division.' In (3) it says the scheme 'may' provide for the appointment of a person as the administrator of the scheme, and it goes on. In this bill, there are absolutely no guidelines for office bearers or employees, to check if they have a criminal record or are associated with a criminal organisation. That's not in the bill, so we don't know who you're going to have working in this office. Are they criminals? That's not even covered in this bill. There's also no whistleblower protections in this bill. Where's the protection for people who are whistleblowers? If they're subcontractors and are forced to pay money, where is their protection in this bill? Where can they go then and not be told at the next job controlled by the CFMEU that they aren't going to be allowed onto the site? Where is it in the bill that states that donations from the CFMEU should not be accepted by any political party or organisation? What about the third party that you've allowed to go on? You've done nothing about that. You're backdooring of getting those donations from the CFMEU and other organisations stinks to high heaven because you have no intentions of really doing anything about it. Then you go further in the bill. This is only what I've been able to pick up in the short period of time, the last hour before I came into the chamber, that I've had this bill. Let me go to section 323C, appointment of an administrator. It says, 'The general manager must, in writing, appoint a person to be the administrator of the scheme.' But it then goes on to say, 'The general manager may, by writing, terminate the appointment.' On what basis? You're going to appoint a general manager who can then appoint an administrator—who is probably going to be one of your backroom boys, one of your pat-on-the-back mates—and then general manager can actually sack the administrator, possibly if they're not doing the job that you want them to do, so that he can appoint whoever he wants to. What an open-ended, smoke-and-mirrors bit of legislation this is. It's a load of rubbish as far as I'm concerned. You have no intentions of reining it in, because you have an obligation the CFMEU and the other union organisations that you are here at the behest of. That's the real problem that I have with all of this. Yes, we do need to do something about it. We're aware of the problems with it. If you are serious about it, instead of this piece of rubbish that you put before this parliament, I suggest that you introduce the ABCC. If you are fair dinkum and want to rein it in—and I agree with what Senator Michaelia Cash said; what she says is all very on point—bring back the ABCC, bring back the ROC legislation. And One Nation will look at the ensuring integrity bill, and we will then support that, if you're fair dinkum about doing something about it without fear of favour in this parliament. But you haven't got the guts do it, because you're relying on unions to give you those donations. You're not fair with the Australian people. You're not backing the Australian workers out there who are connected to the unions. You're letting these thugs run and control this country, and that is a real shame. These workers are dragged along with this, because, if they don't go along with the bosses are telling them, they will be without a job. And there's thuggery that goes on—they're forcing them to join these unions at a huge financial cost to them, and for what? I'd say to the Australian people out there, those people who are connected with these unions, who are on the sides and who know this is wrong: why don't you stand up for your fellow Australians, these small businesses and these people that are trying to do their jobs? Why don't you do the right thing by them? At the end of the day, it is actually costing you. A lot of these government sites that the CFMEU are working on are costing taxpayers in excess of 30 per cent more because of the CFMEU thugs and bullies on these sites determining it. Even the Cross River Rail in Brisbane is now being controlled by the CFMEU and the stunts that they're pulling at the moment. What I say to the Australian workers out there is wake up to yourselves. You're not a bunch of thugs. Don't be railed in and called one under the CFMEU. You are hardworking Australians. Consider your fellow Australians in standing up to these thugs. 13:12 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I wanted to add my voice to the calls for the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill to be dealt with in this sitting of parliament. There is definitely a way forward to consider legislation in a short committee hearing to look at the detail of it, to work in good faith on amendments, as is already happening, and to ensure that the parliament acts in line with what people in our communities want to see, and that is for these very serious allegations to be dealt with. I do note that there haven't been allegations of criminality here in the ACT, but I think it still warrants a broad look at the CFMEU. I agree with Senator O'Sullivan about donations, and the quickest way to deal with that is to put them into administration—to ensure there are no further donations. The administrators made it very clear that there will be no political donations while in administration. When the government defunded the ABCC and rolled its abolition into a broad omnibus bill, I warned that we'd need a stronger regulator. Worksites across the country are suffering. Insolvencies in the construction sector are at a record high, and we need a path forward. We need a longer-term solution that isn't a political football, and we've seen industry groups calling for that—to start with cleaning up the union, putting a fair process in place and, most of all, listening to what people in the sector calling for. The MBA have been crystal clear on this. They don't want another inquiry; they want action. The Civil Contractors Federation were on the radio this morning, calling for action now. ACCI has asked for amendments but supports administration. The Ai Group have also said the appointment of an administrator was an important first step. There is broad agreement on the next steps, and I'd urge the parliament to work together to ensure that this happens. 13:14 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That the question be put. Question agreed to. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Gallagher to exempt the bill from the cut-off be agreed to. Question agreed to. 13:15 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 be called on immediately. Question agreed to. BILLS 12 BILLS Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 12

Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024

Second Reading 12 13:16 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The purpose of this legislation is probably best summed up with a very famous saying: 'The fox is guarding the hen house.' With the legislation in its current form, I certainly hope that the Australian Labor Party are prepared to take on what will need to be some incredibly significant amendments to the legislation to ensure that this is not basically the ability of the minister to turn a blind eye while pulling the wool over the Australian people's eyes. The legislation that we have before us currently seeks to give the minister a blank cheque to deal with his friends in the CFMEU, who are, as we know, one of the biggest donors to the Australian Labor Party. Why is that dangerous? Because, as we know, Minister Watt has spent so much of his time in this place being one of the CFMEU's biggest cheerleaders. As I said, there was no greater cheerleader for the CFMEU when we were trying to stand up the Australian Building and Construction Commission. And there was no greater cheerleader for the CFMEU when the Australian Labor Party, on coming into office, ticked off as its first item of business Mr Setka's—one of the most militant unionists in this country—wish list item, which was the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. In fact, I recall it because, at that time, Minister Watt was smiling like a Cheshire cat when he achieved his lifelong dream of abolishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission and literally handing to John Setka, lovely man that he is—said sarcastically—control of the construction sector in Australia. As so many have said since that time but in particular over the last few weeks, Mr Albanese, how has that worked out for you? More than that, how has that worked out for the thousands and thousands of people who wake up every single day to do a hard day's work in the construction sector? The bad news for all of them is: it hasn't worked out well. But, according to Minister Watt, this is all very new. This is all very new behaviour. It has only just come to light. There's a good chance the Australian Labor Party weren't aware of this behaviour prior to the last few weeks. Seriously, you have got to be kidding me! This is the party that fought tooth and nail in 2016 when the former coalition government, because it stood on principle and wanted to clean up the construction industry in this country, went to a double dissolution election. One of those bills was the restoration of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. The Australian Labor Party, when in opposition, fought us every single step of the way. The Australian people, on the other hand, understood the need for a tough cop on the beat and they understood the need to clean up the construction industry in this country. And that is why they returned the coalition to office. We honoured our commitment to the Australian people. Indeed, we did, despite everything that the then Australian Labor Party opposition did and threw at us—all the mud, all the accusations— Senator Cadell 300134 All the union money. Senator CASH I0M all the union money. We managed to stand up the tough cop on the beat. I was looking back at the dissenting report of the Australian Labor Party at the time, the biggest champions you will ever get for the most militant union in this country, a union whose actions are bullying of the absolute worst variety, a union whose actions are intimidation, again. How would you like your wife and kids threatened? You wake up in the morning and all you want to do is go to work but you don't want to comply with the unreasonable demands of the CFMEU. The Labor Party turned a blind eye to the phone calls that were made late at night, at midnight. I remember the threats of rape. They turned a blind eye to all of that. But what is worse is that they then put in a dissenting report. Why? Because Labor senators 'do not see merit' in the building and construction industry bill. You have to be kidding me! The Government's repeated attempts to re-enact the Australian Building and Construction Commission … is not based on a genuine requirement for workplace reform, but solely on political motivation. That's right. Stamping out bullying, stamping out thuggery, stamping out some of the worst forms of harassment, including sexual harassment, was purely political motivation. They went further at the time—I'm surprised John Setka didn't write this report for them—saying: Workers in the Australian building and construction industry should be subject to the same industrial laws as all other Australian workers. This is what they went on to say: We reject both the majority view of the Committee and the Cole Royal Commission's finding that the building and construction industry is special or 'singular' in nature. Wow! Again, as so many are now saying, how has that worked out for you, Mr Albanese? The bullying, the thuggery, the intimidation. In fact, I have to say someone reminded me of a movie called Casablanca. There is a scene in that movie, for those who have seen it, where the police captain walks into a room to find that there is gambling occurring in a casino. The shock that those on the Labor Party are now expressing in relation to the behaviours of the CFMEU, quite frankly, is about as genuine as the police captain from the movie Casablanca. The legislation we have here today is a direct result of the incompetence of the Prime Minister of this country. It is the direct result of the Prime Minister of Australia placing the $6.2 million that flowed from the CFMEU directly into the coffers of the Australian Labor Party. Think about that. Since Mr Albanese became the Leader of the Opposition, $6.2 million has flowed from the CFMEU to the Australian Labor Party. There was one item on John Setka's wish list, and that one item was to be delivered by Mr Albanese, if and when he was elected to government. That one item, as we know, was to hand to Mr Setka the Australian building and construction industry on a silver platter, and that is exactly what Mr Albanese did. The bad news for everybody is that we now know how that ends. It ends here with a piece of legislation that has now had to be brought forward to clean up the mess created by Mr Albanese himself, as the Prime Minister of this country. This mess lies solely at the feet of Mr Albanese. The problem is that he doesn't really want to clean up the mess. I say that because, when you look at the legislation, quite frankly, a year 5 student who was asked to analyse the flaws in the legislation could drive a truck through it. Based on any analysis—and this is after talking to stakeholder after stakeholder after stakeholder last night—this legislation needs major surgery if it is to work. Quite frankly you've got to ask yourself: is the Labor Party pulling the wool over the media's eyes—because the media seem to believe what the Labor Party have said to date—and the Australian people's eyes? The legislation, if passed, does absolutely nothing, other than give the minister the ability to basically do—I would say 'anything he wants', but, in this case, it's 'anything he doesn't want'. The legislation, as currently drafted—and it was the Labor Party that drafted this legislation—gives Minister Murray Watt a blank cheque when it comes to this lawless organisation. Minister Watt is one of the CFMEU's own. He has stood on picket lines with them before up in Queensland, defending their behaviour. The legislation looks good in the first instance. But, for example, Minister Watt doesn't have to put anything in the deed of administration if he doesn't want to. There's no requirement in the legislation to put anything in it. On what planet do you draft legislation that doesn't require the minister putting an organisation into administration to put anything in the deed of administration? Again, a year 5 student could tell you that that is either deliberate drafting that Mr Albanese hoped we wouldn't actually pick up or, worse still, is sloppy, which justifies an inquiry into the legislation. Whilst the minister is able to put in the application for administration, he has also given himself the power, at any time, to bring the administration to an end, and all he has to do is table an instrument in the parliament. Parliamentarians may want to know that the instrument is not disallowable. In other words, if the parliament disagrees, there is nothing that the parliament can do about it. Minister Watt has made a huge song and dance about the fact that all branches of the CFMEU are being put into administration—that is, until you actually read the legislation. Again, the legislation then gives Minister Watt, if it's in the public interest as far as he's concerned, to take branches out of administration, and all he needs to do is table an instrument in the parliament, and it is not disallowable. More than that— Debate interrupted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Thank you, Senator Cash. Order! As it is 1.30 pm, we will move to two-minute statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 13 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Universities 13 13:30 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland Rachael Gunn's performance of breakdancing at the Olympics has shone a light on the culture of entitlement and frivolity in Australian academia. How many billions of dollars are wasted on useless degrees at universities? We have a skills shortage in this country because we aren't training our children in the skills that matter. Not only do we allow universities to engage in such frivolity, we actually subsidise it. Meanwhile, thousands of Australians are homeless because we do not have enough tradies to build the homes to house the hundreds of thousands of foreign university students and immigrants we have to import to deal with the skills shortage, because we aren't actually teaching our children the trades to build houses, grow the crops and add value to our manufacturing sector. It's time that we cleaned up the rorts in the university sector, started to focus on our trades and started getting more children into those trades. Civics Education 14 13:31 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia In March this year, the Electoral Matters Joint Committee launched an inquiry into civics education, participation and engagement. It's been an excellent pathway to see such great organisations get involved, particularly the level of youth engagement. The passion and talent of young people have been on full display. We've have heard from some great organisations, including: the Australian Youth Affairs Coalition; UN Youth Australia; the Youth Affairs Council of South Australia; the South Australian Youth Forum; the South Australian Commissioner for Children and Young People, who brought along a student representative council; and the Civic Engagement Youth Advisory Group. I was delighted to see so many South Australian young people really driven to ensure that their voices were heard in this really critical inquiry. The increase in mis- and disinformation is significant not just here in Australia but across the world. I was delighted to see the young people coming forward, seeing this and bringing forward their ideas on how we can counter these issues to ensure that our civics education, our engagement in electoral matters and our democratic processes are well respected and improved, and that we go as far as we can to actually improve the circumstances we find ourselves in. Civics education in schools and the community is critical in addressing these issues. We heard through the inquiry that we have about 480,000 people who are not enrolled to vote, 600,000 who are enrolled but do not turn up and 800,000 who cast an informal route. That is a significant number of people whose voices are not being heard. In large part, it is due to a lack of information. I'm delighted to see that the hearings will continue, and the committee will report towards the end of this year on a critical, critical issue. Midwifery Care 14 13:33 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I believe women should have control over their own bodies, and that extends to their birthing choices. Since May, I've heard from many concerned women and midwives about the Albanese government's proposed changes to professional indemnity insurance for privately practising midwives. The proposal replaces the current homebirth insurance complete exemption and it inadvertently outlaws anything but low-risk homebirths. This ultimately will limit a woman's access to midwifery care. Midwives want to continue supporting homebirths, and they shouldn't have to consider practising illegally in order to do so. The Australian College of Midwives guidelines make clear that, under the current exemption, a midwife can care for and support a woman to make informed decisions about where and how they birth their baby, regardless of their risk. However, the proposed change leaves unclear whether midwives can continue caring for women who don't meet that strict low-risk criteria, which focuses solely on physical, clinical risk. Stakeholder consultation about this proposal closed yesterday. I'm urging the government to listen to the sector's feedback and ensure that women continue to have control over their bodies and choices in birth. The Greens believe that women must have the right to choose where they give birth and who supports them during birth. Women want more choice, not less. The government should be providing privately practicing midwives with insurance that covers them for all homebirths, not just for women deemed to be low risk. There's precedent for this; New Zealand has an all-risk model that is 100 per cent government funded, and the Albanese government should look to replicate that model. My body, my choice doesn't end when a woman decides to keep the baby, and all women deserve access to homebirth supported by their midwife. Let's have more publicly available midwives as well. Melbourne Indigenous Transition School 14 13:35 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Up the road from my electorate office, in Richmond, is an extraordinary school that does so much more than simply provide children with an education. The Melbourne Indigenous Transition School provides greater opportunity for Indigenous students from remote and regional communities and ensures that those Indigenous students are supported culturally and emotionally while receiving a world-class education in the middle of Melbourne. Earlier this year I had the opportunity to tour the brand-new state-of-the-art boarding house and meet some of the staff, who are incredibly dedicated to their roles and are setting these kids up for their future not just academically but also socially and emotionally. Most importantly, I got to talk to some of the students who have embarked on this transformative journey. I returned back to MITS, as it's affectionately known, last week to have dinner with the year 7 students in their boarding house. I was able to meet with a number of them, and there was one student, Adam, who had just returned from his home in Daly River, in the Northern Territory, which is around 225 kilometres from Darwin. Adam and I had a great chat about his love of sport and particularly about his love for the Melbourne Football Club, the Melbourne Demons. Unfortunately the Melbourne Demons are not associated with MITS; it's in fact the Richmond Football Club that's associated with MITS, so that caused some tension! But Adam has an ambition to become a plumber when he finishes school, and I have absolutely no doubt that he will get that opportunity. He is more than capable, more than set-up, not just because he wants to do it but because of the support that the MITS community is giving him. Listening to those kids telling me about their lives, interests and ambitions made me realise how invaluable this organisation is. Because of MITS these kids live happy and stable lives in a supportive environment away from home. The dedication of staff is incredible, and I'll just say hello to some of them. To Rick, Ed, Lia and Paul, thank you so much for hosting me at MITS. I'm very much looking forward to my next visit. Adult Age, Adult Wage 15 13:37 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania The Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association's Adult Age, Adult Wage campaign has been launched, led by Gerard Dwyer, their national secretary, and, in my home state of Tasmania, Joel Tynan. The SDA's Adult Age, Adult Wage campaign is focused on improving wages for young Australians. The SDA want to ensure people who, by law, are considered adults at 18 and are doing the work expected of an adult are paid the same as their 21-and-over counterparts. Another focus for the SDA is increasing the pay for younger Australians aged between 14 and 17. Workers between 14 and 16 years of age should earn 50 per cent of an adult wage, and 17-year-olds should earn 75 per cent of an adult wage. These are the current goals that the SDA is fighting for to support the growing workforce. The SDA and the Australian Labor Party have always fought for, and will continue to fight for, fairness and equality. The good thing about those young people working in fast food and retail is that they have a great union that is always there working to support them. They're committed to their membership and to ensuring that they have the skills and the support they need. That is why, as part of the Albanese Labor government, it's so reassuring to know that at the heart of everything we do is our support for Australian workers. I welcome the SDA to Canberra this week, and they represent over 230,000 members. In particular, I welcome those young people they have brought to talk to us, senators and members, in this place. Welcome! Australian Federal Police 15 13:39 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I'm very glad we're on the topic of supporting workers. In late 2019, an AFP officer from Brisbane asked to see me. This officer was stressed out; she was nervous and running on empty. She told me she was very worried about the security at Brisbane Airport; it was keeping her up at night. She told me that her colleagues were working double shifts, and most of them were spending their free time looking at job ads, because it wasn't just the long hours, it was the level of pay. I have had the same story from AFP officers for years. Australian Federal Police officers are not your run-of-the-mill public servant. These are the Australians at the front line of the fight against terrorism and extremism. These are the Australians who have to sift through the most revolting child pornography. These are the Australians who literally put their lives on the line to protect the people in this place and the rest of the country 24 hours a day. I'll be honest with you: an 11 per cent pay rise doesn't actually work for them. I find it absolutely baffling that in the same month this is going on the ASIO director raises Australia's official terror alert level to probable. The federal government isn't finding any more money for the most underpaid police force in the country. They aren't prepared to pay the people who literally put their lives on the line for us every day. And by the way, I read recently there has also been a record number of threats against politicians over the last 12 months and still the government of the day doesn't want to pay these people correctly. The government and the Australian people are asking and expecting more and more from the Australian Federal Police, so I simply say this: why is it, when it comes to politicians, the Australian Federal Police have our back 24/7 and yet the government of the day sure as hell doesn't have theirs? Cost of Living 15 13:41 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Australians are alert and alarmed. They are alert to the ubiquitous cost-of-living pressures that are falling across Australian families and Australian businesses. They are alarmed because the government has no real plan to address cost-of-living pressures to bring inflation and interest rates down. Those cost-of-living pressures are now turning into a cost-of-doing-business crisis in our country. Just this week ASIC, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, reported that 11,000 Australian businesses had gone into insolvency over the last 12 months. In my home state of Western Australia, almost 1,100 businesses went into insolvency. In the last June quarter that figure was 308 companies going into insolvency in Western Australia. Think about that for a second: 308 companies in just one quarter. That is one every seven hours in Western Australia going out of business because Labor has lost control of our economy. This is added to because we also know that Australians are now experiencing the largest collapse in their personal savings ratio that they have experienced for 16 years. The personal savings ratio of Australian households in our country is now just 0.9 per cent. That is the lowest figure in 16 years. Alert and alarmed: alert because the cost-of-living pressures are affecting everyone and alarmed because this Labor government, led by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Dr Jim Chalmers, has no plan. Smith, Mr Ian 16 13:43 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I rise to pay tribute to one of our nation's finest transport leaders, Ian Smith, who sadly passed away last month. Like me, Smithy's passion was for driving trucks. He joined the mighty Transport Workers' Union in 1994 when he was a driver, like me, for TNT. It wasn't long before Ian's leadership skills came to the fore. He was the union's lead delegate responsible for the first national enterprise agreement with TNT. Ian was always destined for a much bigger role in the union. Starting as an organiser with the South Australian branch, he quickly went on to be assistant secretary and, ultimately, branch secretary. He also served on the TWU's national committee of management and as the national president of the union. Smithy achieved a lot for workers and the transport industry, including, but not limited to, negotiating national enterprise agreements with industry-leading rates of pay; better pay conditions and safety for bus drivers across Adelaide; fighting for aviation jobs, including taking Qantas to the High Court for illegally sacking workers. Like me, Smithy remained a truckie at heart right up until the end. He dedicated himself to the pursuit of safer, fairer and better lives for transport workers and their families throughout his time with the TWU. Transport workers throughout South Australia and Australia owe Smithy an enormous debt of gratitude. In closing, I would like to express my deep condolences to Smithy's wife, Sue; their daughter Maddy and Smithy's entire family, along with the Transport Workers' Union family. Smithy, just one thing, when you get to the pearly gates and you go through to that great trucking yard in the sky, give my best and a big hug to Alex. Vale, Smithy. Racism 16 13:45 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I recently had the privilege of chatting with leaders of the vibrant multicultural communities that make their home in Tasmania. Their message to me was clear: our state and country face serious challenges not only in supporting new migrants but also in standing up against racism. They shared with me the real-life consequences of hateful and divisive rhetoric from high-profile political figures like Pauline Hanson and the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton. They told me their communities face racism daily and that the number of racially motivated attacks their communities are facing is rising. High-profile figures need to be held to account for their dog whistling and their implicit support for racism and racially motivated attacks. Words hurt and people are being hurt. Our multicultural communities are also concerned about the lack of support for new migrants. Coming to our country, people should expect a warm welcome, but many new arrivals find themselves isolated and with inadequate supports. Multicultural leaders are also frustrated by the barriers to accessing financial support and grants support that would allow them to adequately celebrate their magnificent cultures and contribute fully to our community. They are worried that, during the coming election, migrants will be unfairly blamed for the challenges in our society, and we note that the Liberals have already started down this dark path. Migrants are massively valuable to our community, and the Greens are here to fight against racism, whether it is inside or outside the parliament. Petition: Burrup Hub Gas Project 16 13:47 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory Later today, I will table a petition with more than 440,000 signatures calling on the government to protect Australians from the destruction that would come from an expansion of Woodside's Burrup Hub gas project. That is 440,000 people calling on the government to do what is right. This is the fifth-biggest petition in the history of this parliament. The petitioners are calling on the government to start making decisions like we will be here for a long time, to make decisions for young people and future generations, to make decisions that will protect the climate and the environment—the people and places we love. If approved, the Burrup Hub gas project would be the largest fossil fuel project in Australia. It could lead to 6.1 billion tonnes of CO2, roughly 13 times Australia's annual emissions. It poses an unacceptable risk to the incredible Kimberley coast and to the more than 1,500 species that call it home, including many endangered species. It would be nothing short of a gas-led destruction of pristine ecosystems. Last week, we learned that the WA EPA has made a preliminary finding that the proposal is unacceptable. This is an opportunity for the environment minister to stand up and put an end to the disastrous proposal before the next election. Minister, please do not kick this can down the road. Australians deserve to know whether the Labor government will sit on the right side of history before they go to the ballot box. I urge the minister to recognise the importance of Scott Reef and the incredible marine environment of the Browse Basin, and put the protection of what matters ahead of the short-term profits of Woodside and the gas industry. Energy 17 13:49 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland A few years ago, this place was dominated with the hot topic of the proposed Adani Carmichael mine. It was on everyone's lips. People were gluing themselves to the streets in protest against it. Eventually, people power won and the mine got going. It's now producing 10 million tonnes of coal a year and employing over 1,500 Australians there, very successfully. Why I refer to that, though, is to keep in mind those 10 million tonnes of coal a year. Just a few weeks ago, the gospel of global energy, the statistical review of energy, came out. It comes out every year and tells everybody what different types of energy different countries around the world are using. It showed some shocking statistics. In just two years, the equivalent of 100 Adani coalmines have opened up in our region. In Indonesia they've opened up the equivalent of 15 Adani mines, with an over-150-million-tonne increase in their coal production in just two years. In India, there's been just shy of 200 million tonnes of extra coal production in just two years; that's the equivalent of 20 Adani mines there in India. And of course the big daddy of them all, China, has increased its coal production by a stunning 548 million tonnes in just two years. That's around 55 Adanis up there in China. And where are all the protests? Where are the people gluing themselves to the gates of the Chinese embassy? Where are the calls for people to boycott going to Bali, to give up those holidays? Nothing—despite the fact that mines 100 times the size of this relatively small little mine in Central Queensland have opened up in the two years since. That's two years since, may I add, the world apparently signed up to net zero emissions at Glasgow. Indonesia, India and China all signed that document; they all said they were going to do that. And what have they done in the two years since? They've focused on cheap, reliable energy that is guaranteeing their jobs. Energy, Borumba Pumped Hydro Project 17 13:51 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Labor's obsession with climate change is giving birth to one of the world's biggest white elephants in my home state of Queensland. I refer to the infamous Borumba Pumped Hydro Project, centred on Imbil. We're told this is central to the plan, supported by both major political parties in Queensland, to ensure 75 per cent of energy produced in the state by 2035 is from unreliable renewables. It's estimated to cost more than $14 billion and will not add a single watt of energy to the grid. It's an eye-watering amount of taxpayers' money being burned on the altar of the climate-change cult. And I'm confident that costs will blow out much further. It's also another clear example of Labor destroying the environment in order to save it. Huge areas of plantation pine forest will need to be cleared, just to transport the components of the 226 wind turbines that will reach 290 metres tall, creating a major erosion problem that will impact waterways throughout the region. Yet more pristine native forest will end up under water. There will also be thousands upon thousands of solar panels. Queenslanders will need One Nation in state parliament in force, to prevent this disaster from going ahead. Neither of the major parties can be trusted on energy policy as long as they remain wedded to the net zero fantasy. One Nation is the only party contesting the state election that is committed to protecting the environment by repealing legislated emissions-reduction targets in Queensland and delivering an independent energy policy prioritising affordability and reliability. In doing so, we will be able to deliver the power that industries and manufacturers require, instead of closing down and going offshore, and to give cheaper power to those homes that need it to bring down the cost of living. This is costing the state and federal governments billions of dollars of wasted taxpayers' dollars. It's another white-elephant, pie-in-the-sky scheme. Cost of Living 17 13:53 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Millions of people across Australia are worried about the rising cost of rent, mortgages and food. People are being ripped off, while big corporations are making massive profits. The price of essential goods and services that people rely on has risen on average 20 per cent in the last few years alone. No city, no town, no person has avoided this crunch, and that includes my home city of Perth. We are seeing house prices soar and people being forced to choose whether to pay rent or indeed to be able to put food on the table. Essential things like going to the GP are out of reach for so many people. People in this place talk about inflation like it is some kind of academic exercise. But the impact of the decisions that politicians make in this place are very real, each and every day. In the middle of this housing crisis, the Liberal and Labor parties are working together to drive up prices and keep people in poverty. We've seen them give $167 billion in tax handouts to wealthy property investors and drive up the house prices around our states so that people do not have a chance to buy their first home. This government has refused to raise the rate of JobSeeker to a rate that is actually liveable. They've refused to expand so many urgently needed medical services, and they've cut the 20 sessions available for psychology under Medicare. They've ripped billions out of the NDIS, and they've made it so much more difficult for people to see a GP. My message to the people at home is: if you want change, you've got to vote for it. (Time expired) Carter, Ms Sarah 18 13:55 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria It is with a heavy heart that I reflect on the sudden passing of Sarah Carter. Her loss has shocked and deeply saddened me and many people in this place who have worked with her. I had the privilege of knowing her through our work, meeting her early in my term, and the joy of joining her on one of her many expeditions to foreign countries. In my case, it was to Fiji. Sarah was a person of extraordinary energy, compassion and drive. She devoted her enormous energy and talent to raising awareness of the challenges facing vulnerable women and children around the world. She was a passionate advocate for community wellbeing, the arts, culture and gender equity. As a three-time former mayor of the City of Maribyrnong and with 16 years on the council all up, her contributions were vast and impactful. Despite coming from different sides of politics, Sarah and I shared a friendship and the ability to work together towards common goals. We both had a passion for projects in the Pacific, and I fondly remember the trip to Fiji, where I witnessed firsthand how she could bring people together to demonstrate the absolute value of the aid that Australia was delivering. For a decade, Sarah poured her heart into the work at Save the Children, where she raised awareness and drove change for local and international communities. She drove the Australian Regional Leadership Initiative with the same passion and commitment she brought to all her endeavours. Sarah's passing is a terrible loss to the community and to the country. She was committed to making a real difference in this world, and her absence will be deeply felt by all who knew her. Vale, Sarah. World Hepatitis Day 18 13:57 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia On 4 July, with co-chair Dean Smith, I had the great pleasure of co-hosting the World Hepatitis Day event here in parliament. This was on behalf of the Parliamentary Friends for Ending HIV, STIs and Other Blood Borne Viruses, and, of course, hepatitis B and C are some of those bloodborne viruses. I should note that World Hepatitis Day took place on 28 July, and the theme this year has been 'Its Time for Action'. There are nearly 300,000 people living with hepatitis B and C in Australia. Untreated, it absolutely devastates lives. I want to take this opportunity to highlight what actions are being taken to eliminate viral hepatitis. The Australian government committed $126½ million in the last budget to extend and expand activities to support the prevention, treatment and testing of BBVs and STIs. This is going to underpin the investment for the Fourth National Hepatitis B Strategy and the Sixth National Hepatitis C Strategy set for release in coming months. We have before us a clear roadmap towards the elimination of viral hepatitis by 2030. We continue to be a global proponent of global initiatives to eliminate viral hepatitis as a major public health threat by 2030, and I'm pleased that our government's affirmed its commitment to lead international efforts. There have been great innovations in treatment and cure, but we have seen falling diagnosis and treatment rates. There are barriers that exist to people's access to treatment, which includes injecting drug users in Australia's prisons. I thank all— (Time expired) Wages 18 13:59 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Our early childhood educators do life-changing, nation-building work every single day they turn up to work. Families rely on them. They make a difference in children's lives. For far too long, they've been underpaid for the incredible work that they do. No more! Thanks to an Albanese Labor government, these workers will get a 15 per cent pay increase for the nation-building work that they do. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 18 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Road Infrastructure 18 14:00 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Senator McCarthy. In the May budget, the government allocated $10.1 billion to pay the states more money to cover the cost of blowouts in state infrastructure projects. Australians are being forced to drive on unsafe and potholed roads which have missed out on funding because of project cost blowouts. Has CFMEU corruption and lawless behaviour added to construction costs for road and rail projects? 14:00 Senator MCCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I thank the senator for his question. The Albanese government is delivering infrastructure for all of Australia after cleaning up the mess left by the Liberals and Nationals. Last year we did the hard work of reforming the Infrastructure Investment Program, ensuring that the 10-year $120 billion pipeline is sustainable and delivers well-planned, properly costed projects across the country. In delivering this budget, we have worked— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator O'Sullivan. Senator O'Sullivan 283585 My point of order is on relevance. My question was about the impact that the CFMEU was having on the cost of road and rail projects—whether corruption was occurring and that was impacting on road projects. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator O'Sullivan. You did also mention projects generally, but I will draw the minister to— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I will draw the minister to the second part of your question. Minister. An honourable senator interjecting— Senator MCCARTHY 122087 Yes, I was going on some of the budget questions there as well. But, as I said yesterday in answer to the question by Senator McKenzie, the minister, Catherine King, has written to state and territory counterparts to convey the expectation that any information regarding improper or criminal conduct by any entities related to projects delivered under the National Land Transport Act 2014 be reported immediately to the relevant regulator. The minister has embedded new assurances and protections in the federation funding agreement that the Commonwealth has negotiated with the states, which was finalised on 11 August. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Sullivan, a first supplementary? 14:02 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia The Albanese government has cancelled, cut and delayed $27.9 billion worth of infrastructure projects over its first two years. Has CFMEU corruption and lawless behaviour resulted in delays to funding other road projects that are needed by Australian families and businesses? 14:03 Senator MCCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory We— The PRESIDENT 112096 Please resume your seat, Minister. Senator McKenzie, I had just called the minister to answer the question. Minister, please continue. Senator MCCARTHY 122087 We will not be lectured by the Liberals or the Nationals, who spent a decade making oversized and undercooked infrastructure commitments across the country. Your decade of failure and broken promises is why the Albanese government has taken significant and necessary reforms to Commonwealth infrastructure investment. When it comes to the CFMEU, as I said in my previous answer yesterday, we have taken decisive action. We've introduced legislation to clear the way for the CFMEU construction division to be placed under the control of an independent administrator with extensive powers to clean up the union. We've asked the Fair Work Ombudsman to undertake a targeted review of all enterprise agreements. Clearly that is not enough for you, Senator. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Sullivan, a second supplementary? 14:04 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia It's not enough. That's true. You're not doing enough. There was an 11.7 per cent increase in road deaths across Australia over the last year, in 2023-24. Noting that many unsafe roads have missed out on funding as a result of CFMEU related infrastructure costs, overruns and delays, to what extent have unsafe roads contributed to the worsening of the road toll? (Northern Territory—Minister for Indigenous Australians) (14:04): Senator MCCARTHY 122087 I do think that it's disingenuous of the senator to try and connect an area that we've always said— Senator Sterle e68 Road safety issues are bipartisan Senator MCCARTHY 122087 Exactly, Senator Sterle—road safety issues across Australia. Also, we know that the biggest factor in higher prices in the construction sector are supply chain issues like labour shortages and the cost of materials which, as we've said here in the Senate many times, have largely been driven by the war in Ukraine. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator MCCARTHY 122087 You're not interested, are you? This is how much you care about what is actually going on. Wages 20 14:05 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Cost-of-living pressures are top of mind for all Australians, especially low-paid workers. I note that since taking office the Albanese Labor government has advocated on behalf of low-paid workers in three consecutive Fair Work Commission annual wage reviews. How does the Albanese Labor government's agenda ease cost-of-living pressures and make sure that Australians are earning more and keeping more of what they earn? 14:06 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Sheldon, for your question. You are absolutely right that the Albanese government has a strong track record on supporting low-paid Australians. Our government has gone in to bat for workers not once, not twice but three times, putting more money in family pockets. Unlike Mr Dutton, Senator Cash and the coalition, who think that paying workers fairly would mean a return to the Dark Ages, we see strong and sustainable wages growth as a part of the solution to the cost-of-living challenge and not a part of the problem. I'm pleased to say that new data released today by the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows annual real wages continue to grow under the Albanese Labor government. The Wage Price Index rose 0.8 per cent in the June quarter to be 4.1 per cent higher through the year. Annual real wages also grew 0.3 per cent in the year to the June quarter 2024, meaning wages continue to grow above inflation. Under the Albanese government, annual real wages have been growing now for three consecutive quarters. How does that compare to the coalition government? Under the last government, annual real wages were going backwards by 3.4 per cent. Under those opposite, annual real wages were going backwards; under the Albanese Labor government, they are going forwards. That is a vital part of dealing with cost-of-living challenges, and, if you had your way, people would be having their wages cut as well as having their tax cuts taken off them as well as having their energy bill relief taken off them and every other cost-of-living pressure laid on top of them. It's only because of the actions of the Albanese Labor government that we are getting wages moving again, and that is helping Australians deal with cost-of-living pressures. This return to sustainable wages growth under a Labor government is welcome, but we know that people are still under pressure. That's why we're focused on tackling inflation and delivering responsible cost-of-living relief, including our tax cuts for every taxpayer which have been rolling out since 1 July. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sheldon, first supplementary? Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales At the 2022 election, the Albanese Labor government promised to get wages moving. Since then, the government has introduced and implemented reforms to protect and grow the wages of Australian workers. How are the Albanese government's reforms helping Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn while relieving cost-of-living pressures, and why are these reforms so important. (Queensland—Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) (14:09): Senator WATT 245759 We all know that workers need successful businesses to stay employed. Likewise, businesses would cease to function without workers. To retain quality staff, do you know what businesses need? They need to ensure their staff are paid appropriately. Because of the reforms the Albanese government has delivered, we are now seeing full-time minimum-wage workers earning an extra $143 per week. Again, if those opposite had their way, those minimum-wage workers would have been getting nothing more to deal with the cost-of-living pressures that they're facing. Under the Labor government, they're getting an extra $143 per week. As we announced last week, we are backing a 15 per cent pay rise for early educators that you still don't support, and that means a typical early childhood education and care educator will receive a pay rise of at least $103 per week, increasing to at least $125 per week from next December. Increasing wages is not only a win for workers; it's also a win for productivity and a win for the economy. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sheldon, a second supplementary? 14:10 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales In the face of cost-of-living pressures, I note that the Liberals and Nationals have not once advocated for low-paid workers at the Fair Work Commission and they voted against the Albanese Labor government's reforms to get wages moving. What are the main barriers to getting wages moving again? 14:10 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Hello, there they are right over there—all of them! Look at them all. The main barrier to continuing getting wages moving and dealing with cost-of-living pressures is the scary possibility of a Peter Dutton prime ministership with Senator Cash in the driver's seat on wages policy. I know this side of the chamber can't bear to think about it, but we also know there are a fair few over there who don't really want to think about that either. Australians, you simply cannot risk Mr Dutton and the coalition dipping their hands in your pocket and cutting your wages. They've already committed to targeted repeals of the legislation we introduced that is contributing to wages growth. They've also committed to cutting pay and conditions for casual workers. They want you to work after hours without getting paid by abolishing the right to disconnect, and today we learned they are developing a specific election policy to strip away workers' rights in the Western Australian mining industry. The coalition clearly want Australians to work longer for less. Under Labor, you'll earn more and keep more of what you earn. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 21 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Australian Political Exchange Council: Japan 21 14:11 The PRESIDENT 112096 I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the gallery of the Australian Political Exchange Council's 19th delegation from Japan led by Mr Fujii Hisayuki. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and to the Senate in particular. Honourable senators: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 21 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 21 14:11 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Minister, yesterday you claimed that the Albanese government had slashed spending growth. What was the rate of projected spending growth prior to the 2022 election, and what is the projected rate now after three Labor budgets? 14:12 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Colbeck for the question. Whilst those opposite raise concerns about the level of inflation and spending that are occurring now in the economy, I would like to remind them that in the March budget before the election in 2022 the coalition spent $40 billion when inflation was about to reach a peak of 6.1 per cent. Whilst we've seen inflation moderate, we've found savings, we've got the budget in better shape, we've reduced debt so that we've saved the Australian taxpayers $80 billion in interest payments and we've turned significant Liberal differences into Labor surpluses. When we have supported additional spending, it's been very modest as inflation moderates. In fact, in this last budget, I think the net spend was in the order of just over $11 billion, when inflation is half of what we inherited. We've been finding savings, paying down debt, turning deficits into surpluses, finding savings and reprioritising across the budget— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Colbeck on a point of order. Senator Colbeck 00AOL On direct relevance, the question was 'what was the projected spending rate growth prior to the 2022 election, and what is the projected spending rate now after three Labor budgets'. We've had— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Colbeck. There's no need for debate. I will remind the senator of that part of your question. Senator GALLAGHER ING I was putting the context around it, which is that those opposite seem very concerned about spending now. They didn't have the same concern when inflation was much higher and they were trying to win an election, where they tried to shovel out $40 billion worth of additional spending at a time when they knew inflation was a massive problem. That is what happened. When I look at the statistics of the spending, if we look at the percentage of GDP, it is much lower. In 2022-23, you were spending at 27.2 per cent. In Labor's 2024-25 budget, it was 24.5 per cent. (Time expired) Senator Hume 266499 Spending growth. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Colbeck, first supplementary? 14:14 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania Is the projected level of spending in the 2024-25 financial year now higher or lower than was forecast in Labor's first budget? 14:15 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The shadow finance minister interjects, so I'll just give the real spending growth. The average under the Liberal government was 4.1 per cent. Under our government, over six years to 2027-28, it's 1.4 per cent. What that shows is the numbers don't support the argument that you are putting. The numbers do not support the argument. You talk out of both sides of your mouth all the time. You want to spend more and spend less. You want to argue that wages spirals will cause inflation and then you complain that wages aren't growing fast enough. People see the inconsistency in your argument. We have shown restraint. We have repaired the budget. At the same time, we've found room to support people with cost-of-living help, whether it be tax cuts, whether it be energy bill rebates, whether it be support for early education and care—both for parents and for the workers—whether it be reforming aged care. So, yes, we are tackling those important investment areas at the same time. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Colbeck, second supplementary? 14:16 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania On what basis do you claim to have slashed spending growth, when your government's own budget shows spending has increased by $64 billion in 2024-25? 14:16 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory There are the numbers that I just read out, Senator Colbeck—the difference between 4.1 and 1.7—for example. There's also the fact that we have found $77 billion in savings. In your last budget, I'll tell you how many savings you found: zero. We didn't have to look very hard, because there were none. There were no savings. You went on a spending spree at a time when inflation was at its highest. That is what was occurring. We came into government. We found savings. We returned money to the budget. We've lowered the debt. We've turned deficits into surpluses. We've done all of that at the same time that we've shown restraint in spending, and we've been able to meet some of the urgent pressures there were across government services and, indeed, to help people with some of the cost-of-living issues that we've been seeing over the last year or so. Workplace Relations 22 14:17 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Minister Watt. Educators and unions have fought long and hard for a 25 per cent pay rise for early childhood educators, and last week the government announced an overdue 15 per cent wage increase. These educators, who are overwhelmingly women, have been calling for a 25 per cent wage increase, to value the essential and underrecognised work of educating and caring for our kids in those critical early years. For too long these childcare workers have been leaving the industry in droves because they aren't being paid enough, and they can't afford to stay. Our childcare system is in a crisis. Australia needs a workforce strategy that continues to build capacity, and that requires paying our educators what they deserve. Minister, don't you think that early childhood educators deserve a 25 per cent pay increase? 14:18 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator, for your question. Only the Greens could be upset about a pay rise being provided by a Labor government to some of the lowest paid and most important workers in our community. Only the Greens could be disappointed about that. Do you know the reason they're disappointed about that? They can't use their favourite phrase, 'We did it,' because they didn't do it. It was a Labor government that delivered a much-needed, much-deserved pay rise for early childhood educators in our country, obviously in partnership with the trade union movement, who, along with members of those unions and those workers, have campaigned for this for a very long time. Among our ranks, we have a number of people who've been campaigning for this a whole lot longer than the Greens, who like to jump on the bandwagon. I'm talking about people like Senator Bilyk, who actually is a former early childhood educator and has been campaigning for this for 40 years. I'm talking about people like Senator Walsh, whose professional career was devoted to assisting these workers get a pay rise that they deserve. The list goes on across our ranks. Don't come in here and try and be Johnny-come-latelies and all of a sudden say that you care about early childhood educators when you've done nothing about it until the last meme was available. Don't lecture us about supporting workers. Don't support us— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator WATT 245759 Yes, I'm going to point at you, because you're the people who want to jump on the bandwagon. When Labor governments actually do something— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, resume your seat. Senator Shoebridge? Senator Shoebridge 169119 I think, President, you can anticipate my point of order. The PRESIDENT 112096 Yes. Thank you. Minister Watt, I do— Senator Wong 00AOU You're a hypocrite. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Wong! Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber! I am responding to the point of order raised by Senator Shoebridge. I do remind you, Minister Watt, to direct your answers to the chair. Please continue. Senator WATT 245759 Chair, I suspect you might agree, in your impartial manner, that the Labor government has been doing a lot, because it's something I know you have campaigned on for a very long time, as well, along with early childhood workers. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Shoebridge on a point of order? Senator Shoebridge 169119 The minister should not bring you into a partisan debate in the way he did. It impugns your— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, resume your seat! Please continue, Minister. Senator WATT 245759 The Greens, wanting to complain about something that the Labor government has done, now dictate who can actually support that policy in the Labor government. There you go—that's the Greens for you. Every person and every group involved in the early childhood education sector has welcomed this pay rise as much needed. It would appear that the only group who are unhappy about this are the Greens because they now lose a campaign opportunity calling for a pay rise—because we've actually done it. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hodgins-May, a first supplementary? 14:21 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria Women and families across Australia are hurting because early childhood education and care is too expensive and too hard to access. Kids are missing out on crucial early years education and parents are missing out on much-needed paid work in a cost-of-living crisis. Last week, the government could have made early education and care free and accessible, but instead they locked in a fee hike for families, who are already struggling. Minister, why won't your government make early childhood education and care free and universal, just like primary and secondary school? 14:21 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland It must be hard being a Greens senator, because every time there's good news delivered by a Labor government, you've got to find a reason to whinge about it. And you've got to be reminded that, if you're a Greens senator, all you can achieve is a whole lot of complaining rather than actually delivering the kinds of things that the Labor government is delivering. Let me tell you what Lisa, an early childhood educator in New South Wales, had to say about the pay rise the Albanese government has just delivered. Lisa said—and I'm sure she speaks for many in her position: This is a monumental moment. It is history making. This means I can stay in the job I love and I know that it is going to change a lot of lives, not just my own. … … … We are proud to finally win the recognition that educators deserve. You can pontificate all you want; you can complain all you want; but you will never represent people like Lisa, who actually work in this sector and deserve the pay rise that they are now getting as a direct result of an Albanese Labor government. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hodgins-May, a second supplementary? 14:22 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria Research shows that the childcare subsidy activity test is contributing to 126,000 children from low-income households missing out on early years education. The activity test is cruel and punitive, unfairly punishes low-income families and keeps women out of work. No-one wants the activity test, and parents in the sector continue to call for its abolition. Minister, why is your government locking 126,000 kids out of early years education by not abolishing the activity test? 14:23 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Again, thank you very much for that question, Senator, because it now gives me an opportunity to talk not just about the pay rise we provided to early childhood educators but about the cut in childcare fees that the Albanese Labor government is providing families all around Australia. As a result of the policies that the Albanese Labor government has brought in, we now see childcare fees reduced by 11 per cent, on average, for Australian families. That is a direct result of our policies. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Hodgins-May? Senator Hodgins-May 310860 A point of order, Speaker: I specifically asked about the abolishing of the activity test, and I would refer the minister to my question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU Two points. First, the minister has only had 22 seconds; I'm sure he will get to that point. The second point is— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator Wong 00AOU I'm sure he will. I have great faith in Senator Watt. The second point is: Senator, you actually made an assertion about the cost of child care, so the minister is entitled to respond to that assertion. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Minister Wong. Order! First of all, Senator Hodgins-May, I'm the President, not the Speaker. Secondly, you did refer to fee hikes at the start of your question and you talked about women not being able to go to work, so the minister is entitled to canvass those issues in his response. Please continue, Minister Watt. Senator WATT 245759 Thank you, President. The issues that Senator Hodgins-May is talking about have been the subject of a number of reviews that have been presented to the government and they are matters we are considering. But in the meantime, what we are actually doing is making child care cheaper for Australian families, another thing the coalition opposed—let's not forget about them—with the ACCC finding that out-of-pocket expenses for centre based daycare decreased by 11 per cent on average between June and September 2023. Again, it takes a rare talent to complain about childcare fees being reduced. It takes a rare talent to complain about early childhood pay but you are up to the job. (Time expired) Cost of Living 24 14:25 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia My question is to the Minister for Finance. The Albanese Labor government is working hard every day to deliver cost-of-living relief for Australian families in a responsible way. Central to this is ensuring Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn. Can the minister please inform the Senate about what measures the Albanese Labor government have put in place to support Australian families to meet costs? And can the minister also please inform the Senate how these measures have been carefully calibrated to ensure they put downward pressure on the cost of energy, housing and groceries? 14:26 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Grogan for her question and for the work she does in advocating for the good people of South Australia, raising all of these issues with us. Our No. 1 priority is delivering cost-of-living relief. You have seen that in the core of all of the decisions we have taken since coming to government: every Australian taxpayer is getting a tax cut, not just some; every Australian household is getting $300 energy bill relief; 2.6 million low-paid workers who were forgotten by those opposite are getting their third consecutive pay rise; stronger Medicare and cheaper medicines in every community; HECS relief for everyone with a student debt; more homes built more quickly in every part of the country; and cheaper groceries by strengthening of the food and grocery code. This is sensible cost-of-living relief that we can provide without adding to inflation. There's more to do and we will keep working every day, as we have since we have been elected. We know it is a privilege to be in this position of being able to make decisions that benefit all Australians. We know that if those opposite got their hands on government again, it would mean: higher power prices because they don't support energy bill relief; there would be higher housing prices because they haven't supported pretty much any part of our Homes for Australia plan; higher taxes, particularly for those who were not going to get a tax cut under their original plan; and lower wages. We know that because we know their form in government. Low wages were a design feature of their economic architecture. They did not go into Fair Work Commission's annual wage review with any submission that supported a wage increase for low-paid workers. That is what we would have if this mob opposite got back into government. That is why we will continue to work against that every single day. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Grogan, a first supplementary? 14:28 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia That was a great answer from the minister. I really appreciate the detail. The wage price index was released today showing that wages are rising 0.8 per cent to 4.1 per cent higher through the year. The government has also put downward pressure on inflation after inheriting an inflation rate of 6.1 per cent from the coalition. Can the minister please explain how the government is working in complement with the RBA on the inflation challenge while supporting cost-of-living measures? 14:28 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thank you for that supplementary question. We always, and I think you heard it from Minister Watt this afternoon, want Australians to own more and keep more of what they earn, and we welcome the wages data that was released today. Those opposite do not get it. Higher wages is the best form of cost-of-living relief Australians can get and that is why we have been pushing for wages growth in this country after a decade of wage stagnation. The opposition are oblivious to the cost-of-living challenges facing many Australians. They voted against our cost-of-living relief at every opportunity and now they are saying they want to cut pensions and services that Australians rely on. As the RBA governor said, the government's job is to get inflation down and to provide services for Australians. We are doing both. Australians would suffer if we didn't do both, and we will continue our approach. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Grogan, second supplementary? 14:29 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia As we on this side know, not everyone in this parliament has supported the Albanese Labor government's cost-of-living relief measures. Our government inherited an inflation rate of 6.1 per cent from those opposite at the last election, and we've worked hard to bring that number down while supporting Australian families. Can the minister please explain why a slash-and-burn budget approach would've left Australian families worse off? 14:30 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Grogan for the supplementary. Those opposite are very quick to use the figure of $315 billion in their media interviews, where they say it's excessive spending. But they are less likely to give you a breakdown of what that spending is, because they would then have to say that they would cut the age pension and other income support payments, they would cut rent assistance and spending on housing, they would cut the money for women's safety, they would cut the energy bill relief, they would cut the pay of aged-care and early education workers and they would cut funding for medicines on the PBS and for our measures for cheaper child care. They wouldn't support expanding and paying superannuation on PPL, wouldn't support natural disaster recovery funding and relief and wouldn't support an increase in spending on veterans' compensation and rehabilitation claims. I could go on. I'm not going to have enough time. But that is the secret behind the number that you use. Private Health Insurance 25 14:31 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Minister Gallagher. It's been reported in the Financial Review today that talks are starting on health insurance premium increases. Recently I had a Canberran tell me that, even with private health insurance, he was charged $20,000 out of pocket for prostate cancer treatment. I've had another tell me that they were stung $3,000 for life-saving radiotherapy. A knee replacement in the ACT is around $3,000 more expensive than the Australian median. Why should Canberrans, or any Australian, cop an increase in their insurance premiums when the private system is failing to deliver value and cover the cost of routine procedures? 14:32 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Pocock for the question. Let me be clear: I think people in the ACT do pay too much for access to private healthcare treatment. That's been a longstanding problem here in the ACT. It's one that I tried to focus on when I was in the assembly and continue to focus on. It essentially comes down to a lack of competition in the private medical market here. We're a small market. We don't have the number of health professionals operating privately that some of the other jurisdictions have. But it is a real problem, and it does deserve a lot more scrutiny than it's getting. Canberrans pay a lot more than what their fellow Australians in other jurisdictions, including small jurisdictions, pay for private health cover. In fact, we have the highest private health insurance coverage in the country and the lowest utilisation of it, and some of that has to be linked to the prices that people pay for out-of-pocket expenses. The focus that we've been having in health is to repair the damage that was done under Peter Dutton's work when he was the health minister, to make sure that we're investing in Medicare, that we're improving bulk-billing, that we're providing cheaper medicines and that we are ensuring Medicare urgent care clinics and other parts of Medicare are actually working. Bulk-billing, for example, was in a freefall when we inherited it. We're starting to turn that around. There is more to do here. But I agree with Senator Pocock that the out-of-pocket costs, which are related to but not completely at the hand of the private health insurers, require a lot more scrutiny, including what people are paying here in the ACT. I would encourage them to shop around when they are getting their referrals to see if they can get lower prices from other medical professionals. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, first supplementary? 14:34 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I'm glad you agree, Minister. I'm concerned that none of the measures you've mentioned relate to the cost of surgery. I'm interest in what actions the government will take to protect Australians from outrageous gap fees and to ensure that they actually receive some value from their private health insurance, given we have a system that forces people into having private health insurance. 14:34 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory In terms of surgery, we have a very good public health system, but, in some areas, there are waits for people. For medical treatment, that is why some people go private, because they can get their surgery done faster than waiting on the public list. But I would say that, in this country, we do have an excellent public health system that provides services to anyone, regardless of their background or need. That is important to understand. The other thing is the work we're trying to do for medical professionals, those private specialists, to publish their fees so that people can see, at the earliest opportunity, the going rates. The doctors haven't been as fast as we would like to upload some of that information, and I think we need to continue to put more pressure on there. In terms of the private health insurance and any increase there, we need to make sure that any increases are reasonable in line with escalating costs. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pocock, a second supplementary? 14:35 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory We know that the public system is clogged. There are over 500,000 people in the public system on the surgery waiting list, 3,000 in the ACT. Only half of people needing semiurgent surgery are seen on time in the ACT. Is there any plan from the government to rein in increases to insurance premiums when people aren't seeing value from their private health insurance? 14:36 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Certainly the work the government does on an annual basis scrutinises this. I cannot recall off the top of my head the last increase, but it was a modest increase to private health insurance. This is something the minister looks at carefully and takes a range of advice on. The prices some private specialists charge are over and above even the responsibility of the private health insurer—for those out-of-pocket costs on top of or above the scheduled fee for these procedures. That is a decision of the doctors providing that service. I know, having been through it recently here in the ACT, the charges for my family member were a hundred times what the scheduled fee was. So there is a problem, and it needs further scrutiny about what can be done, particularly here in the ACT, where people often charge double what the costs are in places like Sydney or Melbourne or, indeed, Adelaide. (Time expired) Electric Vehicles 26 14:37 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria My question is to Senator McAllister, the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy—and I congratulate her on her promotion. Given the proven potential of electric vehicles to provide energy and system security services to the electricity grid using vehicle-to-grid, or V2G, technology, which was recently demonstrated by the Realising Electric Vehicles-to-grid Services project run at ANU, is the government taking steps to update and harmonise the national grid codes and standards to facilitate the broader adoption of V2G technology? 14:38 Senator MCALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thank you very much, Senator Van, for that question. You're right that this is a technology that potentially has great potential supporting consumers in meeting the energy needs in their own households but also, if done well, supporting our broader requirement to have a grid that is reliable and can respond flexibly to changes in demand across that grid. Minister Bowen sometimes refers to electric vehicles as 'batteries on wheels'. It's on that basis that the government are taking the steps that we are taking, generally, in relation to electric vehicles and, specifically, in relation to the national standards that are required to make sure this technology is integrated and integrated well. You'll know that we had an extended public discussion about standards for new vehicles and encouraging a greater number of models and a greater choice for consumers in relation to vehicles, and that applied to more-efficient petrol vehicles but also to the importation of a wider range of electric vehicles, including vehicles that are at a price point that will be attractive to the broadest range of consumers. But you speak specifically of the issues in relation to the grid. It is a matter that the energy ministers have paid a great deal of attention to. In fact, at their last meeting, energy ministers adopted a roadmap that sets out a series of pieces of work that the energy ministers agreed to undertake together to establish the relevant standards for electric vehicles. Minister Bowen has been clear that he would like to see some progress on some of those matters over the course of this year. But we understand that this is a technology where we have time to prepare. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Van, first supplementary. 14:40 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria Minister, given that AEMO has not even included the capability in their ISP to any great extent and there are billions of dollars being prioritised for restricting the grid—gold plating it, some would say—and given the growth of EVs in the evolving landscape of the technology, is the government considering revising its market projections in energy policies to better reflect the potential contributions that EVs with V2G technology could make? 14:40 Senator MCALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thanks very much, Senator Van. You are right to make the point that the technology potentially could have a real impact on the projections for both demand and supply in the National Electricity Market. We are at a point in time where the technologies that are available to us are evolving and changing. It is for that reason that AEMO not only regularly updates projections and updates the systems plan but also makes sure that, when it does that, it engages very closely with a range of stakeholders to make sure that the assumptions that they are using and the inputs they are obtaining reflect broadly the understanding in the market about the technologies that are afoot and coming towards us. Right now, we do not have a particularly large number of vehicles with this capacity ready to go in this market. But that could change, and I am quite certain AEMO will be watching this as they update, as they regularly do, their projections. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Van, a second supplementary. 14:41 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria Minister, is the government planning to allocate additional funding or introduce incentives to support research, development and deployment of V2G technology? 14:42 Senator MCALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator Van, as you know, the chief vehicle for providing support for emerging technology and technology trials is ARENA. In our last budget, the government substantially replenished ARENA's funds to provide support for a range of technologies, including, potentially, the technologies that you speak of. We are conscious that this is a world in which Australia is just one participant in a global market where vehicle manufacturers around the world are thinking about how best to integrate this capacity into the vehicles that they sell. I am quite certain that the reforms we have undertaken to change the shape of the Australian market will see Australians with a much greater opportunity to access some of these vehicles as they come into commercial production globally. Energy 27 14:43 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Minister Wong. A key contributor to the cost of living is the cost of power, because the electricity price is set by the gas price. Despite all your measures on gas, the price of gas on the east coast last quarter was $13.76 per gigajoule. Meanwhile, in Western Australia, a state that has a gas reservation policy, it was $8.66 per gigajoule. We have an abundance of gas and yet most Australians are paying through-the-roof prices for electricity. Why is your government putting the interests of the large gas cartels ahead of Australians and not considering a gas reservation policy? 14:44 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you to Senator Lambie for that question. She is right to draw attention to the rising costs that Australians have been facing for energy. That is one of the reasons that the government has, both in relation to electricity and to gas, put in place measures to try and deal with this. We are committed to doing what we have to do to ensure Australians, Australian households and Australian businesses have access to reliable and affordable energy both today and into the future. In relation to prices, I would make the point that, when we came to office, average east coast gas prices were over $30 a gigajoule and yesterday the average price, I'm advised, was somewhere around $12.30. So I'm making the point that this is a longstanding problem. In relation to WA, obviously for historical and geographic reasons, WA has a separate gas market to the east coast and a separate set of gas policies. The east coast market has experienced larger price fluctuations for many reasons, including reasons not connected to gas reservation policy. When we came into government, we took immediate strong action on both gas supply and price. We introduced the mandatory code of conduct. We reformed the powers of AEMO to take action to address supply issues before they eventuated. Because of that, the market operator now has the power to manage the east coast gas market, including with powers to direct gas supplies around the system and between states. The gas code, which those opposite didn't support, has now secured more than a 600 petajoules of domestic gas for east coast users out to 2033. That's enough to run east coast gas-fired power stations for about six years. So you're right, Senator—prices for energy, whether electricity or gas, are higher than we would like. We know that Australians are battling the cost of living, and we are— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, first supplementary? 14:46 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania A recent AAT FOI decision refusing access to a domestic gas reservation options paper based on advice from DFAT shows that our own government is putting the interests of other countries before Australia. I quote: … potential damage arising from disclosure of information relating to gas reservation in Australia because of the very real economic impact that Australia's domestic policies could have on those countries. Minister, why is your government putting the interests of foreign countries ahead of this one? 14:46 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia (—) (): We always look to Australia's interests, and I'd make a couple of points about that, listening to the quote. In relation to an options paper, that is not government policy but what options might or might not have been considered. The second point I'd make is around investment in our energy sector by companies, which might be foreign companies but investing in Australia, enabling Australian jobs. If you look at our resources sector, if you look at our energy sector, and if you look at what has happened in coal and in the LNG industry and all of those Australian jobs, many of them have been enabled because of investment by energy partners. So I would make the point to you that it's not correct to say that looking at how other countries might react is somehow not in the interests of Australia. We have an interest in ensuring investment continues. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, second supplementary? 14:47 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Australians are struggling to pay their power and gas, yet you complained to Senator Birmingham in this chamber last November that he temporarily said no to Santos, no to Woodside, no to the Japanese company INPEX, no to Korea and no to Japan. I don't have a problem with saying no to them, because I work for the Australian people. My question is: is the Albanese government working for them? 14:48 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia We always work for Australians. That's our job. I again refer back to what I said earlier. If you want to look at the number of companies that you talked about, they invest in Australia. They invest in very large projects in Australia. They employ very large numbers of Australians. The development of many of our energy industries has been as a joint endeavour between Australia and countries who seek these energy resources. I'd also make the point that these other countries, who will also co-invest with us, work with us on things like green hydrogen. So those energy partnerships matter to Australia, they matter to our transition to a lower-carbon economy, and they matter to Australian jobs because it is Australian jobs which benefit from this sort of investment. Emergency Management 28 14:49 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Emergency Management, Minister McAllister. I want to take the opportunity to congratulate her on her new role, and I know she will bring all of the vim and vigour of a great New South Welsh woman to the role. What role has the Albanese government undertaken during this term of government to make sure Australia is better prepared for natural disasters? 14:49 Senator MCALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thank you, Senator O'Neill. I recognise your longstanding interest in these issues and in the wellbeing of communities in New South Wales. This is of course my first question as minister in this portfolio, and I want to acknowledge my predecessor, Senator Watt. His is a legacy that I am proud to build on. I also want to acknowledge the communities who are still on the long road to recovery following floods and fires, and the terrific workers and volunteers, some of whom I've already had the privilege of meeting in the last two weeks. But, as the frequency and severity of natural disasters has grown, so has the expectation that the Australian government will be able to step up and support communities when they are at their lowest. The Albanese government has risen to this challenge. Over the last two years, we have implemented a number of reforms to ensure that Australians can be better prepared for natural disasters, so these communities can respond better and recover faster when a disaster hits us. These include creating the National Emergency Management Agency, to lead a more unified and more coordinated approach to emergency management; completing a substantial upgrade to the National Situation Room; establishing and building a National Emergency Management Stockpile; and investing in Disaster Relief Australia to boost volunteers providing recovery and support to clean up after disasters. Our government is focused on working collaboratively with our partners to help communities prepare for and manage disasters. States and territories of course retain primary responsibility for these responses, but our government's approach is to show leadership, boost our capacity to coordinate and show that we are ready to support states and territories and support communities at their worst possible moments. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Neill, first supplementary? 14:51 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Thank you very much, Minister. I know, from being at the Gundagai Show and people talking about the challenge and response in New South Wales, they will very much appreciate the answer that you've given there. As we enter this second half of the year, my community in New South Wales is starting to turn its mind to the coming high-risk weather season. What work is the Albanese government undertaking in the coming months to ensure Australians are ready for this high-risk weather season? 14:52 Senator MCALLISTER 121628 New South Wales We do know how important it is to work with states and territories, work with industry and work with communities on emergency management. The work that's already underway includes plans for the Albanese government's second high-risk weather season preparedness summit, which will bring together government, industry and the community sector to prepare for the coming season. We're also establishing briefings between the Bureau of Meteorology, state and territory agencies and local governments on how to implement and use the Australian Warning System, so that communities can rely on consistent information and consistent language when they are receiving that information, and a series of national exercises are stress-testing our arrangements with state and territory governments and with industries. In this year's budget, we have also committed an additional $35 million over two years to boost Australia's aerial capability. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Neill, second supplementary? 14:53 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Thank you very much, Minister, and I'm pleased, and relieved, in fact, to hear that this government is committed to ensuring that Australians are in fact better prepared for natural disasters so they can respond and recover faster. Looking beyond this next season, however, how is the Albanese government working with states, territories and local governments to build resilience to future natural disasters? 14:53 Senator MCALLISTER 121628 New South Wales When we came into government, we promised to turn the previous government's defunct Emergency Response Fund into a dedicated fund for resilience and mitigation projects. And we have delivered. The Albanese government's flagship Disaster Ready Fund is investing up to $200 million in Commonwealth funding every year for projects across the country. Last year we announced nearly $400 million in matched funding for 187 projects. These included flood levees, evacuation shelters, fuel hazard mapping capability, seawalls and more. Now, this is in stark contrast to the former government. In three years, their $4.8 billion Emergency Response Fund did not complete a single mitigation project or release a cent in recovery funding, while it made the government over $800 million in interest. Australians expect their government to support them in times of need, and they can be assured we will do just that. National Security 29 14:54 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Watt. Reporting by Reuters and others of polling showing that three in four residents of Gaza and the West Bank support the terrorist group Hamas, and indeed their actions on 7 October, has led to questions about the security implications of visas being issued to this cohort during the current crisis. In an interview with the ABC on Sunday, the Director-General of ASIO, Mike Burgess, said, 'Part of that visa process is, when criteria are hit, they are referred to my organisation, and ASIO does its thing.' Will the minister commit to referring every visa application from this cohort to ASIO so that it can conduct the appropriate security checks? 14:55 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Fawcett. I'm sure that Senator Fawcett would agree that Australia has a proud record of working with our international allies to help people escape from a crisis, such as what we are seeing in Gaza right now. The war between Israel and Hamas has displaced millions of Palestinians, and Australia has once again done its part. But we've not allowed this to comprise our national security. Our security and intelligence agencies have taken exactly the same approach here as they took with Ukrainians who arrived after the Russian invasion in 2022 and with Afghans who fled from the Taliban, under the former government. I'm a little surprised to hear someone like Senator Fawcett, who I know has a great deal of respect for our armed forces and our security agencies, question the judgement— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WATT 245759 Well, Senator Fawcett asked the question. Senator Fawcett's a big boy. He's okay. I am a little surprised to hear Senator Fawcett—who, as I said, I know has respect for the armed forces, as a former armed forces member himself—question the judgement of the Director-General of ASIO, Mr Mike Burgess. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Fawcett? Senator Fawcett DYU On relevance: the question was about the government's commitment to refer every application, not about the judgement of the director-general, who, as the minister correctly indicates, I have the highest regard for. The PRESIDENT 112096 The minister is being relevant, and I'll continue to listen carefully. Senator WATT 245759 Senator Fawcett, as I've already implied and will now make explicit, we are following exactly the same process as what occurred under the former government. Applicants for visas are checked for security risks, which is the case here. We are following exactly the same process. Mike Burgess, someone I have confidence in and our government has confidence in as the Director-General of ASIO, has said that this is the same process as what was followed under the former government and is the appropriate process. I think the question for the opposition is whether they have faith in ASIO or not. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Fawcett, first supplementary? 14:58 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia Minister, the issue for you is that in the same interview the director-general said: 'When things get referred to ASIO, we deal with them effectively. Of course, there might be times when they didn't get referred to us in time.' Is this why multiple individuals leaving Gaza had their Australian visas cancelled after they had been granted? 14:58 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I would have thought it's a good thing for ASIO to provide advice that certain individual's visas should be cancelled or not granted, rather than not make that decision. That's an example of ASIO doing its job and the government listening to the advice of ASIO. Would the opposition seriously prefer us to ignore the advice of ASIO? What we've done in some instances is cancel visas when security checks have revealed that those individuals should not be granted a visa. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator WATT 245759 Again, this is exactly the same process as what was employed by the former government. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Order! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, I called order three times. It applies to you. I will ask you to either remain silent in the chamber or leave the chamber. Minister Watt, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 As I said, the process that this government is adopting and that ASIO is adopting is exactly the same process as ASIO adopted under the former government. We listen with respect to the advice of our security agencies, including from Mr Burgess as the Director-General of ASIO. Where he and his colleagues provide advice that a visa should not be issued or should be cancelled, we accept that advice. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Fawcett, second supplementary? 15:00 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia Media reports suggest that the Albanese government is developing a visa pathway to allow temporary visa holders from Palestine to remain in Australia. Minister, will you make a commitment to the Australian people that not a single Hamas supporter will be brought into Australia under this scheme? 15:00 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Fawcett. I saw the comments of Mr Burgess on this matter on the Insiders program, and I'm sure you can go and have a look at them yourself. He explained the approach of our national security agency to people who have expressed views about Hamas. Again, we respect the advice of our security agencies and people like Mr Burgess, and we act on that advice, so I'm confident that ministers will act in accordance with that advice when those decisions are required. I also saw Mr Burke, the incoming home affairs minister, make the very obvious point that Gaza is a war zone. People were provided with tourist visas initially in order to get them out of a conflict zone quickly after security checks had been undertaken. It is unrealistic to think that it is proper or safe to return people to a conflict zone like Gaza, which is why further consideration is being given to their status going forward. Senator Wong 00AOU I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 30 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Private Health Insurance 30 15:01 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Earlier in question time, in answer to a question from a Senator Pocock, I think I incorrectly said 'a hundred times' when I meant '10 times'. PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION 31 PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTATION Payman, Senator Fatima 31 15:01 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia by leave—I inform the Senate that I have resigned from the Australian Labor Party and now sit as an Independent senator for Western Australia. 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. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 31 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 31 15:02 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notices asked by Opposition senators today. This week confirmed what Australians already know and fear from their weekly visits to the shops, and that is that Australians have yet to record a real wage increase since the election of the Labor government. Their real wages are down. They have gone backwards by a long way. In fact, real wages are back to levels that we haven't seen since 2011. We're back to 2011. Real wages for Australians were last at this level more than 10 years ago, because the inflation rate under this term of the Labor government has been sitting far above what has been returned to Australians in wage increases. So that's why everyone is struggling. Senator Murray, here in the chamber, laughs at that. Obviously, he doesn't understand what Australians are facing. He doesn't understand that Australians can't afford their groceries right now. He doesn't understand that Australians are struggling to pay their mortgage, and perhaps that explains the tin-eared response from this government to the legitimate issues facing Australian families. This government continues to put its head in the sand and think that there is no problem. Last week, we saw the Reserve Bank of Australia warn that the spending levels of governments are stopping them from cutting interest rates and helping Australian families to pay their mortgages. In fact, in their Statement on monetary policy, they explicitly said that the spending of federal and state governments is preventing them from changing or reducing interest rates. It was followed up by a press conference from the Reserve Bank governor Michele Bullock where she repeated those issues. In response, we had these delusionary statements from the Treasurer, saying that there is not a problem, that federal spending growth has not contributed to the challenge of the Reserve Bank and has not contributed to inflation—which is clearly at odds with the statements of the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, the person in charge of tackling inflation in this country. It is very easy to check the facts. We have here a government that continue to say that they actually slashed spending growth in their first two budgets—which is what the finance minister has been saying lately. Yet Commonwealth government spending in their last budget, delivered a few months ago, was in fact $64 billion higher than when they came to government. That is hardly slashing spending. Some of that growth will be because unemployment is higher than expected and inflation is higher than expected and some government spending, like pensions, is linked to that. But there is a table you can go to in the budget which separates those issues out. It gets you the real answers about what this government has done to either detract from or contribute to spending pressures and therefore the inflationary pressures facing Australians. The table shows that, in their first full budget, in 2023-24, in net terms the government's policy decisions—so not the automatic changes that occur because of inflation and other issues—had added over $20 billion of spending to the annual budget. In her answer, the finance minister spoke about their savings, saying, 'Oh, we've made savings.' The same table, on page 93 of this year's budget, shows that net, after their savings, they actually added an extra $24 billion of spending in this year's budget. So in two budgets, in just two years, there was $44 billion of extra spending in net terms, even after you factor in the government savings. That is a lot of money. In fact, it is the biggest increase in government spending for policy decisions since the days of Kevin Rudd if you take out the COVID years. Obviously, with COVID, there was massive spending in response to lockdowns et cetera. This is the greatest level of government spending, outside of COVID, since Kevin Rudd faced the global financial crisis. The government has done that at a time of raging inflation here and around the world. Now the only thing getting made in Australia anymore is the government's inflation. It is made here from their budgets and their spending, and that is what is contributing to the pressures on Australians. Government ministers may laugh at the statistics that show that the standard living of Australians has fallen by more than a decade in just two years. We are back to a standard of living that people last experienced in 2011. That is the record of this government, and they are doing nothing about it. 15:07 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Those opposites seem to have become really concerned with spending recently. The numbers show that they had no such concern in their last year of government. As the minister pointed out in question time, spending growth then was 4.1 per cent, compared to Labor's, which is 1.7 per cent. On the savings front, there was a big fat zero from those opposite compared to savings of $77 billion in interest payments from the Labor government. We've seen annual real wage growth at 0.3 per cent to the June quarter. That is the third consecutive quarter of growth that we have seen from the figures released today. What did we find when we came to government in 2022? Annual real wage growth was going backwards by 3.4 per cent under the coalition. Under Labor, we have delivered growth. In fact, we have seen annual nominal wages growth go up by at least four per cent in four consecutive quarters. In stark contrast, in nine years of the coalition government, there was not one single quarter when annual nominal wages grew above four per cent—not one in nine years. So compare the pair. Under Labor, people are working more, they are earning more and they are keeping more of what they earn, which is in stark contrast to those opposite, who worked so hard to ensure that the wages of people stagnated—under an intentional policy decision. You were in government for nine years. You took some very direct, intentional actions, and you cannot now sit there and deny it. You cannot sit there and now say that you care about people's wages. The way you're going on and on about the cost of living—when it was not something you ever paid any attention to in nine long years of government. And then there were the car parks. In question time, we heard about infrastructure spending. There are not a lot of car parks from us over here, but we have taken significant action to improve the transparency and accountability of public spending because of what we saw you guys do, because of what we inherited when we came to government and because of the rorts and fiasco we saw under your lack of leadership. What has happened under the Albanese Labor government since we came in, in 2022, is that the minister has taken significant actions to improve accountability and transparency for public spending. The minister has embedded new assurances and protections in the federation funding agreement. The FFA outlines the states' and territories' responsibility to ensure the value for the spending of public money, improving productivity in construction. The new FFA is designed to ensure that both levels of government are accountable, that we share the accountability and that we improve the transparency. We share the responsibility for fiscal discipline and for planning so that projects are going to be completed in a timely manner and in an accountable manner with those public funds. Let's not forget these are public funds. Effective priority setting, risk management, accountability and transparency—these are the things that we are driving. We are driving these reforms to ensure that is what we are getting in our public funding, and all the muck and bother that we listen to in this chamber at the more artistic times of the day, particularly in question time, is a little bit of a fiasco. Where are the facts? Line up the numbers; line up the facts. We can compare, very simply, the record of the Liberal government over nine years to the record of the Albanese Labor government. More accountability, more transparency, more actions to assist people on the ground who are doing it tough—that's what we are standing for. That is what we have always done. You cannot recreate history just because you're now in opposition. 15:12 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales What we've heard from those opposite today is an exercise in delusion, the description of an alternative reality and messages that the Australian taxpayer and householder have never had it so good. Let's look at what Australians are dealing with. There has been no growth in real GDP per capita for five quarters now, and the Reserve Bank has just said that it doesn't expect there to be growth in real GDP per capita for the next quarter. We've seen real net disposable income per person decline by 8½ per cent in the past 18 months. We see core quarterly inflation at 3.9 per cent and increasing. We've seen 12 consecutive rises in the overnight cash rate, in the interest rates that Australians pay on their mortgages, with no relief in sight and the Reserve Bank warning, just last week, that they were close to raising interest rates and that there were no likely cuts until next year. And we've seen labour productivity down five per cent in the last two years. We've seen out-of-control government spending, with real spending by government growing by 4.5 per cent this year. It is forecast to grow by 3.6 per cent next year. Those opposite might remember that paragon of fiscal virtue, the former treasurer Wayne Swan. He had a fiscal rule that growth in government spending should not exceed two per cent in real terms year on year. This government has broken that speed limit on two consecutive occasions now. If those opposite are wondering why Australians are feeling worse off and why Australians are frustrated by this government's economic management, they need to look at those statistics. Australians are paying more for life's essentials because inflation is out of control. They're paying more in taxes because of bracket creep. They're paying more for their mortgage because of higher interest rates. And their real incomes are not rising because there is no productivity growth and no agenda. Those opposite can crow about nominal wage rises, but the truth is that if those wage rises are only covering inflation—if they don't take into account the fact of bracket creep, if they don't into account the fact of rising interest rates—then of course Australians, in net terms, are going to be feeling worse off. That's why this figure of real GDP per capita, or real net disposable income per person, is so important. The decline that we've seen here in Australia of household net disposable income is unparalleled anywhere in the OECD. Other advanced economies have seen inflation come under control. Countries like the UK and Canada have begun to cut interest rates. The Federal Reserve has indicated its next likely move in interest rates is down while the Reserve Bank is indicating that things are heading in the opposite direction in Australia. Those countries have seen real net disposable household income increase in the past 18 months because they've gained control of inflation, because bracket creep is no longer eating into worker salaries, because people are paying less for life's essentials and because the governments have pulled in the fiscal reins and made sure that fiscal policy is pulling in the same direction as monetary policy. Last week, after the Governor of the Reserve Bank issued a warning that the growth in government spending was contributing to a more difficult inflationary outlook and was making the Reserve Bank's likelihood of reducing interest rates more distant, we had the unedifying spectacle of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer saying that the Reserve Bank governor in fact didn't say these things. Well, it is quite clear in the transcript. It's quite clear in the minutes from the last Reserve Bank Monetary Policy Committee meeting that the growth in government spending is having an impact on inflation in the Australian economy, and that the Reserve Bank is having to keep interest rates higher for longer because fiscal policy is not moving in the same direction. You just need to look at the growth in government spending: 4.5 per cent growth in real spending this year; 3.6 per cent in real spending forecast for next year. All up, $315 billion in additional government spending since this government came to office, and you can see why. Inflation is out of control and is why Australians cannot expect relief anytime soon. 15:17 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria In question time, there was a question to the government on the allocation of funding to the states with respect to the government's funding for road upgrades and infrastructure projects. It was interesting to listen to the contribution and the questions that were put to the government earlier today around that. The one thing this government takes very seriously is the road safety of each and every Australian. I know at the last election, and quite a few elections beforehand, that the Labor Party has a very proud history of working with many communities and many organisations, including the Transport Workers Union, in making sure that road safety is a key priority for a federal government. And the government has so far delivered on its election commitments of setting up a road safety remuneration tribunal—something that those opposite, when they were last in government, decided to withdraw and abolish as part of their deals here in the Senate with the crossbench. It's interesting that between 2012 and 2016 the former Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, which set the pay and conditions for road transport drivers in the road transport industry, also saw a reduction of road incidents across the nation. The tribunal was established and began operation back in July 2012, only to be abolished by the Turnbull government in April 2016. The infrastructure side of things is also a very important point, and we should look at the commitment that this government has made to increasing and improving road safety around the country. In my home state of Victoria, $120 million in joint funding has been committed to improve roads, footpaths and cycleways. In partnership with the Victorian government, the Road Safety Program will improve safety at 24 sites, including 15 projects in regional areas and nine projects in urban and metropolitan areas. This includes $4.7 million for the Regional School Safety package and pedestrian and cyclist treatments and over $2.2 million for the Regional Speed Package for static traffic controls and signage. Federal Labor has also substantially increased the Black Spot Program funding, which is progressively increasing, since 1 July, from $110 million to $150 million every single year. We've also committed $33.3 million in funding to improve 56 known crash sites under the 2024-25 Black Spot Program. The Black Spot Program funds a range of safety measures at locations where serious crashes have occurred or are at risk of occurring. Additionally, the Roads to Recovery Program funding has also risen to $650 million this year, up from $500 million last year, and will continue to rise to $1 billion by 2027-28 per year onwards. This is just another example of where the federal Labor government has put more money into road safety and into infrastructure projects across the nation, unlike what was claimed by those opposite that we are cutting funding and somehow trying to loop in the CFMEU and other union activity on these projects. But the reality is that this government has put money where its mouth is. We have said that we would improve road safety and we are doing that. The Black Spot Program, something that we are very proud of, is funding more safety improvements in my duty electorate of Gippsland. We've put money into Sale. There's $1.224 million to install single-lane roundabouts and pedestrian cycling facilities. In Traralgon, there's $408,000 to install raised crossings and speed cushions on approaches and at Traralgon Creek Shared Path and Moore Street in Traralgon. In Morwell, there's $371,000 to install kerbside edge lines and lighting upgrades, and, in Riverslea, there is $204,000 to install safety barriers and kerb alignment signs at selected kerbs. These are another example of where the Albanese Labor government is taking road safety very seriously. We are putting money into infrastructure projects right across the country, and I'm very proud that we are investing in the great state of Victoria to make sure that we are improving and working with our state counterparts and local councils for road safety projects around this country. 15:22 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Sometimes I wonder what planet these Labor ministers are on when I sit here and listen to their answers, and today was another case in point where the waffling and the wittering from the government frontbenchers should prove to all Australians that the government that sits in Canberra is a government that is not in tune with the cost-of-living crisis that is hitting Australians every day of the week. This point came home with a particular answer. Senator O'Sullivan asked the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government a question about the CFMEU and the impact of that corrupt union—that lawless union—on infrastructure projects across Australia. One part of the question that Senator O'Sullivan asked of the minister was: Australians are being forced to drive on unsafe and potholed roads which have missed out on funding because of project cost blowouts. And projects have blown out in cost because of the impact of the CFMEU. If you drive on a road in Australia at the moment and it's full of potholes, part of the reason is the impact of the CFMEU. Only last week, I drove out to Roma to meet with the Maranoa Regional Council, and I was very fortunate to also participate in what I think was National Scone Day with the CWA in Roma and also the CWA in Jackson. I caught up with the entire council and also the state member, Ann Leahy. The roads from South East Queensland to South West Queensland are basically held together by potholes, and part of the reason for that is the CFMEU. But, lo and behold, the minister said words to the effect of, 'These potholes are because of the war in Ukraine.' How about that? Apparently, President Putin is responsible for every pothole in Australia. So, if you hit a pothole, it is because of President Putin and the war in Ukraine; it has nothing to do with the lawlessness, the thuggery and the general nastiness of the CFMEU and how they have impacted projects across Australia. This goes back to the waffling and the wittering that we see from Labor frontbenchers. They don't drive on the roads in Australia. We have a Deputy Prime Minister who is very, very good at jumping on government jets with his golf clubs and flying all around Australia. Of course, we are not allowed to get the information about these flights. Senator Wong, we would love to know the details of these flights. But, since Labor have come into power, the details of these jet flights are being kept secret. This just shows how out of touch Labor are. They won't tell you where they are flying but they also won't drive on the roads that are being held together by these potholes. This shows that they just don't get it. We have a weak Prime Minister who promised 97 times before the last election that he would cut electricity bills by $275. I will bet you a day's production of Bundaberg rum that there is no way a minister in this chamber will ever say $275 in the context of cutting power bills—because everyone's power bills have gone up. I say to people sitting on their tractors or to the people at home listening to the radio or watching this on TV because nothing else is on: just think about your power bills and ask yourselves whether they have gone up or gone down. I will bet you another day's production of Bundaberg rum that your power bills have gone up under this Labor government. But it is not just your power bills; it is the cost of food and the cost of insurance, for example. Everything in Australia has gone up. Why has it gone up? It is not because of a war in Europe; it is because of the additional money that this Labor government is pumping into the economy. It is the $315 billion of additional spending that is driving up the cost of everything. So, if your wallet is hurting or your purse is hurting, it is because you have a Labor government in Canberra being led by a weak Prime Minister who has a cabinet table full of woeful, wittering and waffling ministers. Question agreed to. Early Childhood Education 34 15:28 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Minister Watt, to my question about early childhood education. It is pretty clear from Minister Watt's response—or, rather, lack thereof—that the government is not listening. It is not listening to questions in this chamber and it is not listening to families right across the country who are being absolutely squeezed by the cost-of-living crisis. I asked Minister Watt three direct questions about early childhood education and care. I asked the minister if he thought early childhood educators deserve a 25 per cent pay rise. I asked Minister Watt why the government won't make early childhood education free and universal, just like primary and secondary school. I also asked why the government is locking 126,000 kids out of early year's education by not abolishing the activity test. Instead of answering these questions, Minister Watt used the opportunity to big-note the Labor Party and offered nothing of substance. Instead of providing some assurances to childcare educators about their legitimate demands for a 25 per cent pay increase, he dismissed them and instead chose to launch a disingenuous and false attack on the Greens. Instead of explaining to anxious families why the Labor government has failed to make early childhood education and care genuinely free and accessible, Minister Watt again avoided the substance of the question. Instead of providing assurances to low-income families across the country and parents working in part-time or casual work, the trajectory of the cruel and punitive activity test, Minister Watt failed to mention the activity test. Minister Watt, you may think that the Greens won't succeed in securing these wins for the early education sectors and families across the country but we have and we will continue to fight for these reforms, as we have for decades. The next question for Minister Watt is: when will the Labor Party come to the table on these important reforms to the early childhood education sector? Relying on the argument that Labor is doing more than the Liberals did simply won't cut it. If the government genuinely wants to ease the cost of living for parents, if the government genuinely wants to improve the early childhood education sector and make it universal for all, which the Greens have long campaigned for, I have some advice for Minister Watt: the government must give educators the pay rise they deserve and have called for. Educators and the unions have been calling for 25 per cent wage increase and it is their tireless efforts that have the government starting to value the essential work that they do. Let's be clear, Labor's 15 per cent pay rise falls well short of what the sector and the unions have been demanding. The government must make early education universal and free for all. Across the country parents are struggling in a cost-of-living crisis. I'm hearing from families who are being forced to make impossible decisions between medicine or access to fresh food for their kids. Early childhood education and care are too expensive and too hard to access. It is simply unacceptable that in a wealthy country like ours kids are missing out on these crucial early learning opportunities. Universal free education gives kids that critical start to life. It removes the barriers that remove choices for women. Free universal child care would boost women's capacity to engage in paid work and would relieve financial pressures on families right across the country. Accessible affordable childhood education and care is a political choice. So far the Greens are the only party fighting for this but we certainly welcome you to the table. My third piece of advice to the government is to abolish the childcare subsidy activity test. The punitive activity test is preventing the most disadvantaged kids from accessing child care. The activity test links access to subsidised early childhood education and care to parent's participation in labour market activities. Families are stuck in a chicken-and-egg situation. They are seeking work but can't engage in work because they don't have early childhood education, and they can't access it because they are not working. How is that fair? The activity test is plainly bad policy and ignores the reality that parents often need to have access to high-quality reliable child care before they can commit to work. Research shows that removing the activity test would increase women's participation in the workforce, and surely we all want that. Labor needs to stop grandstanding and start listening to the parents, educators and unions. Our early childhood education ecosystem is broken. Labor must step up and deliver real reform for kids, families and educators right across Australia. Question agreed to. NOTICES 35 NOTICES Presentation 35 BUSINESS 36 BUSINESS Leave of Absence 36 15:33 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania by leave—I move: That leave of absence be granted to senators Henderson and Nampijinpa Price for today for personal reasons. Question agreed to. NOTICES 37 NOTICES Postponement 37 15:34 The PRESIDENT 112096 Does any senator wish for the question to be put on any of those notifications? If not, we will proceed. DOCUMENTS 37 DOCUMENTS National Housing Accord 37 Order for the Production of Documents 37 15:34 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Bragg, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Treasurer, by no later than midday on Tuesday, 20 August 2024, any reports prepared by external consultants engaged by the Commonwealth to identify planning reforms that states and territories should consider undertaking to meet their commitments under the Housing Accord. Question agreed to. Independent Review of National Natural Disaster Governance Arrangements 37 Order for the Production of Documents 37 15:35 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Davey, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Emergency Management, by no later than midday on Thursday, 15 August 2024, the following reports: (a) the Independent review of national disaster governance arrangements undertaken by Dr Glasser that was presented to the Government in December 2023; and (b) the Independent review of Commonwealth disaster funding undertaken by Mr Andrew Colvin and presented to the Minister at the end of April 2024. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 561, standing the name of Senator Davey and moved by Senator Askew, be agreed to.

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

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

Question agreed to.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 38 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Cost of Living 38 15:42 The PRESIDENT 112096 A letter has been received from Senator Hume: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: Labor's cost of living crisis is costing Australians more, with real wages going backwards by 7.8 per cent and the cost of living for working Australians increasing by 6.2 per cent in the last year alone, and senior Labor ministers admitting that the Government's response "doesn't touch the sides". Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The PRESIDENT 112096 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clocks in line with informal arrangements made by the whips. 15:42 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria In June 2022, now minister Tony Burke told the Australian people, with a straight face: People will be seeing in theirhttps://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;orderBy=date-eFirst;page=0;query=%22in%20their%20bank%20accounts%22%20Dataset%3Ahansardr,hansardr80,hansardrIndex,hansards,hansards80,hansardsIndex,reportjnt,reportsen,reportrep,estimate,comSen,comJoint,comRep;rec=23;resCount=Default—HIT3 bank accounts what the change of government means. People will be seeing in their bank accounts a wage increase … In April 2022, the then opposition leader laid it down. He said, and I'll say this very clearly, 'They'—and he was referring to Australians—'will be better off under a Labor government than they will be under a Morrison government.' Two years later we can see absolutely how hollow these promises have been. Australians on every measure are worse off under a Labor government. That isn't an opinion; that's fact. Just today we saw the wage price index released, and again there was another quarter of real wages going backwards. In fact, real wages have gone backwards by nine per cent since Labor came to government. Just in my home state of Victoria, which has been economically so mismanaged by the Andrews and now Allan governments for years and years now, the ultimate canary in the coalmine for economic mismanagement is that Victoria has recorded the lowest wage growth, just a 0.1 per cent WPI increase. That is against far, far higher inflation. Victorians' wages are going backwards faster than anywhere else in Australia. Last week, the ABS told us that the cost-of-living indexes continue to rise 6.2 per cent for working Australians. At the same time the cost of food has gone up by 11 per cent. Housing prices have gone up by 15 per cent. Rent has increased by 15 per cent. Electricity has surged 22 per cent, and gas prices have jumped 25 per cent. These aren't just numbers. They represent the daily struggles of Australians trying to make ends meet. Australians are doing it tough, and anybody who tells us that it's just about cutting back on your takeaway coffees could not be further out of touch. It's parents in regional and rural areas that are pulling their kids out of Saturday sports because they can't afford to drive between towns. It's small businesses that are shutting the doors—not selling their businesses but just shutting their doors and walking away because they can't afford to operate. It's getting harder and harder for Australians, but after two years it's clear that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Labor simply do not get it. It's a government that promised the world. You'll recall the $275 reduction in your energy bills and promises for more-affordable mortgages to ease the cost of living. All of these promises have been broken. All of them have been abandoned. Instead of taking the hard decisions, like those that Australians are taking around their kitchen tables every single night about their own budgets, the Labor Prime Minister and his Treasurer are falling back on spin. They're trying to fight the symptoms, and not the cause, of the cost-of-living crisis. The Prime Minister insists that his policies are bringing inflation down, but that is just a lack of assessment of reality. Just last week he said that his budget measures were designed to put downward pressure on inflation but, at the committee inquiry into the cost of living, the chief economist at the RBA said to me: 'In terms of being a sustained return to target, that's not something that we can see coming from those particular policies because they're only designed and legislated for one year, so by their nature they're time limited and they're temporary.' Anybody that bothers to pick up the statement of monetary policy can see this. After a dip which has been described by economists as 'artificial'—they described it as 'smoke and mirrors'—inflation will in fact be higher again the following year by nearly a full percentage point. The Prime Minister's detachment from reality on this issue makes the challenges even more daunting, but the Treasurer has followed suit. On the very same day that the chief economist of the RBA told the committee that the economy was running a bit hot, the Treasurer said, 'I think it's hard to sustain an argument that the economy is running too hot.' That's a direct contradiction of the independent RBA. The Treasurer and his team are so far out of their economic depth, and they've taken to criticising the independent RBA, rather than listening to their advice. There is so much that this government could be doing to alleviate cost-of-living pressures, but instead they're trying to sell you a pup—that their high inflation, high expenditure and higher levels of taxation are, in fact, good for you. But Australians are poorer. They are worse off under Labor. It's not that you're feeling poorer; you, in fact, are poorer. 15:47 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Our government is clearly focused on delivering cost-of-living relief because we on this side of the chamber understand that Australians are doing it tough. We understand that this is a tough time for families, and that is why we have been delivering cost-of-living relief. No amount of cherry-picked figures from those opposite can ever make this untrue: every step of the way, those opposite have opposed every measure for cost-of-living relief that we have delivered to Australians. We have made sure that every single taxpayer is getting a tax cut—not just some. Those on the opposite side opposed it before we had even released the details. They opposed even the lowest-paid workers getting a tax cut. On this side of the chamber, we're making sure that every household gets energy bill relief. In my home state of Queensland that means that every single household is getting $1,300 of power bill relief. Nothing that those on the other side say can undo the fact that they voted against this relief. They're crying out for the government to do something but, when we deliver a plan and bring it to this parliament, they vote against it. Our government has ensured that low-paid workers are getting their third consecutive pay rise. You're going to hear a lot of information on the other side about wage increases and data. That data matters to low-paid workers. Because of our government, 2.6 million of them will be getting a pay rise. No matter what information those opposite bring along to this chamber today, nothing will make untrue the fact that they had a policy in place for years to put pressure on wages and to keep wages low and that that was built into their design of the economy. When it comes to things like stronger Medicare, they're opposed to that as well. When it comes to cheaper medicines, they've opposed cheaper medicines. When it comes to dealing with making sure that we can build more homes, more quickly, in every part of the country, those opposite have teamed up with the Greens to vote against that type of legislation. When it comes to the cost-of-living relief that our government is delivering, whether it's tax cuts, whether it's wage rises, whether it's more money for childcare workers or cheaper childcare and keeping fees under pressure, whether it's cheaper Medicare, cheaper medicines or making sure that we have urgent Medicare clinics in all parts of the country, these are measures that those opposite oppose. So, when they come in here and crow about the cost of living and how tough people are doing it, the question to ask Peter Dutton and those opposite is: what are they doing about it? Every time we've given the LNP a chance to vote for cost-of-living relief, they have voted against it, because they're not interested in helping Australians. They're not interested in delivering cost-of-living relief to the lowest-paid workers. They're interested in having a debate about it, but, when given a chance, they vote against it. Actually, what we have seen from those opposite, in the last couple of weeks, are plans for higher taxes and higher power prices. We've seen plans from those opposite to cut back increases in the pension. They're talking about lower wages, through opposing all of the changes that we've put in place. It is clear that, under our government, you have a government and a prime minister committed to cost-of-living relief. At every step of the way, our announcements have been carefully calibrated to put pressure on inflation but to deliver important cost-of-living relief to Australians. I met some early childhood educators in Cairns this week. Because of the announcement we made on Friday, they will have an extra $100 in their accounts, and that is a 15 per cent pay rise for those in that hardworking, low-paid, highly-feminised workforce. That's what happens when you have a government focused on cost-of-living relief. What we've seen from those opposite, at every step of the way, is a plan to say no and to oppose cost-of-living relief and yet to complain about it at the same time. We are not interested in that. We're getting on with the job, and we're focused on cost of living. 15:52 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania People who are worried about the cost of existing—the cost of just simply staying alive these days—need to know that they're not alone. Across Australia, millions of people are feeling a massive squeeze, whether it's rent payments or mortgage payments, whether it's transport costs, whether it's power bills, or whether it's just simply putting food on the table. The truth is: we're all being ripped off by big corporations who are making obscene profits while they pay next to nothing in tax. Remember: one in three of the top 100 earning corporations in Australia pay absolutely no tax whatsoever. And where are the establishment parties—the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the Nationals? They are actually too busy taking millions in political donations, from those very same corporate giants, to stand up for the millions of Australians who are getting smashed at the moment. And let's be real about this. If the establishment parties, the Labor and Liberal parties, were going to fix this, they would have done it by now. The Greens don't take those donations, because we are here to fight for people, not for corporate profits. We want to tackle these greedy corporations head-on and use their obscene profits to fund the things that will actually help Australians to make ends meet. We're talking about putting in place a freeze on rent increases. We're talking about stopping the banks from ripping people off on their mortgage repayments. We're talking about making it illegal for the supermarket corporations to price gouge. We're talking about busting up the supermarket duopoly so that food and groceries become cheaper in Australia. But here's the thing: change will not happen on its own; change will only happen if Australians vote for it. If you think things are going okay at the moment, by all means, keep voting for the Labor or Liberal parties, but heed this warning: you can't keep voting for the same old parties and expect a different result. If you want change, you have to vote for it. Change is on the way, and it is available to us in Australia. Support for the old parties is collapsing; support for the Greens is rising, and we are here to look after people, not corporate interests. 15:55 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia There is no question Australians are going backwards under the Albanese Labor government due to their homegrown cost-of-living crisis, and that is the sad reality. Those opposite just tried to say: 'Don't you worry about those cherry-picked figures. They're not really relevant.' Well, those cherry-picked figures are from the Reserve Bank of Australia, the Australian Treasury and the Australian Bureau of Statistics. They are the facts; they're not just something that has been pulled from the back of the garden somewhere. What do those facts actually tell us? They tell us that, since those opposite came into government, prices have increased by more than 10 per cent for food, housing, rent, electricity, gas, health, education and insurances. Sadly, that is not the least of it, and, if that is not bad enough, at the same time, the cost of living has increased. Real wages, under this government, have gone backwards by 7.8 per cent, meaning Australian purchasing power, our family budgets, are under double pressure. Yet, sadly, there is no light at the end of this dismal Labor tunnel for Western Australia, which I represent, and for householders who are struggling to pay for the basics. Core inflation, driven by Labor's bad policies—not something that's just somehow happened on its own—is stubbornly high, with the latest quarterly core inflation data coming in at 3.9 per cent. Our inflation is now higher than any other advanced economy. It's not just something, as those opposite tried to say, that is happening in the rest of the world. It is not. It is happening here in a way that it is not happening in any other advanced economy. In fact, since December this year, Australia is the only G10 nation where core inflation is actually accelerating, so let there be none of this nonsense that this is just something from somewhere else. The Reserve Bank told the cost-of-living committee this week that, without the government reducing their radical spending, they cannot consider cutting rates; in fact, they might still have to increase interest rates, which would be a catastrophe for Australian mortgage holders. The RBA still does have its foot on the economic brakes, but the ALP government, sadly, still have their foot firmly put on the accelerator. We've seen this with their last three failed budgets, spending an additional—wait for this—$315 billion at a time when economic restraint is needed. Hardworking Australians, including Western Australians, have endured 12 interest rate hikes and the prospect of any mortgage release is looking less likely every day Labor remains in government. If you remember, it was only 2½ years ago that Labor promised everybody's life would be easier and cheaper under their leadership, but, despite all of their prolific spending, life is getting worse by the day for average Australians. What's of most concern or maybe of equal concern to other Australians is that, while they are suffering under a cost-of-living crisis in every aspect of their family budget, the Prime Minister and Labor have not been focusing on that. They've been focusing on spending half a billion dollars on the failed Voice referendum, putting all their eggs in one basket with their renewable-only policy and attacking our WA sheep industry. Just this week, we've seen the effects of their most recent IR changes, where unions are holding our own states' and, in this case now, Western Australian businesses to ransom. The unions are now running riot again at BHP mining sites. Labour have allowed them to begin bargaining agreements without the majority support of workers on WA mines. Labor have allowed the unions to run riot over our mines without the support of the majority of workers, which is taking us back to the dark old days that I had hoped and that I know every single Western Australia worker had hoped would never ever return. Industry stakeholders have raised their deep concerns, raising the alarm about the significant negative impacts it will have on our critical WA mining industry, which keeps the rest of the nation in jobs, in schools, helps with health support and all the other services we require. It is time to get rid of this government and to bring governments and good governance back. 16:00 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Treasurer Dr Chalmers have some explaining to do. They need to explain to Australian households why they are living through a cost-of-living crisis, and they need to explain to Australian businesses why they are now living through a cost-of-doing-business crisis. Prior to the election just two years ago, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who was then the opposition leader, made a promise. He said that Australians would be better off under Labor. He said they would be better off when it comes to their mortgage repayments and their cost of living. In fact, two years into this government, just two years, the country has seen again the poor economic management of Labor. So why is it that Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister, and Dr Jim Chalmers, the Treasurer, have chosen to make Australians poorer? Because running the economy is something that the government consciously does. The Prime Minister gets up in the morning, the Treasurer gets up in the morning and, if we're to believe Labor senators, this is their top priority. This is the thing that they are most consumed about. Well then why is it that their decisions and their actions are making businesses and families poorer? It was revealing last week at the Senate cost-of-living inquiry in Sydney. Assistant governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, Sarah Hunter, made it very clear. Dr Hunter said: 'We just think the economy is running a little bit hotter than we thought previously. As a result of that, we think it's going to take a bit longer for inflation to get back to target.' The economy is running 'a little bit hotter' said the RBA deputy governor. And guess who is feeling the heat of that? Australian families—through higher inflation, higher interest rates—and now Australian businesses as many of them begin to go to the wall. Just today the Westpac bank released some very interesting data and commentary on the performance of the Australian economy. Reflecting on consumer sentiment, Westpac said, 'Consumer sentiment dipped 1.1 per cent in July, remaining in the deeply pessimistic range that has dominated for two years now.' Westpac is saying that consumer sentiment is now in the 'deeply pessimistic range'—a range that has dominated for two years. When reflecting on the plight of young Australians who want to get into their first home, Westpac said today: 'Around housing, home buyer sentiment sank back to new lows but consumer price expectations cooled. Nationally, the index has been at extremely weak levels, at or below the 80 mark, for 2½ years now—easily the most sustained period of depressed home buyer sentiment over the history of the survey.' Don't believe me? Westpac says that the sentiment of aspirational first home buyers is now 'depressed' and at 'historic lows'. Of course, the pain is being felt by households, and now it's being felt by small businesses. Just this month, ASIC released its most recent report into small business insolvencies. It revealed that 11,000 businesses had become insolvent in the last 12 months. In my home of state of Western Australia, 1,079 businesses have become insolvent in the last 12 months. The alarming figure is, unfortunately, this one: 379 WA businesses became insolvent in the June quarter alone, and that is one business in every seven hours. The record of the government is clear. Australians are being punished by Labor. They deserve to know why Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Dr Jim Chalmers want to make their lives so hard for them. In my home state of Western Australia, the WA Labor Party said it would back Western Australians. It has not backed Western Australians. It has made their lives harder, and it has made businesses poorer. The country is poorer because of this Labor government. 16:06 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The actual rate of inflation—or, more accurately, the consumer price index—represents how much cost of living has changed in the previous quarter and over time. To measure the CPI change, the Australian Bureau of Statistics uses a basket of goods and services that should fairly represent the purchases an average Australian household would make. Incremental changes are made to the measure every few years to take into account changes in household spending patterns. After many years of adjustments, chops and changes, the question now arises: how relevant is the CPI calculation to the lives of working Australians? Mortgages have become a massive expense, rising 45 per cent across the 12 interest rate rises that have occurred under the Anthony Albanese Labor government, yet housing is only 13 per cent of the inflation basket for households, no matter how high your mortgage or rent goes. In part, this is because the spending pattern that sets the weightings is taken from 2022, before Labor's inflation actually set in. The weighting in the basket given to holidays and recreation has increased to 12.1 per cent. This is interesting, because holidays were really expensive during COVID and then, as the economy reopened, the cost came back down. Increasing the weighting for holidays has acted to reduce the inflation rate artificially. How accurate is that? Who can afford expensive holidays in the current cost-of-living crisis? In creating a system that relies on spending patterns which may be years old or which fail to reflect the main demographic—working families—the ABS is failing to accurately reflect cost-of-living increases as households feel the pain right now. Governments can fudge the figures. Government subsidies on energy, for instance, reduce the inflation rate for energy, even though consumers are paying the full bill themselves either through their wages or through tax. Inflation should be expressed before government cover-up payments, not after. One Nation will return to this topic next week on behalf of Australian working families. 16:08 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I come to this debate having heard a couple of contributions from speakers before me. It still surprises me here in the Senate that there seems such glee from those opposite as they describe what we know is a pretty challenging time for Australian people. When we say, 'We know Australians are doing it tough,' we actually really do know. It's been tricky. But let's be clear about a couple of things. We need to get some facts on the record. Instead of glee and delight in the challenges that people face and heaping misery on top of that by putting out incorrect facts, I want the Australian people listening to this debate to know that the Labor Party wants you to earn more and wants you to keep more of what you earn. That's what matters to people: managing your own finances for yourself and your family. We understand that. We have to manage all of the terms in the economic language that go around in this debate, which can be so off-putting for people that they just stop listening. But we do have to get some facts right around that complex economic debate. There is some good news, and this is what Australians need to hear. They need to hear hope. They need to hear that a Labor government under Anthony Albanese is hopeful for them and is working for a better future. It's important to note that, in contrast with the topic that's been put up here for debate in this MPI, new data released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics actually shows that annual real wages are growing under the Albanese Labor government. They're not growing as quickly as everybody would like—we'd all like our pay packets to be bigger all the time—but they're growing. That contrasts really markedly with what we saw under the previous government, where there was no effort at all to increase the wages of ordinary working Australians. In addition to increasing the wages that Australians take home every week and that they use to balance their budget, to pay their rent, to pay their mortgage and to get their kids the things that they need, we've also made sure that while Australians are struggling we just don't leave them hanging—and we don't delight in their misery. In fact, we've made sure that we give cost-of-living assistance while people are struggling, to help them through this tricky time. One of the really important things was the tax cuts. People will have had a look at their salary, their wages that have come in since 1 July, and there has been a change for the 13.6 million working Australians who are getting a tax cut this year. The average tax cut is $1,888 in the year 2024-25. It's not enough for you to buy a house, but it's enough to help you make ends meet; it's a beginning of support for people, encouraging people to be able to get on with their life knowing that their government is going to support them. If we had left the package of stage 3 tax cuts as those opposite had designed it, fewer would have been able to bank those benefits, and 11.5 million taxpayers, or 84 per cent of Australian taxpayers, got a bigger tax cut on 1 July this year because Labor is listening. Labor cares about ordinary Australians and their financial challenges. We won't leave you hanging. We've increased the Medicare levy for low-income thresholds, and there's energy relief to make sure that all 10 million households across this country are going to have $300 rebated from their bill. When the bill comes in, $75 a quarter is going to be removed because the government, the Albanese government, will not leave you hanging. We will support you. We believe in benefiting all Australians using the power of government alongside people's own endeavours in their interests and their efforts for their families. The Labor government wants you to earn more and keep more of what you earn and will help you through the difficult times. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 The time for the discussion has expired. Defence Industry 43 16:13 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 A letter has been received from Senator Van: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: Australia's sovereign defence manufacturing industry must be sufficiently funded so that Australia has the capability to fight a war as set out in the National Defence Strategy. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 16:13 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria I rise to address a matter of critical importance: our sovereign defence manufacturing industry. As global threats escalate, Australia's preparedness is alarmingly inadequate, yet we continue to retreat from the vital support that sovereign defence manufacturing provides, leaving us dangerously exposed. The urgency of our situation cannot be overstated. The decisions made by the Minister for Defence Industry and Capability Delivery are destroying our defence manufacturing sector at a time when our circumstances demand a resurgence. The National Defence Strategy emphasises: A sovereign defence industrial base is vital for developing higher levels of military preparedness and self-reliance. However, very many defence manufacturers I speak with express concern that the minister's actions favour overseas defence industries over our own. A stark example of this is his recent decision to purchase the US-made Switchblade 300 strike drone. It was a blow to the many and wonderful drone manufacturers that have this capability nationally. This is a plea for foresight, preparation and investment in our national security. The war in Ukraine has starkly demonstrated the dangers of relying on foreign supply chains for weapons. While Australia will always need to import high-end platforms, there are many weapons and munitions that we could and should be producing domestically to build resilience. This must be addressed urgently. The Australian Industry and Defence Network reports that orders to Australian defence manufacturing companies have plummeted by 30 per cent. The defence industry employs 64,000 Australians and contributes $10.6 billion in gross value added and is a vital component not just of our security but of our economy. In the previous financial year alone, $4.4 billion was awarded through foreign military sales. That is the purchase of Australian defence material from foreign governments. We have nearly 3,000 companies in Australia with defence related capabilities, yet most are left to compete for scraps alongside foreign companies working here. This is not how we build a resilient and sovereign defence industry. Adding to this concern, we have committed over $9 billion to fund the expansion of the American and British shipyards that will build our submarines. While this expenditure is necessary, I must ask: where is the support for our industry? The strategic implications of our under preparation are clear. The Defence strategic review and the National Defence Strategy both underscore the necessity for sovereign defence manufacturing, particularly in the production of weapons and munitions, but the government has allocated only $150 million in the Defence Industry Development Strategy over four years, averaging a paltry $37.5 million annually. This funding represents only 0.7 per cent of Australia's total Defence budget. The recently announced Future Made in Australia initiative is going to make a significant contribution to strengthening Australia's economy through domestic manufacturing, but defence is not listed as a priority sector, even though the framework sets out that it's for economic resilience and security. Designating sovereign defence manufacturing as a priority sector is essential to ensuring that Australia can independently produce and maintain military equipment, munitions and technologies. The Future Made in Australia commitment by Prime Minister Albanese is commendable. However, it could do much more—like funding our onshore defence manufacturing. We must prioritise defence manufacture to ensure Australia is equipped to navigate the complexities of an increasingly unstable world. 16:18 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I rise to support this motion by Senator Van and, in doing so, will talk about the importance of the production of defence capability by Australian industry as being a critical enabler not only to our military capability in times of war but also as a deterrent factor to dissuade potential adversaries from taking action because they know we have both the capability and the will to respond. In that context, it's important to realise that we're not talking in abstracts here. The Defence strategic update 2020, the Defence strategic review 2023, both highlighted that Australia no longer has the 10-year warning time to major conflict in our region that for decades government have worked to. In fact, alliance partners and others in the region have highlighted that they believe the peak threat in our region is indeed around the 2028-29 time frame, and there are calls from both Europeans and North Americans to be ready in that time frame. When it comes to supporting defence industry, though, we need to move beyond the rhetoric, and when we see the Albanese government's defence industry development strategy, it is full of rhetoric which is not matched by the contractual commitments that will allow Australian companies to continue to invest in their people, in their facilities and in their productive capacity. Those contracts are important. If we go to the recent NATO meeting in Washington, where Jens Stoltenberg and other heads of governments from Europe and North America came together, they were calling for an increase in the production capacity of industry in Europe and the States. I was struck by the comment of the defence minister from Estonia. What he highlighted was that what industry was saying to him was that, unlike Russia, where President Putin can turn any factory into a defence factory at the will of government, in a democracy, industry needs contracts if it is to take the decisions to invest in people and equipment and IP to actually produce the things that a nation needs. One of my concerns with the defence industry strategy that we see from the Albanese government is that, when it comes to defence industry development, they again largely default to grant programs, so you can have a look at where they offer grants as opposed to contracts for actual equipment. I contrast that, for example, with a Queensland company called SEATRANSPORT, who have developed a stern-loading vessel which they sell into the civilian market. The US Marine Corps, when they look at it, go, 'That could suit our purpose. We will give you a contract. We will lease one for three years so we can trial and see if will fit our need to equip a fleet with it.' So they find ways of actually giving contracts to companies, in this case even an Australian company, where so often the Australian government prefers to look overseas as opposed to dealing directly with Australian companies for critical capability. We see that the Defence Strategic Review by the Albanese government has not only brought in a two-year delay to the development of some of our critical capabilities but their concept of 'no configuration change and minimum viable capability' means that even where Australian industry has developed world-leading capabilities—and I think here of the antiship missile defence capability that is delivered by the Australian CEAFAR radar, by the CEA company, and the 9LV combat system by the Adelaide based Saab—that is better than anything, for example, that the Americans can deliver, it will not be on our future fleet of general-purpose frigates. So despite the Australian taxpayer helping to fund these capabilities, what we see is the Albanese government deciding to purchase offshore and ignoring the long-term investment that has built up these capabilities. Companies will not survive without contract and they won't invest in new capability without contracts. So when we look at things like lessons of Ukraine, the fact we need multiple platforms that are affordable, to some extent expendable and armed, I am appalled by the announcements recently that the MQ-28 Loyal Wingman, which was envisaged to have communications, ISAR and weapons, the defence industry minister said, 'Yes, weapons will come down the track.' If we believe the strategic circumstances are real, arm the Loyal Wingman Ghost Bat now. 16:23 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales This motion calls for an Australian sovereign defence manufacturing industry but it is ignoring the elephant in the room—that is, when it comes to defence expenditure, the single-largest defence expenditure proposed is under AUKUS Pillar 1 and to some extent under AUKUS Pillar 2, which is seeing hundreds of billions of dollars of Australian taxpayers' money, public money, spent on weapons systems and investment in industries entirely offshore in a historically dangerous gamble. We saw that yesterday when we got the AUKUS 2.0 agreement finally tabled. And what did that show? It showed that, for this $368 billion gamble for US, UK—potentially at some point partly Australian nuclear submarines—both the US and the UK have put into that agreement multiple get-out-of jail-free cards, and the Albanese government has put us on the hook to indemnify both the US and UK governments if something goes wrong, perhaps a catastrophic accident with a second-hand sub. Who pays for that? It's not the United States but Australian taxpayers. The US and the UK will set the price, including for the enriched uranium they're going to sell us, and they take away any independent consultation Australia has with the International Atomic Energy Agency. I've never seen such an irresponsible, one-sided agreement signed by an Australian government, and every aspect of the agreement is a blow to Australian sovereignty. Don't take my word for it; this is what it says. At the end of article I of the agreement, it says that, if the US or the UK determine that such cooperation with Australia will constitute an unreasonable risk to their defence and security, they don't have to do it. If it constitutes an unreasonable risk to the defence or security of the UK or the US, they don't have to do it. Article IV(H) is an extraordinary provision. It says that Australia can make payments of appropriated funds to the US or the UK for the purpose of implementing the agreement, but there's not a single provision in AUKUS 2.0 for the US or the UK to pay a single dollar to Australia. It's not even envisaged that they may pay Australia for some of it. The only provision is for us to give money to them. We've already started doing it. We've given some $5 billion to the US for their sovereign capacity and some $5 billion to the UK for Rolls-Royce and their capacity. But it doesn't even contemplate that there might be a dollar flowing the other way. Article XIII says that, at any point, the US, the UK or Australia can terminate the agreement with one year's notice, and then it says that we have to give everything back. Every single thing gets returned—the subs, the technology, the information. Do you know how much we get in return when we hand over all the stuff that Australia has paid maybe tens and tens of billions of dollars for? Not one cent. They can terminate it on one year's notice and get all their stuff back, and we don't get a cent. Who would sign this stuff? You want to see the last bit. It's the understanding that's attached to it. It's some private understanding—now public, because we forced it upon them—and that says the final word in these agreements is that the UK and the US expressly say that they don't have to do anything if it will adversely affect the ability of the United States or the United Kingdom to meet their respective military requirements. They can stop if at any point it degrades their respective naval nuclear propulsion submarines. They can just stop. How much do we get back? Not one cent. That's not an agreement; that's a surrender. We sent Marles off to the United States to negotiate for a new bucket, and he came back with a sieve. It is extraordinary. I meant Minister Marles. That's only pillar I. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 Senator Ciccone, a point of order? Senator Ciccone 281503 As Senator Shoebridge acknowledged, I was raising a point of order to refer to members in the other place by their correct title. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 That's right. Senators should refer to members with their correct titles, please. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 Sorry—Deputy Prime Minister. No-one is allowed to call him minister. It's Deputy Prime Minister. Then you have pillar II. Pillar II is actually probably even more insidious. Pillar II is the reason why Australia can't independently determine where they send weapons. Pillar II is the reason why we continue to send weapons into Israel, because pillar II is designed to remove any sovereign capacity for Australia to determine its own defence industry and to determine its own defence policy. This is an extraordinary surrender of sovereignty, and, if we're concerned about our defence, we should be concerned about ripping up AUKUS. (Victoria—Deputy Government Whip in the Senate) (16:28): Senator CICCONE 281503 I also want to rise to make a contribution to Senator Van's matter of public importance here in the Senate, particularly about the work that the Albanese Labor government is undertaking to deliver Australia's inaugural National Defence Strategy. I also wanted to note Senator Van's strong interest and commend him for his support of our ADF. I know he has a very strong interest and has, on many occasions now with the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, spent some time in estimates and other forums supporting our troops on the ground. I just wanted to commend him on that. The Albanese Labor government regards the safety of Australians as its highest duty, and this includes defending our country, deterring potential threats and protecting Australia's economic connection to the world. Sadly, what we hear from the Australian Greens is the complete opposite, and not one of them is in the chamber at the moment to make a very useful contribution about how we, as a nation and as a parliament, do our duty in protecting our citizens. Therefore I'm also very glad that this MPI has been placed on the agenda today, because federal Labor is serious about investing record amounts in defence industry to equip the men and women of the ADF with more advanced platforms, in greater numbers, sooner. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in the first year of the Albanese government, in 2022-23, Australian defence industry rose by 4.1 per cent and contributed $10.6 billion to our economy. Thanks to the government's increased spending, the number of people employed in defence industry also grew strongly by around six per cent. Increasing our military capability is imperative now more than ever, and we're boosting defence in a speedy manner, with projects starting this decade. Central to a well-equipped ADF was the introduction of the Guided Weapons and Explosive Ordnance Enterprise last year. In that short time, the government signed a $37.4 million contract with Lockheed Martin to manufacture missiles in Australia from next year, invested $220 million in Commonwealth owned munitions production factories, committed $1.6 billion to expand and accelerate the acquisition of long-range rocket systems for Army, committed $1.3 billion to provide Tomahawk cruise missiles for the Navy, and successfully integrated the latest naval strike missile and Standard Missile 6 on Navy warships. The government will also invest a total $16 billion to $21 billion over the decade to establish munitions manufacturing in Australia—and that means local jobs. It's important to note that this government is taking decisive action to repair the damage of a decade of neglect by those opposite. The government has signed the single largest defence export agreement in Australia's history, exporting over 100 Boxer vehicles valued at $3.1 billion—and securing over 600 direct jobs. I know my colleague Senator Chisholm would be very happy with that result, given that he comes from Queensland. There will be many jobs in Queensland that will benefit from that—as well as those in my home state of Victoria—through the supply chain. Looking ahead, federal Labor has also fast tracked the delivery of the first new infantry fighting vehicle, the Redback IFV, to 2027. Under the coalition, that first vehicle was not scheduled until late 2029. Under Labor, all 129 locally built Redback IFVs will be delivered by the time the first vehicle would have been delivered under those opposite. The Albanese government is also accelerating the delivery of new surface combatants to the Navy. The first of these frigates will also be in service by 2029, followed by the first Hunter class frigate in 2034. In stark contrast, those opposite proposed that the Navy had to wait until 2034 for its first new major combatant vessel. In the undersea domain, federal Labor will deliver a Virginia class nuclear-powered submarine in the early 2030s. Those opposite had no plans to deliver any new submarines until the late 2030s. Last month, the government brought forward by two years the delivery of 18 medium landing craft for the Army. They arrive from 2026. This will create 1,100 direct jobs and more than 2,000 indirect jobs under a program that will also deliver eight heavy landing craft, seven years earlier, from the mid-2030s. We've also announced investment into Australian industry to further develop the Ghost Bat, the first military aircraft designed and manufactured in Australia for more than 50 years. There is so much that this government has done. I'm so proud of the work that the Albanese government is doing to support our ADF men and women. 16:33 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I rise to support Senator Van's matter of public importance motion. This country used to make things: tanks, aeroplanes, submarines. We used to have what they call 'sovereign defence capability'. That means that we could make the things we needed to defend our country, here, in Australia. Now, we have very little sovereign defence industry left—and, by the way, I am not counting those companies who say they are Australian just because they have officials here. The coalition mainly sat on their hands for nine years, and, from what I hear, the current government is not doing much more. Actually, strike that. In some ways, they are worse—for example, the AUKUS nuclear submarines that we were supposed to get by 2035, if we were lucky, and that was just one submarine. Under the AUKUS deal, the first thing the Australian taxpayer has been asked to do is hand over 10 billion bucks—yes, 10 billion!—to the US and UK submarine industrial base. How about that! Since 2009 the Australian government has wasted billions of dollars trying to decide on a replacement for the Collins class submarines, which, by the way, were built here in Australia. It doesn't matter whether you think nuclear subs are a good idea or not; the AUKUS deal is both risky and eye-wateringly expensive. Both parties claim they take defence seriously because they spend lots of money, but spending buckets of money with little or nothing to show for it is not being serious about defence, let alone our national security. I'll give some examples of past stuff-ups, because I don't have an hour. The C-27J Spartan battlefield transport aeroplanes, the result of a desktop selection, were found to be not well suited for battlefield operations and are now used as light transport. Then there were the Arafura class offshore combat vessels—12 vessels that Navy has since determined are unsuitable for intended maritime operations. Then there were the future frigates. Let's not go into that; I don't have enough time. These planned ships have got bigger and more expensive. The costs blew out, and the project was slashed from nine ships to six but at the same inflated price. These stuff-ups are not just in the past. At the last estimates hearings, senators were trying to find out how much of the taxpayers' $10 billion we'd get back if AUKUS didn't go ahead. Vice Admiral Mead refused to answer Senator Shoebridge's question because it was, apparently, 'an irrelevant hypothetical'. Now we know that the US and UK have an expense-free get out clause, and all they have to do is give us 12 months notice. You people in here cannot be serious. People are laughing at you. You could not run a corner shop between the two of you, and our national security is in the situation it's in because of you two, I can assure you. If you think those nuclear subs are going to help us tomorrow, I tell you what: wake up to yourselves. 16:36 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales What a great motion before us this is, because, of course, it's about sovereignty—sovereignty over Australia and its defence industry. Sovereignty, when you get down to it, is the ability to make decisions without pressure from others. That's what this country needs to be able to do strongly and definitively. When we talk about the defence industry, we talk about the very basics of that—being able to protect your own country from the threat of force from others. Having a homegrown ability to do that is essential. That's what this talk's about: spending some real money doing that. There will always be systems that Australia can't build—top-end and complicated systems where we need our partners. I get that; I accept that. When we hear a press release that comes out and says 'a groundbreaking deal' for what Senator Van pointed out—the Switchblade 300 that you mentioned in your speech—is essentially a long-distance hand grenade and nothing more than that. It's $90,000 apiece from the United States, when we have a number of Australian businesses that not only do the same but are able to do better. That is something that should have been bought here. It is not a game-changing technology that we couldn't take a risk on. That is something we should have done here. This is what we see more and more—things painted as they aren't. Opportunities are going begging. We talk about all of the things that we import. There's not enough money in things Australia can export. I recently went to Lithgow and went through the Thales factory there, one of the few significant barrel manufacturers there are around. We looked at their EF88, which has been the standard infantry weapon in Australia since 2016. They pointed out that the British individual weapon, the bullpup, design is going—they're looking at an M4 copy. It's up soon, and Britain does not have a barrel manufacturer capable of replacing that. Investment and contracts in Australian defence capability—keeping these guys going, giving them a baseline and giving them the confidence to go out there—would actually give Australia and Lithgow, the great economy out there, a chance to go out and take on the world, do stuff and provide things to our allies. That is what investment does. We hear about all the things that are being spent. We hear about all the steps being taken. But what about the people that are in the industry? What are they saying the state of the Australian defence industry is? A recent survey was commissioned by Defence Connect, and these are the stats. Forty-seven per cent of defence businesses believe it is difficult or extremely difficult to operate in the Australian defence sector. That's a percentage of people who are in it, not the people who looked at it and said: 'No; it's too hard. I won't even bother.' This is a percentage of the people who actually took the step to get involved. Forty-nine per cent of defence businesses believe it is difficult or extremely difficult to attract and retain staff in the current environment because of that lack of certainty. This is all painting a picture not of what the previous government said or what this government says it is doing but how the industry really finds it—no rubbish. It goes to the things that Senator Lambie was talking about—the reality on the ground and the chip shop and the corner shop mentality. One in four defence businesses are extremely or very confident that their existing or upcoming contracts will continue as planned over the next 12 months—not 12 years, not 10 years, not five years. Twenty-five per cent think they will go there. It is a disgrace. We need an integrated plan that enables Australians to build reasonable technology and good technology, when it can. For example, with things like Ghost Bat, don't take the weapons off it. What we are seeing in Ukraine is you need a capability immediately to stop the initial threat. But it is no longer the doctrine that you finish a war with what you started with; you have the opportunity to build and you see innovations. They are not using the Switchblade 300 greatly over there anymore. The Russian Lancet comes in at about $20,000—about a third of the cost over there. They are using homemade drones with improvised explosive devices. They are finding a way, because of the necessity to build a homegrown defence industry. Why aren't we learning those lessons? Maybe our industry is, but our defence department is not taking the chance to put that money out there. The defence industry is not being rewarded for having a crack. That is why Senator Van's motion is so important. For Australia to have sovereignty, to be able to make its own decisions about being under pressure from others, we have to have the ability to defend ourselves in a very capable way. There are little things that we could be doing now. There is a worldwide demand for 155 military shells. We hear about Ukraine having a two-to-one or three to one artillery deficiency. We can put contracts in place to help the world, build our industry and make Australia safe all in one if we take this seriously. 16:41 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I agree with Senator Van: Australia's defence preparedness is poor, at best. It is true that the best way to keep Australia strong is to keep our transport and industrial base strong. Instead, successive Liberal and Labor governments have presided over the destruction of our manufacturing base and allowed our ports and the transport into those ports to atrophy. One Nation proposes a comprehensive solution to this: starting with a railway from the Bowen Basin in the east of our country across to the Pilbara in the north-west, connecting to the existing network at the Port of Gladstone in Queensland and Pindar in Western Australia. This will create a national rail network to allow Australian Defence Forces to access and defend parts of our country we have never been able to access to stage a significant military operation. The railway, called Iron Boomerang, will enable an Australian steel industry to develop at Abbot Point near Townsville, returning to domestic production the most important elements of a defence industry—steel, aluminium, concrete and ceramics. It will allow an upgrade of the capacity of Townsville's military docks to offer bespoke repairs for domestic and military vessels, including our AUKUS allies. Having a strong steel industry will open the possibility of Australian armour, transport and military rolling stock as well as a domestic strategic fleet, offering economic benefit to Townsville, Newcastle, Williamtown and Port Adelaide. What would also help is to not forget that our greatest strength is our love of this beautiful country. That will make us strong. One Nation will not apologise for loving Australia, loving our flag, loving our language, loving our history and loving our culture. We are proud of our nation of Australia. We will proudly grow our manufacturing base to create wealth and security for all Australians. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 The time for the debate has expired. PETITIONS 48 PETITIONS Woodside Energy 48 16:44 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory by leave—I table a petition, which is not in conformity with the standing orders, from 440,000 people, asking for the environment minister to reject Woodside's North West Shelf expansion. DOCUMENTS 48 DOCUMENTS Consideration 48 COMMITTEES 48 COMMITTEES Australia as a Technology and Financial Centre Select Committee, Corporations and Financial Services Joint Committee, Economics Legislation Committee, Economics References Committee, Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, Lending to Primary Production Customers Select Committee, Red Tape Select Committee, Trade and Investment Growth Joint Committee 48 Government Response to Report 48 16:45 Senator MCALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I present 35 government responses to committee reports as set out in the document available in the chamber and listed on the Dynamic Red, and I seek leave to have the documents incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The documents read as follows— The documents were unavailable at the time of publishing. Human Rights Joint Committee 48 Report 48 16:45 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the Human rights scrutiny report No. 6 of 2024. Intelligence and Security Joint Committee 48 Report 48 16:45 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present three reports of the committee, as shown at item 14 on today's Order of Business. Treaties Joint Committee 48 Report 48 16:45 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the 217th report of the committee. Provision of and Access to Dental Services in Australia Select Committee 48 Government Response to Report 48 16:46 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia In respect of the government response to the report of the Select Committee into the Provision of and Access to Dental Services in Australia, I move: That the Senate take note of the document. It was a privilege to chair the Senate Select Committee into the Provision of and Access to Dental Services in Australia, and I would like to begin by thanking the thousands of people who participated in this landmark inquiry. What we heard thanks to your advocacy is that oral healthcare systems in Australia are undeniably in decay. Thousands of people put and took the time to share their experiences with us. Some key themes emerged. Dental care in this country is too expensive. People are waiting too long to access public dental care, if they are eligible at all. We must do more to support our oral healthcare workforce. During the inquiry, we conducted a survey where 17,000 people shared their experiences of getting to see the dentist. This was the largest committee survey in the history of the Senate. It showed that 97 per cent of the community supports the Australian government making more dental services available for free. This committee held hearings across the country from Perth to Brisbane, Canberra and Launceston. I'd like to again thank all those who submitted and appeared at the hearings. I'd also like to thank the fabulous, dedicated secretariat team, who supported this inquiry to be robust and to be collaborative. This system is failing children. It's failing disabled people. It's failing First Nations people. It's failing seniors. It is failing everyone. The number of people, including the number of children, who are having all of their teeth removed in this country is unacceptable. The number of people living with chronic toothache out of fear of the price tag is unacceptable. The number of people who are having to take out loans and withdraw funds from their super for dental care procedures or to travel overseas for health care is unacceptable. The number of people who are ending up in our hospitals, including in ICU, with the consequences of untreated, entirely preventable diseases because they cannot access dental care in this country is unacceptable. It is beyond time for our governments to acknowledge that teeth are part of our bodies and that dental care should be no less accessible than other forms of health care. I am incredibly proud that the committee produced a consensus report, and I'm particularly proud that the report had a clear call to action: The committee recommends that the Australian Government works with the states and territories to achieve universal access to dental and oral health care, which expands coverage under Medicare or a similar scheme for essential oral health care, over time, in stages. Universal dental care through Medicare or a similar scheme is what is clearly needed. Unfortunately, the government, in their response to this report, make it clear that they are not prioritising this; they're choosing simply to note the recommendation. They have failed to support the recommendations in this report that would bring down the cost of dental care in a cost-of-living crisis. Reviewing the government's response, here are some—but, sadly, certainly not all—of the other recommendations that this Labor government were not able to support outright and commit to in their response: the establishment of a chief dental and oral health officer; paid placements that would increase the number of dentists working in the public system; dedicated university places for rural and regional students to study dentistry; working with the states and territories to increase the pay of dentists in the public sector; expanding the child dental benefit scheme; covering restorative services for cancer survivors—because Medicare covers restorative services for cancer survivors in every other area except when you are recovering from head, neck and oral cancers; and establishing a senior dental benefit scheme. The government could do no more than bring themselves to note these recommendations. Shame! These recommendations would change the lives of so many people across Australia, and it is such a shame that this government cannot bring themselves to go beyond noting them. This is not good enough, while people are living with chronic toothaches, some of whom are having to skip work because of pain that is simply unbearable, and while so many adults still face serious oral health issues which could have been so easily prevented by better access to dental health care, hygiene and education as children. I do acknowledge that there is a handful of recommendations which have been supported by the government and some were supported in principle. I hope the government will work towards implementing them without delay. However, too many of these recommendations, including a number of the measures that would have changed the lives of so many Australians have simply been noted. This is not good enough. This inquiry found that only half of Australians have acceptable oral and dental health or access to dental and oral health services. The Greens are here and ready to expand access to affordable dental care. The Australian dental health system is a system in decay, yet this government is not willing to support the recommendations that would ensure that every Australian is able to access free quality dental care. What a shame! One of the communities most left behind by the profit-driven oral healthcare system is disabled people. There are only 26 disability-specialist dentists in Australia. Entire states don't have a single person with formal qualifications. We are relying on individuals to do what they can. There is no formalised program to make dental clinics physically accessible, there is no support to make oral health care more accessible for disabled people with sensory or physical barriers to mainstream dental health care and there is only minimal training for working with disabled people across current training courses. This report contains recommendations relating to the role of the NDIS and the need for better provision of supports to ensure that disabled people can equitably receive oral health care. Only one of these recommendations has been supported by the government. In response, they have committed to: updating their website. They have not committed to any action that would make dental care more accessible for people on the NDIS. And this is just the latest example of how little they prioritise NDIS participants. Our Greens-led Senate inquiry handed the government a clear road map—a list of tangible recommendations to bring down the cost of going to the dentist, to ensure people can access a dentist when they need one and to support the oral healthcare workforce. It is deeply disappointing, while not surprising, that this government has failed to commit to taking these actions that will ensure universal access to dental care. Only the Greens are committed to getting dental care into Medicare, and, at this election, the community have the opportunity to vote for it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 256063 Senator Steele-John, your time has expired. The question is that the Senate take note of the report. Senator Steele-John 250156 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Australia's Disaster Resilience Select Committee 50 Report 50 16:57 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I rise to speak on the Boots on the ground: raising resilience report. I want to thank my fellow senators and say a big thankyou to the secretariat of the Senate Select Committee on Australia's Disaster Resilience. The committee was established in November 2022 to inquire into Australia's preparedness, response and recovery workforce models, as well as considering alternative models for disaster response and recovery. There have been an unprecedented number of natural disasters over the past few years, and the science is clear: it is only going to get worse. Some of these communities have not only got hit once or twice; they're now, I reckon, about today, getting hit a third time—just one after another after another. Research by KPMG found that, in 2022, 18 million Australians were living in areas impacted by at least one natural disaster, and, in some cases, multiple events within three years. Over the last 18 months, members of the committee have heard firsthand from Australians struggling to get communities back on track after floods and bushfires. The committee and I met with many of these impacted communities, and I would like to thank all those Australians for sharing with the committee their thoughts, their experiences and their advice and, at some times, their heart and their soul. For some that had been hit two or three times, I can assure you it took psychological strength to come in and go back over their tragedy. I give all credit to those Australians who did that, and I say, 'Thank you.' Some of those Australians had lost everything. Some of them were still living in caravans and tents, 12 months, 18 months or two years later. Some of them had given up and just moved away. And many—too many—are still starting to rebuild their lives. Hearing from these Australians at the coalface of these disasters was powerful. Their resilience, quick thinking and downright bravery brought a lot of us to tears—let alone the lives that were saved when ordinary Australians put their own on the line. The committee cannot direct the government to back our recommendations in, and of course we can't direct where they put their funding, but I would encourage them to take a close look at the committee's report. If the government is serious about protecting communities across the country, they are going to have to find a lot more money to make this happen, I can assure you. According to the CSIRO, the concept of building back better would be a good start. And, if you actually did it properly, it would be phenomenal, because I was not seeing that during our time out there. If you do not get that infrastructure correct in the first place, you will continue to rebuild, and that will cost us a lot more money in the long run. Stop taking shortcuts. You have no time left for shortcuts. You've got to do it properly in the first place. We need to know what money is available and what more needs to be done, and the money has to be distributed transparently and fairly so it's available to all communities that need it. All levels of government need to be better connected. Our three tier system creates a lot of problems. There is a big disconnect between federal, state and local government, especially local government. We need a national asset register so we know what we have and what can be deployed quickly to communities in need. We are miles off this. And not only do we need to think about the federal and state government assets; we need to think about the suitable local community and private assets that are out there. I don't think you're joining the dots very well, I'll be honest with you. The disaster recovery funding arrangements need to be amended so money can be set aside for emergency payments that can be available a lot quicker than what they're getting right now. Time is not on your side, when you are hit with flood and fire. We heard from the councils, who are being left with huge bills because they had to clear huge piles of rubbish off the streets. There aren't many councils out there with a lot of money to spend, and, when they get fire trucks and other equipment, they have to pay to maintain them. That includes servicing and parts, and it also includes operators. It's great that you guys in here or at state level are providing this equipment, but you don't provide anything else with it, when the local councils out there, many of them in rural and regional areas, have hardly any money at all to sustain them. That's rubbish. I don't know what planet you're living on. That's never going to happen. It's just not. At lot of this equipment is sitting there and has hardly never been used. It's really shameful. What's more, they often have to spend hours filling out grant applications, and it often takes weeks for them to get a response. When you're sitting in floodwater, you don't have time to apply for grants. Come on! It shouldn't be that difficult when people's lives are in despair, when their lives have been turned upside down. We're really doing a miserable job of it. We seriously are. I'm not having a go at you guys over here. I know it's been everyone in this, but we've got to do so much better at this. We really do. This is what really bothers me more than anything: the biggest message the committee got from everyone was the lack of volunteers and the ageing population of our volunteers. We have a problem in this country with volunteers. It's not happening. When a disaster hits, the Australian emergency service agencies act as the first responders protecting life and property, but this workforce is often underpinned, once again, by volunteers. The role of these volunteers cannot be understated; they are some of the most selfless, amazing Australians around, and I thank each and every one of them. One of the committee's recommendations is that the Australian government consider amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009 to legislate time off for volunteers and for volunteers to be granted leave from employment like the provisions reservists get under the defence reserve service act. Volunteers need to be properly trained. Where the cost of relevant training is not, the Australian government should consider amendments to legislation, policy and guidelines so that volunteers working in organisations, such as state emergency and rural bushfire services, can claim at a minimum, at this point in time, deductions, training and courses that are part of their emergency volunteering. I have to be honest with you, we are doing a really bad job at this. We are not doing enough work on the corporates. And the government of the day could do something about what is going on here with the Public Service. Start leading by example. Get these guys to put some boots on and encourage them to do it. You have to lead from here—and I'm sorry to tell the Public Service that—and say, 'Here are some boots; you need to go and put them on.' But we have to do something. One of the most critical things that I found in doing this for the 20 months was the volunteerism. We have a huge Public Service in this country, yet we're not preparing them and getting them ready and able to combat disaster. My goodness! How shameful are we. And I'll tell you what: there would be a few of us in these chambers that could actually go and put some boots on too and get trained up to be ready to go. It's got to be 'one in, all in'; otherwise, it's never going to work. The government must consider how it can further support Disaster Relief Australia and other similar organisations with funding beyond 2026. They need stability. They can't plan for two years and then be left wondering whether they've got funding. It's just not working. It's an absolute failure. The other question is how the Australian government can further incorporate Disaster Relief Australia into its national disaster response arrangements and boost its numbers through partnerships with the Australian Defence Force and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. We must find a way to incentivise young Australians to participate in volunteer organisations that provide support for disaster response and recovery. Once again, we are losing the volunteers; we're not gaining them. The numbers are falling, and they are falling quickly. Unfortunately, my generation and below are not signing up. How about that? You've got my generation, the next and the next out there. We have a massive gap; we have a hole. And, with all due respect to this generation that has been doing all the heavy lifting up here, they're getting on. It's not because they don't want to do the heavy lifting; their bodies just won't allow them to do it anymore. So we have a real problem and we need our young Australians. They're going to need to get on board. We need to be open and honest with them. We need to take responsibility for climate change and for what's happening out there and ask them to help us. We need to ask for their help. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Thank you, Senator Lambie. Just for clarification: the Senate is taking note of the Select Committee on Australia's Disaster Resilience's Boots on the ground report—is that correct? Yes. Senator Lambie 250026 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 I think the debate will continue, but I note that. Senator Davey, you have the call. 17:07 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I, too, rise to speak on the report from the Senate Select Committee on Australia's Disaster Resilience, Boots on the ground: raising resilience. It was an honour to be part of this committee and to hear from the many passionate, committed Australians who participated in the hearings, sharing their experience and sometimes sharing their trauma. I thank the chair, who listened to the suggestions from all of the committee about where public hearings should be held, what topics we needed to examine and how the committee would be run. We heard from a range of witnesses from right across Australia and also New Zealand. The fact that we had 174 submissions from individuals, government agencies, not-for-profit volunteer organisations and charities demonstrates the wide interest in this issue and the communities' desire to find better solutions. We held 17 public hearings throughout Australia, hearing from councils, volunteer organisations, mental health groups, country and state fire brigades and emergency services, state and federal government departments and agencies, the Australian Defence Force, and universities and service clubs. We travelled to areas impacted by severe flooding, such as Lismore and Ballina, where we heard of the significant burden on local governments of dealing with community trauma while also commencing the repair and recovery and rebuilding vital infrastructure. In Fitzroy Crossing, we heard of the challenges of dealing with very remote and Indigenous communities, that can often be cut off for a significant time, with the challenges of managing evacuees and their needs, as well as the resupply of isolated towns. We visited the James Cook University cyclone testing centre to see how the independent research authority tests and reviews the performance of buildings and infrastructure in cyclones and other high-wind events. We also toured the Townsville regional emergency management centre, which is an example of absolute best practice in local, whole-of-community emergency management. At the end of the hearings and the visits to disaster affected areas around Australia, I came, along with the committee, to the inevitable conclusion that there is no one single solution. There is no silver bullet and certainly there is no one size that fits all. Disasters vary in their delivery and their impact. Communities can and do respond in the most amazing ways, unique to their needs, while showcasing the Australian compassion and desire to help their mates. However, what's also evident is the physical and mental toll that the increasing numbers of floods and fires are having on the most willing and committed of people. Equally, we know we can't keep relying on our Defence Force to bail us out of every emergency. We must better equip and prepare our communities to help themselves. One of the most common themes we heard, which my colleague Senator Lambie touched on, was the need for local councils to be included in every aspect of disaster preparation, recovery and rebuilding for their communities. At the end of the day, they are the ones on the ground; they are the ones receiving the phone calls and the calls for help. We need to make sure they are supported with preparation training and, post the disaster, are compensated in a timely manner. Byron Bay council suggested that local communities be given training in emergency coordination and risk mitigation, management and identification, to assist in preparation. We also heard from Disaster Relief Australia, who Senator Lambie spoke about, with their ability in preparedness exercises. We have recommended that Disaster Relief Australia be incorporated into our national disaster response arrangements. We also heard that too often local councils were left with the job of repairing roads and infrastructure quickly, ensuring services were up and running as fast as possible, but they were also expected to meet the costs of doing so upfront in the hope that the compensation would eventually flow through. To be fair, it usually does, but the time lag between the two examples cannot be met all the time. We heard about the floods in the Northern Rivers of New South Wales in 2022, and Lismore's mayor, Steve Krieg, told the committee that Lismore council was required to repair the main road to Nimbin, a community that had been all but cut off. But the upfront repair bill actually exceeded the amount of debt the council could carry. This issue has led to one of our recommendations: to allow a certain portion of disaster recovery funding to be apportioned upfront, or paid out upfront. We also recommend that councils be allowed to build back better, because often we're going out and repairing the same road, flood after flood. But sometimes, just by allowing them to install a box culvert at the time of repair, that means we wouldn't have to go back. What a godsend that would be! We have recommended that the DRFA guidelines be tweaked and improved, and I wholeheartedly support that recommendation. I note that there is currently a review going on into the DRFA, and I would hope that that review makes the same recommendations. Senator Lambie spoke about a serious concern, one that's not easily fixed: the declining number of volunteers across Australia. I thank every single volunteer that currently works with state emergency services, country fire authorities, rural fire authorities and similar organisations, including our charity organisations. We have a time-poor society, and often volunteering doesn't easily fit in. But we know that there are measures we can take. There were some recommendations put forward to the committee about things like potentially looking at tax rebates or funding for professional development training that isn't met by a volunteer authority, or maybe someone upgrading from a general drivers licence to a medium rigid drivers licence will enable them to drive one of the Rural Fire Service trucks. We urge the government to look at those sorts of suggestions because, as the report says on page 62, 'Getting boots on the ground is important.' But we also acknowledge that so too is the mental health of our volunteers and our first responders. That is why we have made several recommendations to address our concerns about the ongoing toll of natural disasters on the mental health of our first responders and our volunteer service workers. Again, I want to thank the committee—all of our committee. We worked exceptionally well together. We were very respectful in the way we went about this because emergency response is beyond politics. Emergency response is something that we need to do better, noting that there is, as I said earlier, no silver bullet. I want to thank the committee secretariat, who did an outstanding job getting us to some very remote areas of Australia and making sure that none of our time was wasted and that we heard from the right people in the right places. We know that natural disasters will happen again, and we know they will always be a challenge, but the evidence we have been provided and that has been captured in this report does provide a platform that, if adopted, means we will do better next time. Thank you. 17:17 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I also rise to speak on the Senate Select Committee on Australia's Disaster Resilience inquiry and the final report. I commend both the committee chair, Senator Lambie, and Senator Davey, as well as all the senators who were on that committee. The comments passed so far by Senators Lambie and Davey on this report have given important insights on the work done on this report and this inquiry. I certainly commend and strongly support a lot of the considerations of this report. I also commend the comments passed by the previous two speakers. It's incredibly important that we also commend our fellow committee members, the secretariate staff and everyone who shared evidence through 17 public hearings and the 175 submissions that were received. Since the select committee was established in November 2022, I've had the privilege of hearing from responders, from recovery agencies, from peak bodies and charities, from unions, from state and territory governments, from local councils and from disaster impacted communities across Australia. I'd particularly like to acknowledge the individuals recovering from disasters who shared their personal stories and reflections with us, despite the many challenges they continue to face. I'd also like to thank the frontline responders and defence personnel the committee heard from. They shared their experiences and expertise and that gave us some wonderful insights, but also some very moving insights into the challenges they see in this space. A key theme that emerged throughout the inquiry was the importance of empowering communities in disaster recovery and response by strengthening and harnessing local capacity, leadership and also knowledge. This was outlined by the emergency management and public safety manager of the City of Moreton Bay, Mr Christopher Barnes, who said: … locally led responses provide the most effective mechanism to manage and respond to disasters in our communities. This was echoed by the mayor of Lismore, Mr Steve Krieg, who explained: … local people should be driving their local recovery; it is as simple as that. Evidence suggested that community led responses and recovery were best achieved by arrangements that cascade upwards through local, state and national frameworks. Queensland Inspector-General of Emergency Management, Mr Alistair Dawson, characterised these best-practice arrangements as follows: locally led, regionally coordinated, state facilitated and supported by the Commonwealth. Another key theme that arose throughout the inquiry was the need to continue optimising disaster funding arrangements so they remain sustainable and equitable into the future. This was particularly important for councils, many of whom spoke about the financial impact that increasingly intense disasters as a result of climate change are having on local governments. As president of the Australian Local Government Association, Linda Scott explained, '… there is a mismatch between the amount of local government infrastructure exposed to climate change risks and the resources that local government have to carry out effective adaptation to manage these risks.' Mr David Ross Crawford, a council worker at Lismore City Council, described the situation, saying, 'Being starved of funds over a long period means it is getting harder and harder to provide the service to the community.' Councils, along with not-for-profits, charities and community organisations, also raised the complexity of application and acquittal processes, the lack of funding transition once programs end, and the need for greater focus on preparedness, mitigation and resilience in funding models. Evidence throughout the inquiry highlighted the important role that industry, charities, non-government organisations and volunteer groups undertake in disaster mitigation, response and recovery. For example, we heard about the recovery work that Disaster Resilience Australia is doing to support communities across the country, as well as the school programs being run by young change agents to empower disaster-impacted youth, giving them back some control and helping them to make a difference in their communities. Jali Tan Costello, a young change agent from Lismore, described her experience after getting involved following the 2022 floods. She said, 'The programs … offered me important opportunities to reconnect, activate my resilience and find purpose in my learning. As a class, our opinion was valued. We instigated change and our impact was far-reaching.' Some lovely words. These are two examples of the many ways in which civil society organisations are supporting communities, leading witnesses to suggest the need for better integration into response and recovery structures, coordination and support. The CEO of National Hazards Research Australia, Mr Andrew Gissing, said, 'There is a need to adopt a whole-of-community approach to disaster management to further embrace capability for other sectors through collaboration and information sharing.' Another key issue that emerged throughout the inquiry was the decline in volunteerism, and the importance of strengthening the volunteer workforce into the future, particularly encouraging greater participation of youth. As explained by the regional director of Queensland State Emergency Services, Mr Daryl Camp, 'Unfortunately with increased demand on volunteer services to respond to the ever-increasing number of events and the longer duration of events, we see a negative impact on volunteer numbers. As volunteer numbers decrease, we are also seeing a rise in the number of requests for assistance coming in.' Witnesses spoke about different strategies to recruit and co-ordinate volunteers across the country and of the need to improve coordination and management of spontaneous volunteers. Suggestions included the possible introduction of employment incentives and volunteering schemes in the public and corporate sectors, as well as the further expansion of existing cadet programs run by state and territory response agencies. Evidence throughout the inquiry suggested that our current emergency systems and framework should continue to be reinforced, strengthened and better coordinated. Several witnesses advocated for working within and improving current arrangements rather than trying to create new models, as outlined by Carlene Yorke, President, National Council for Fire and Emergency Services, who said: The current emergency and disaster response system provides an agile, community based workforce for disaster and emergency response that is interoperable across the country and can be and often is deployed across jurisdictional boundaries to provide national resilience. AFAC advocates for working within existing arrangements rather than trying to create a bureaucracy of layers of management for emergency and disaster response … We think this is best done by reinforcing existing arrangements— and subsequently by improving them. Throughout the inquiry, witnesses across Australia also raised the important auxiliary role that the ADF plays in response to disaster events. Mr Chuck Berger from the Kimberley Development Commission described the ADF as providing 'not only material support but also a reassuring presence'. As Air Vice Marshal Stephen Chappell summarised, there is a need to balance Defence's mission to 'defend Australia and its interests' with its 'support to civil communities and the Commonwealth, states and territories in our population's hours of need'. The Albanese government has been progressing several important bodies of work that address the key themes and issues raised throughout the select committee inquiry. The committee inquiry will be again important to reinforce the very issues that the committee has brought forward. We as a government have enhanced the Commonwealth's capabilities and capacity across civil society to ensure Australia is prepared to face the increasing number of frequent and severe natural disasters due to climate change and reduce our reliance on the Defence Force in times of disaster. We've conducted several reviews with the aim of improving governance and funding arrangements, including the Independent Review of Commonwealth Disaster Funding, commonly known as the Colvin review, and the Independent Review of National Natural Disaster Governance Arrangements, or the Glasser review, and of course the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements Review, which is ongoing. We have rolled out the Disaster Ready Fund, which is providing up to $200 million per year for natural disaster resilience and risk reduction initiatives, helping to improve local resilience and capacity. We held the first ever National Disaster Preparedness Summit and spent an additional $11.4 billion in the 2024-25 budget to continue supporting ongoing recovery efforts across Australia. 17:27 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I too rise today to discuss the final report from the Senate Select Committee on Australia's Disaster Resilience, which was tabled last week. First, I commend our chair, Senator Lambie, for her leadership, her passion and her commitment. It was a very well-led committee, so thank you, Senator Lambie. I will also start by thanking the secretariat. As Senator Davey said, this was a very complex and long inquiry that involved travelling to communities impacted by natural disaster rather than just talking to officials in capital cities. I also thank Ashleigh from my office for her passion and commitment in the preparation of the report and the inquiry. It is very clear to me that we put a lot of time, effort, passion and money into disaster response, resilience and recovery, but I believe, after this committee, hearing the evidence and drawing on my own experience, that as Australians we're doing it all wrong. It is very, very clear to me that, instead of a top-down approach, we have to flip it around and start helping and supporting communities to become more resilient and able to be their own first responders. We have to start assisting them to do smarter things that they know need to be done but we don't listen to them on; we impose outcomes and responses on them. One of the most impactful hearings that we had was in the town of Fitzroy Crossing, which had just recently suffered from such catastrophic floods. It is no surprise that Western Australia, particularly the north-west, frequently faces the harsh impact of cyclones and persistent lows. This is nothing new, and it is something that is getting more severe and will keep happening. My comments in relation to this report will focus on Western Australia. While I think there is much more to be done in Western Australia on a bipartisan basis, my comments are certainly not in any way reflecting on DFES. DFES does an extraordinary job in Western Australia, as do all of our emergency services—the ones who do it full time and those who are volunteers across our communities. Having served as the minister for emergency management federally, I've had more than my fair share of witnessing the aftermath of floods, fires and cyclones and also the COVID-19 emergency. Overwhelmingly, as a former minister for defence and servicewomen myself, I was very impacted by the comments—not just in Fitzroy Crossing but, again, across the country—of people recounting their stories of when they heard a RAAF Hercules aircraft or they saw an Army vehicle drive in. They had tears in just recounting, 'I knew that things would be okay,' and inevitably they were. In Fitzroy Crossing, Mr Chuck Berger, the CEO of the Kimberley Development Commission, said: … the ADF provided not only material support but also a reassuring presence. I will never forget iconic images of Fitzroy Crossing children watching, wide-eyed and full of excitement, the arrival of ADF Chinook helicopters. The committee recommends that the Commonwealth enhance its engagement with local communities to leverage their knowledge for flood prevention and recovery through conducting community forums and consultations and incorporating traditional knowledge in flood management plans. It was very clear, in Fitzroy Crossing, that the local Aboriginal communities knew that this catastrophe was coming, but their comments and their pleas fell on deaf ears in Perth. Ms Sarah Parriman, the then deputy CEO of the Kimberley Land Council, said: Aboriginal people should be listened to a little bit more. They know country. They know how the water moves—rainfall might cause flooding down there, but where is that going to go? Again, that is something that we don't listen to nearly enough in terms of capturing local events. Another issue that was of concern in Western Australia is the fact that, after natural disasters, the current Labor government doesn't do reviews. A great feature we noted when we went around to other states was just how quickly state governments, for example in Queensland and New South Wales, do reviews to capture lessons so that they can start implementing them for the next round of disasters. While it's not in the report, I would call on the Western Australia state government and the opposition to do more to capture the lessons and set up an organisation that is responsible not only for capturing the lessons but for coordinating responses. In Fitzroy Crossing, some described feeling as if they were in a fishbowl in those first early days. With many officials travelling to the disaster impacted community, they felt that it was just to look at them and then move on. Vicki O'Donnell, the CEO of the Kimberley Aboriginal Medical Services, said: I appreciate that we have a State Government and I respect the government, but, gee whiz, we had every minister possible visit. Fitzroy Crossing had more ministers in five weeks than they have had in 50 years. As Emily Carter, the CEO of the Marninwarntikura Women's Resource Centre, said: Initially we had every Commonwealth and state government minister flying in here every second day saying, 'We feel for you; we know what you're going through, and we are in it for the long haul'—and then fly out again. We haven't seen or heard from them since. There are overwhelming calls about the vulnerability of infrastructure in north-west Western Australia, especially critical roads, network and bridges. These concerns are well known and well documented but, as yet, unactioned. Single-lane bridges along national Highway 1, particularly in the north of Western Australia, are inadequate. All of these bridges must be reviewed and reinforced, because if one of those bridges goes out again, like in Fitzroy Crossing, the entire Highway 1 will be closed. The WA state Labor government have primary responsibility for identifying these risks and vulnerabilities. They have to do more, but so does the Commonwealth. Funding for the Tanami Road and the Outback Way must be expedited and reprioritised to improve connectivity and emergency response capability. Clare Smith, the CEO of the East Kimberley Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said: If the Tanami Road had been sealed or at least made wet season proof we would have had secondary road access into the East Kimberley and the loss of the bridge wouldn't have affected us as severely as it has— affected, as in they ran out of food and fuel and couldn't get medical attention. Additionally, in WA, ports like Wyndham and Derby, essential for regional connectivity and emergency response, require changes to enhance their ability to receive food and emergency supplies in disaster situations. Similarly, airstrips need to be assessed and improved. In Fitzroy Crossing, guess where the airstrip was located? On a flood plain. So guess what happened when it flooded? The airstrip flooded and aircraft couldn't get in. Michael McConachy, the managing director at Aviair and HeliSpirit, said: The airstrip at Fitzroy Crossing partially went under water. When the ADF brought one of the Spartans in to land on it, it damaged the runway. They did three touch-and-goes and got sent away because the water table was so high. It restricted what we could fly in— and also it restricted the evacuation procedures and options available. Rebuilding is not enough. We must also focus on building back better once and for all, stronger and smarter, but doing it from the community up—talking to the community so that they can advise what is actually required. More robust communication networks are also essential during emergencies. Again, that was in evidence in Fitzroy Crossing. You don't put the power stations in the flood zone and you don't put the communication and telecom batteries on the flood plains or on a river plain, and they are exactly the sorts of things that had been done. Investment in technologies like portable satellite kits, mobile cell towers and hybrid power solutions—they can all significantly enhance local resilience, yet we're not doing it on a coordinated national basis. Finally, I also want to mention that the National Emergency Management Stockpile is a great step forward, and I do commend the introduction of that. However, for Western Australia, as big as it is and as prone as it is to having its air, sea and land networks cut off—guess where Western Australia's stockpile is located? In Adelaide. So I would recommend strongly that we get one in Western Australia. Treaties Joint Committee 56 Report 56 17:37 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I seek leave to take note of report 217 of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. Leave granted. Senator FAWCETT DYU I move: That the Senate take note of the report. This report was on the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America on Technology Safeguards Associated with United States Participation in Space Launches from Australia. Having agreements around technological areas such as space launches are not unusual. We've done that in the defence sector for many years. But, in order to actually improve the access of our industry to the burgeoning global market in the utilisation of space, this is an important agreement. The inquiry itself was not controversial. There was broad support for this agreement from a range of stakeholders, and, in fact, the commercial opportunities are large. The value of the global space sector is expected to rise from US$464 billion in 2022 to US$1.1 trillion by 2040. So there is a large sector there. The US is one of largest players, so it does make good common sense for Australia to be involved with that and to make sure that the companies who are investing in infrastructure, staff and processes here in Australia—from Southern Launch, in my home state of South Australia, to Equatorial Launch Australia and others across the nation—have the ability to tap into the US market as well as markets from Europe and Asia, as they are currently doing. As is often the case, though, the inquiries that lead to these reports uncover issues which sometimes don't make it into the report, and that's why these opportunities to outline some of the other considerations are important in this parliament. There are three areas that I want to quickly cover off. One is the strategic alignment of government departments. Here we have a process initiated by the department of industry, who oversee the Australian Space Agency, around this TSA so that we can have our space sector operate launches. What was not happening was getting the agreement of the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water to actually progress the environmental approvals for companies who are setting up launch sites. In some cases they were waiting years and having to turn customers away because they weren't getting the approvals through the system. The evidence that came out very clearly during the inquiry was that, for the Australian government, if we are seeing this as a priority then we need to actually get each of the departments who provide an enabler to the outcome we're seeking to do their part in having an equal level of priority for some of these outcomes. Otherwise, you'll get one piece in place, but then the other approvals don't come through, and to some extent it's almost been a wasted effort. That alignment is important. Another piece of evidence that came through fairly strongly from witnesses was the strong support for the Australian Space Agency, led by Enrico Palermo, and for the good job he and his staff are doing. The establishment of that agency was a legacy of the former coalition government. The discussion also highlighted that we could probably see improved efficiencies if that agency were actually an independent statutory body as opposed to something sitting under the department of industry. That is something that I believe the Australian government should look at in terms of how we optimise the ability of that agency to be our interlocutor with international partners as well as being the regulator here in Australia for activities such as space launch. The last part that I'd like to talk to is the importance of a whole-of-government investment in this industry sector. Space launch is but one part of the sector, and there was a fair bit of discussion during the inquiry about the missed opportunity of Minister Husic cancelling the National Space Mission for Earth Observation and about the disappointment across Australia's space sector in undoing that investment that had given our sector a clear strategic path forward to developing true sovereign capability. This program was announced in the 2022-23 budget, with some billions of dollars over the decade but $38.5 million per annum for the first phase, which was to design, build and launch four satellites here in Australia. Many people would ask, 'Why would we do that?' Earth observation is important in terms of geosciences, which is everything from forecasting the weather to responding to natural disasters—and that was the topic of discussion that just occurred with the previous report—as well as managing the environment and supporting our farmers. The ability to launch satellites is also important for things like the Global Positioning System, and there are so many systems in our nation, from the distribution of goods, whether it be pharmaceutical medical goods, to taxis—you name it. People use GPS all the time. If there's one thing we know, it's that in a conflict, as we've seen in Ukraine, the overhead assets are one of the first things that will be targeted by adversaries in a campaign. So we would expect that, were there to be a serious conflict in the Indo-Pacific, the satellites that provide communications and observations over our areas of interest, as well as that time-space information through GPS, would be disabled. Having an industry sector that is actually capable of not just providing a widget for someone else's program but also doing all the joined-up elements of designing the payload, the satellite bus, the launch vehicle, the launch site and the control sector was something that was going to be enabled by the National Space Mission for Earth Observation—genuinely a dual-use purpose. If we look to the 2020 Defence strategic update and the Defence strategic review of 2023, they highlight that Australia no longer has a 10-year warning time before the potential for a major conflict in our region, where we would lose those overhead assets. Even those that weren't damaged or destroyed would be most likely retasked and redeployed by the nations that own them, and the Australian public would expect the Australian government to work with our industry to launch our own communications, ISR and GPS satellites. But if we have not actually invested in the sector to do that then we don't have that joined-up industry from the launch sites to the satellite bus producers to the control sectors to enable it. So the National Space Mission for Earth Observation was actually contributing some $65.7 million to set the conditions for rocket launch; $12 million ongoing to remove the cost recovery launches to make it more viable for industry; some $9.5 million to develop a space strategic update to actually align our space efforts across the nation, which would make this a really viable sector, and that was going to take our funding to over $2 billion. So it is one more area where the Albanese government has actually undermined the resilience of Australian industry and the resilience of our defence capability by cutting that funding, and I certainly call for the restoration of that funding so that things like this new agreement around space launch with the United States will be complemented by a resilience and capable Australian industry that can support us in peace, in deterring conflict and—worst case—in winning a conflict. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 I note that the time for this debate has expired. DOCUMENTS 57 DOCUMENTS Consideration 57 Bureau of Meteorology 57 Order for the Production of Documents 57 17:47 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning national competition reform and the Bureau of Meteorology's ROBUST program. COMMITTEES 58 COMMITTEES Electoral Matters Joint Committee 58 Membership 58 17:47 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That Senator Grogan be discharged from, and Senator Brown be appointed to, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. Question agreed to. BILLS 58 BILLS Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Declared Areas) Bill 2024 58

Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Declared Areas) Bill 2024

First Reading 58 17:48 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 58 17:49 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— The Albanese Government is committed to protecting the Australian community against the real and evolving threat of terrorism. The threat of terrorism in Australia is enduring and we must remain resolute in our response. To this end, this Bill ensures the continuation of a key component of our counter-terrorism legal framework: the declared areas provisions. Declared areas The declared areas offence in section 119.2 of the Criminal Code Act 1995, which is currently due to sunset on 7 September 2024, is an important part of the Australian Government's efforts to stop Australians becoming foreign fighters. Where an area is declared by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, it is an offence to enter or remain in that area without a legitimate reason. A declared area is a place where terrorist organisations are engaging in hostile activity. There are very few legitimate reasons for entering such an area. The offence recognises this by providing a carefully targeted range of exceptions. Although there are currently no areas declared, these provisions remain a necessary component of our framework in the current threat environment. The offence plays a role in the disruption and prosecution of returning foreign fighters and their associates. The limited number of areas that have been declared, and the limited use of the offence to date, demonstrate its exceptional nature and judicious use of this power. Measures in the Bill The Bill would extend the offence in section 119.2 for three years, to 7 September 2027. A three-year extension reflects the continued appropriateness of the provisions and is consistent with the previous recommendations made by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. This will be the third time the provision has been extended. The Bill would also provide that section 119.3—the provision under which the Minister for Foreign Affairs can declare an area for the purpose of the offence in section 119.2—also ceases to have effect on 7 September 2027. This will align the relevant declaration and offence provisions in the Criminal Code. The Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2023, which is currently before the Parliament, would empower the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to review these provisions before they sunset, ensuring that due consideration is given to the continued utility of the provisions. Concluding remarks As is appropriate for such laws, the Government has reviewed the declared areas provisions to ensure they remain appropriate and fit for purpose. I commend the Bill to the Parliament. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 59 COMMITTEES Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Joint Committee, Intelligence and Security Joint Committee, Migration Joint Committee, National Anti-Corruption Commission Joint Committee, National Capital and External Territories Joint Committee, Parliamentary Library Joint Committee, Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee, Social Media and Australian Society Joint Select Committee, Treaties Joint Committee 59 Membership 59 Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee 59 Reference 59 17:50 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I seek leave to amend business of the Senate motion No. 1 in the terms circulated in the chamber. Leave granted. Senator HANSON BK6 I move the motion as amended: That the following matters be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 6 December 2024: (a) the effectiveness of the operation of the native title system, and options to improve: (i) the economic development resulting from native title, and (ii) certainty over the claim process My motion is to do with native title. After more than 30 years, it's past time for a comprehensive review of native title legislation and how it operates in Australia. In the early 1990s, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations owned 14.22 per cent of Australia's landmass including islands. Under freehold, leasehold and reserve, these organisations, not including individuals, owned 1,094,000 square kilometres of Australia. Following the Mabo and others versus the state of Queensland decision in 1992 and in the wake of the Native Title Act 1993, all vacant Crown land; occupied Crown land, like native parks; and Crown leasehold land—that is, pastoral farming properties—were and still are under threat. According to the National Native Title Tribunal, on 31 March 2016, native title existed in an exclusive sense over a total of 851,654 square kilometres of Australia, an area greater than the state of New South Wales. Native title also existed in a non-exclusive sense over another 1,488,237 square kilometres. All up, in 2016, native title held by Indigenous people was over 2,339,890 square kilometres of land. This amounted to 30.4 per cent of 7,786,850 square kilometres of land in Australia, an area bigger than western Europe. Then, in 2021, just five years later, 26.6 per cent of Australia's land was under exclusive Indigenous native title, meaning the right to exclude others from the land, and 27.5 per cent under non-exclusive Indigenous native title. The total proportion of Australia's landmass under native title today is 54 per cent, with approximately another 10 to 12 per cent under determination. Native title land is owned by corporations and Indigenous shareholders, but they cannot sell or, in some cases, use their land. Those who would love to own a home on their own part of Australia are denied this because there are no individual titles. Native title is a farce and controlled by land councils holding Indigenous people to ransom in their squalor and conditions that they experience in remote communities purely to milk the taxpayer funded gravy train. Aboriginals and their corporations don't pay tax on royalties or land leasing agreements. Why? Perhaps the most galling aspect of native title is the complete exclusion of non-Indigenous Australians from any meaningful say in the process. This country belongs to all Australians, so all Australians should have a say about ownership and title of the land and waters over which all Australians share equal sovereignty. I mention that specifically because in a question without notice last year I managed to get the Labor government to concede that, in principle, this was the truth: all Australians have sovereignty over Australia. We hear the more extreme activists routinely repeat the line that Indigenous sovereignty over Australia was never ceded. Here's an uncomfortable bit of truth-telling for those activists: you can't cede something you never had in the first place. Sovereignty is a concept that was brought to this continent by British settlement. Sovereignty is a concept of civilisation, which emerged independently in many parts of the world but never touched presettlement Australia. It requires the infrastructure and machinery of estate: government, physical institutions, currency, written records, borders, and armies to defend them. They were not concepts that existed before the emergence of civilisation around the world. Before that, virtually all human beings were essentially nomadic hunter-gatherers with no concept of borders; they just followed the food. It wasn't until people learned that it was safer and easier to grow food and keep livestock near them and the need to defend them against other people that these concepts emerged. It was this competition with others which fuelled invention and created concepts like the sovereign state and sovereign borders. Intense competition with other peoples was not something that Indigenous people ever really encountered before British settlement, so there was no impetus for these concepts to emerge independently in Australia. They were imported here in 1788. Sovereignty is also something that requires defence. Virtually every civilisation on this planet has been both the conqueror and the conquered. That's very much the story of Britain. Celts, Anglos, Romans, Saxons, Vikings and Normans all invaded and conquered parts of Britain. The English people are a composite of many ancestries as a legacy of these waves of conquest over thousands of years. They routinely sought to dominate the Welsh, Scottish and Irish peoples they shared their lands with. Eventually, they created the largest empire the world has ever seen, but only because they had successfully defended British sovereignty against foreign invasion for centuries. This provided the stability and secure base from which to effectively control more than a quarter of the entire planet by the 19th century. Australia only became part of this empire because the British lost their previous dumping ground for the transport of convicts in the American War of Independence. Settlement of Australia was brought about by the British, already in the early stages of the Industrial Revolution, into contact and conflict with Indigenous people who were still at Stone Age level of technological development. As a result, the conflicts were very much one-sided. Indigenous people could not effectively resist settlers armed with muskets and supported by the British sovereign state. The obvious factor was the different levels of technological development, but an important factor was the absence of sovereignty among Indigenous people. There's no small irony in the existence of the native title system. It is directly the product of machinery of the modern sovereign state imported here by the British of government, fiscal institutions, borders, armies to defend them, and money, of course—another concept alien to presettlement Australia—truckloads of money. Money provided by taxpayers—97 per cent of which will never be able to make a native title claim or be allowed any meaningful say in the transfer of the land and wealth under their sovereign ownership. Governments and councils have considerable input in the determination of these claims, but, as usual in this country, this input almost never reflects the views of affected communities. As a vehicle for reconciliation, native title is a complete failure, but it almost completely excludes non-Indigenous Australians from the process. Reconciliation is a two-way street, not a one-sided process. There has to be give and take on both sides. Reconciliation is also a process which is supposed to come to a resolution or conclusion at some point. That's part of the reason I've been calling for a sunset clause in native title legislation, as did former prime minister John Howard. With more than half the continent now under a form of native title, and more land transferred to Indigenous corporations and land councils under state legislation, many Australians are saying, 'Enough is enough.' In my home state of Queensland, native title claims and state based land transfers are dividing, not uniting, our communities. Great Keppel Island, once the jewel of Central Queensland, is now subject to an exclusive-use native title claim that, if successful, will lock non-Indigenous Australians out of 84 per cent of the island. It's very apparent that this is the reason the state Labor government's $25 million promise to restore and clean up Great Keppel Island hasn't been met in more than four years. I don't think they have any intention of honouring that commitment, or the updated one they made in April this year, because they expect this claim to be successful. Then there's the small community of Toobeah in the Goondiwindi Shire. Land which has been the beating heart of this community for a century is being claimed by an Aboriginal corporation with a Brisbane office more than 400 kilometres away. The community was kept completely in the dark about the transfer, until I visited the town and demanded some consultation. But there was no consultation. Because of my intervention, and after keeping the community in the dark for over three years, the local council had a couple of meetings at which Toobeah residents were just told what was going to happen. They have no meaningful say in it. I also believe that's precisely why non-Indigenous Australians are never asked: because the claimants, the government and the councils know the answer will very likely be no. I also remind Australians: what about being denied the right to visit Ayers Rock, or Uluru; the Grampians National Park; Mount Warning; some beaches that we have been locked out of and many other parts of Australia? We can't go there. It's, 'Oh, sorry; it's secret women's business,' or, 'It's because of men's health.' Really? Give me a break! And this is what you're doing. For three per cent—and I question that as well—of the population, we are denying Australians the right to actually go to these beautiful places. Native title is racist and divisive. It's treating one Australian differently to another, but purely based on race. Last year's referendum proved that beyond a doubt. The Australian people threw it out. You wanted to have a separate advisory body, another layer of government, purely for the Indigenous. Voters have woken up to the many ways that they are being denied the rights that Indigenous Australians enjoy. Non-Indigenous Australians are, in many ways, second-class citizens in their own country, and nothing illustrates this like native title. One Nation is the only party in Australia fighting for these communities and standing up for our rights to be heard and heeded, for all Australians. My referral motion is for an inquiry that will, I hope, consider a better native title process that includes meaningful consultation with the non-Indigenous; more certainty; and better options, for Indigenous claimants, for economic development and empowerment. Indigenous people have actually come to me and said: 'We can't get any part of the land; we are denied the right. We can't set up businesses. We can't go for loans. We can't do anything.' You're keeping them locked in this squalor, because they can't access their own country. Even people that I visited in some of these Aboriginal communities have said that, although it's native title land, unless they get the say of one of the community leaders, they can't visit the land; they can't hunt on it; they can't do anything. So you're not advantaging anyone here. You're just handing it over to those who want to use it to empower themselves and to the nepotism that happens. There's also all the taxpayers' money that goes out the door. And, as I said here, they don't pay royalties. Why? Why don't they pay tax and royalties? Why aren't they funding themselves? Why is it still upon the taxpayers to fund these corporations, these organisations, that I have called out repeatedly to be corrupt? No-one is interested in doing an investigation and audit. If you've got nothing to hide, have the audit; do an investigation; find out where the money's gone. But you know, because you know that there is corruption there and you don't want to show them up for what they are. This whole thing is about division within our nation over native title. As I said, in the early 1990s, 14.22 per cent of the nation was under native title. Now it's over 54 per cent, and possibly an extra 10 per cent or 12 per cent will be given to native title. So over 60 per cent of Australia will be under native title for less than 812,000 people who claim to be Aboriginal. How ridiculous is that? If you really have a good think about this, what are you doing to this nation and future generations? You're not helping the Aboriginal people or the Torres Strait Island people by what you're doing. You're not talking about giving them a helping hand up. All you're doing is to keep funding all the time to keep them in the conditions that they're in, and there is no helping hand up to get them out of it. Or is this a plot to actually divide this nation and have an Aboriginal black state? That's why we need this Senate inquiry and an investigation into it. You tell me: What are the benefits of having native title? How has it helped the Australian people? Where is our future going to lie if we keep heading down this path? 18:06 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales The government will not be supporting this motion. This motion was nearly identical to another motion put forward by Senator Hanson and rightly rejected by the Senate in September last year. It was nearly identical until it was amended in what appears to me to be a dirty deal and an accommodation with the Liberal and National parties—a little bit of more of that later. This motion reflects Senator Hanson's disregard of the importance of native title, which is the law in Australia. It is the law in Australia. It is not a motion put forward in any way in good faith. Indeed, I've watched Senator Hanson's approach to these questions over many years now. She says things that are deliberately offensive. She says them in order to create offence. She says them in order to create social harm. She says them in order to create hurt. That's what she is deliberately, maliciously doing in order to further what she has calculated—with others, no doubt—is in the partisan interests of dividing Australians and trying to create a narrow partisan advantage for herself. I wonder why the Liberals and Nationals sign up for this. I wonder why. It is a barely concealed attempt to undermine the native title system, the whole system, and everybody in this place should see it for what it is and oppose it. You could hear in Senator Hanson's contribution—even if you're not capable of reading the motion itself and seeing it in its context, you could hear it in her contribution—her disdain for Aboriginal Australia and her contempt for the history and the culture. There is already an inquiry into the native title system underway. It's a good-faith inquiry, commissioned by the Attorney-General and conducted by the Australian Law Reform Commission. It is a comprehensive inquiry which covers the future of the native title system and explores ways in which it may be made to work better for native titleholders, for Aboriginal communities and for the whole community. It will be conducted by experts in consultation with First Nations people. That's how you go about an inquiry into native title. It's not through a stunt cooked up by Senator Hanson and Senator Cash. It's been over 30 years since the commencement of the Native Title Act. Native title is a critical part of broader efforts to rectify past injustices in this country and to ensure that First Nations people receive the recognition they deserve. The government is investing in improvements to the native title system. In the 2024 budget, the government committed an additional $20.8 million over four years to improve the native title system. As part of this package, $12.4 million is going to the Federal Court of Australia to increase judicial resourcing and expand the delivery of its successful First Nations led case management and mediation model, $4½ million will go to the Native Title Tribunal to help prescribed bodies corporate and native title holders resolve disputes, and a further $3.3 million is being provided to the Federal Court and the Native Title Tribunal to ensure the vital records provided to them in native title matters—maps, genealogical charts, recordings of songs and dances—are preserved appropriately for future generations. Today native title is recognised over almost half of Australia's land mass, and I say to Senator Hanson it is the law. I know that in the extremist fringe of Australian politics there is contempt for our law and for our institutions, but it is the law. It is one of our institutions. It matters for the social and economic and legal fabric of Australia. How development projects occur on country and how traditional owners can participate in, lead and share in the benefits of those projects is more important than ever. Indeed, the Prime Minister had quite a lot to say about this and about the way the government would approach economic opportunity for Aboriginal communities on traditional land just a few weeks ago. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people deserve to maintain a distinctive cultural, spiritual, physical and economic relationship with their land and their waters. You would think that these principles are so mainstream, so well understood in this parliament that the Liberals and Nationals would refuse to accept the quisling accommodation with the One Nation party that they are engaged in. They have a choice on questions like this. Quite often resolutions, motions, are moved in daily motions here, and there is nothing more hollow than the sound of a resolution or a motion passing or not passing this place on some foreign policy question. It has no consequence at all. But words in these questions have consequences, and the position of a party that pretends to be a party of alternative government on these questions is very important indeed. We've seen the extension of extremism, the wacky and dangerous ideas, taking hold in sections of the Liberal and National parties across the aisle here in the Senate. Older generations of conservatives would never have tolerated this. Serious, actual conservatives who care about democratic institutions and the law and tradition and history would never tolerate this extremism. But the extremists are accreting their way into the Liberal and National parties, and we see it in here every day of the week. The old conservatives would have recognised the political danger of drifting away from mainstream Australia. They would have understood that ordinary people in the street want governments that act in their interests and aren't controlled by whack jobs, extremists and cookers. That is the group that is getting bigger and bigger and bigger. And they're not just on the coalition backbench; they're starting to play a role in the coalition's political decision-making. It's the extremism that we see in the way that Senator Rennick approaches issues like child care, climate science and energy policy. I look forward to hearing from him about chemtrails and lizard people some time soon. There are the kinds of people who hand out leaflets from Senator Hanson and her party. Mr Joyce, in the other place, is tilting at windmills around the community, opposing economic development in regional towns. He's out there, with diminishingly small crowds, I have to say, talking about bullets and ballots—bullets and ballots. What is wrong with this bloke? What is wrong with him? But, more seriously, what is wrong with the Liberal and National parties that they do not see the danger and they do not act? What you get from Mr Joyce is a mealy-mouthed, weak apology, and then he goes back to his electorate and pretends it hasn't happened. I get the local papers, the Northen Daily Leader up there, and I see what Mr Joyce writes. It is incoherent. It is a word salad. What he did was pretended he did not say what he did. That is the modus operandi of the extremist: say something provocative, offensive, mean spirited and extreme and then run away from it, and then do it again and do it again and do it again in an effort to try and court some sectional, minor accretion of political advantage. I tried to list some of the areas that other politicians here are extremists about—Senator Antic, everything, I think, in truth. But what is the approach by what passes for leadership in the Liberal and National parties on these issues? It's to tolerate it. It's to encourage it. It's pats on the back. It's 'don't worry, mate; it'll be alright'. That is what has happened to a once proud political organisation that pretends it's capable of being an alternative government. You don't get to be an alternative government if you drift so far from mainstream Australia that you become purveyors and encouragers of wacky ideas, of extremism, just like this motion. What sits underneath it? It's a hostility to Aboriginal Australia—to its culture, to its history, to the great task of reconciliation, as complicated and messy as that is. It's a hostility to 65,000 years of history. We saw Mr Dutton refuse to go to Garma. And he said, when interviewed—I thought this was remarkable; it passed without much comment—he was opposed to truth-telling. What does he want people to tell—lies? He's opposed to truth-telling. What an extraordinary proposition. Now, reconciliation, native title, a recognition of our history—sure. These are matters of social and economic justice, no question. Of course they are. But they also make Australia stronger. They make Australia stronger because they knit our community together. Our 65,000 years of Indigenous history are a national asset. Our kids should be proud of it. I know it's a national asset because, when I travel overseas representing Australia at trade conferences and fora all over the world, it is a national asset. It makes us stronger. It particularly makes us stronger in our region. This idea from Senator Hanson that we should pit Australians against each other, particularly in country towns, when so much good work is going on—I travel much of regional Australia, and I hear a very different story to the story that Senator Hanson tells. I hear from people who are working hard to build their communities, to build strength in their communities and to get on with the task of reconciliation at a national and local level. We have here just one more example of the One Nation party, the Nationals and the Liberals getting more and more extreme, further and further away from mainstream Australia, further and further away from where ordinary Australians are on these questions, and more and more divisive and determined to make Australia weaker, not stronger, because their political calculation is if they make Australia weaker and convince people that they are losing then they might just win something. That's what this is all about. I've got no hope for the One Nation party on these propositions—it is a definitional question for them; they don't exist without this kind of base politics—but there ought to be a little bit of self-reflection amongst the Liberal and National parties about where this leaves them and where it leaves the country. 18:20 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia When I came to this place a few years ago, I hoped I wouldn't have to continue to repeat myself by way of explaining history. It's the reason Senator Shoebridge and I pursued and pulled together a private senator's bill on a makarrata commission. The word 'makarrata', contrary to what the Prime Minister told everyone and continues to tell everyone, is about a struggle, coming together, a conversation. It's the Yolngu word gifted in the Uluru Statement from the Heart from 2017. History in this country can be turned on its head. History in this country can be manipulated by people opposite for the following of people who listen to One Nation politicians who come into this place with motions like this—a referral to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for an inquiry into native title. Senator Ayres is exactly right; last year there was this same conversation. It feels like groundhog day in this place. We have to get up and continually tell this to people who don't show up all the time, who are not attuned to what is happening in communities, who are not listening to what's happening in committees and who are blind and deaf to the fact that we have 65,000 years of history and culture, connection, people, rock art, song, dance, ceremony, teachings and learnings. That 'farce' Senator Hanson refers to describes this referral; this motion is a farce. I will highlight some of the things Senator Hanson said. First Nations people don't pay tax in this country. You know how we pay tax? Through our blood, sweat and tears. What happened in this nation was what they did to rip apart our families. In Western Australia and Queensland, where y'all come from, it's the history of the 1905 act—the assimilation policy, the White Australia policy and the history of that, the colonial legacy of this nation. And it's being perpetuated through stunts like this, Senator Hanson, for your donations, for people following you, for social media and, I don't know, to sell gin or vodka or whatever you're selling this week—that this is about how all Australians feel about First Nations people in this country. Well, I've got news for you, Senator Hanson and One Nation followers: it's not how all Australians feel about First Nations people. I am a very proud Noongar Yamatji woman who comes from five generations of my family being disconnected. The legislation in this country allowed my ancestors to be removed from their country. With the attempt to disconnect us from our native tongue, they might as well get a pair of scissors and cut our tongues off. We weren't given the gift of being able to learn our language. That was your law, not ours. The legislation in this country, at the state level, allowed us to be placed alongside the environment—flora and fauna. That's not a myth. That's actually true. The segregation and the deliberate acts of removal of our children are what helped cause the situation that we are currently in. When we talk about the law, native title came off the back of the Mabo No. 2 determination. This is like a history lesson, because I feel like I've said this so many times before, about the concept of terra nullius. The British didn't just turn up and find this land vacant. That's not true. That's why the Mabo determination, the two High Court challenges, enabled us to disprove terra nullius. There's 30,000 years of connection and culture that, in my clans, I can prove. I can prove that. The High Court has determined that. They use legal instruments like the Native Title Act, the act you now want to review as part of your erasure policy, to erase us. You want to put your sunset clause in there. That's the bit that you said out loud, and then you thought, 'I'd better not put that there', so you get up and amend it. Well, guess what? It's too late. Everyone sees the hollowness in what it is that you are trying to do. Senator Ayres was actually pretty on point with what he said about extremism, because this level of extremism is pointed to the first chapter of the history of this nation, the precolonial history, which actually is Australia's history. Australians should be proud of that. We want them to be proud of that. We want to share that. Senator Hanson, you don't want to share that. You don't want that for Australia. That's really, really clear, because every time you come in this place all you do is rubbish Aboriginal people—every single time. It's like you've got people on that side of the chamber now who— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Excuse me, Senator Cox. There's a point of order from Senator Roberts. Senator Roberts 266524 Point of order: that was a deliberate falsity from Senator Cox about Senator Hanson. She does not come in here and talk negatively, let alone every time. She never comes in here and talks negatively about Aboriginals. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 That's not necessarily a point of order. It can be countered in debate. I can't, obviously, adjudicate that. But, Senator Cox, please be measured, as we've been. Senator COX 296215 Thank you, Deputy President. I'm not going to withdraw my comment. This continues to be a constant narrative—a constant narrative that is shoved down the throats of First Nations people in this place. People are watching the deliberate, racially motivated narrative that is being churned out as people open Facebook, Instagram and all the other mediums on their phones. Researchers have actually told us that it's like being punched in the face every time there is racism that is experienced by us. It has that much impact, and yet people use this as a platform. It's just horrendous. This is a continual thing that people use as part of native title—that the native title legislation is racist. Well, how? I want to know how, because if you walk into somebody's house without acknowledging them, without respecting them, and without thinking about what impact you might have on the way that they've been living in that house for a really long time, and then you decide that you're just going to sell that house from underneath those people—'I don't care what they say; I don't even have to ask permission, and I'm not going to give them a dime out of it'—this is why the native title legislation exists. It wasn't just an abandoned house. It is not that Australia didn't have anyone here and there were no sophisticated systems that were set up. We would fish for a day. We didn't have to farm. We had trade routes. We were able to have our tribal boundaries. And it was all removed. The one thing we can agree on is that native title gave that to us. It gifted that to us as First Peoples. Your stone-age interpretation is your warped view of history. We were not part of that. We had sophisticated systems. We didn't need a refrigerator because we had our own systems for keeping our food fresh. The one thing Senator Hanson did mention is that you can't bring a knife to a gunfight, right? You can't. And that's how we ended up massacred. That's how the frontier wars of this nation happened. The blood is still in the land. And that's the reality of the situation. Yet mainstream Australia, because of people like Senator Hanson and others, wants to come into this place and say we should forget about that, that it wasn't a big deal and that they're just a couple of people's ancestors down the road. What sort of hurt—the intergenerational trauma of that—do you think exists for First Nations people in this country, from being denied their rights, being denied their children, being denied their culture and being denied any type of economic empowerment for generations? That's not years; we're going to use generations of people. I'm talking about 150 generations of my people that have been denied their rights. The one little shred of right that we currently have and that we hold on to is the fact that we will have native title to identify and to acknowledge that we were here before 1788 and that we have a rich culture, history, knowledges and people. We don't have formal truth-telling in this country, yet. And the Commonwealth, the government, are denying us that. They can stand up in here and say, 'We respect the law'—I almost thought Senator Ayres was going to break into, 'I'm all for makarrata and truth and justice,' because that's what it felt like. But they're still denying us that. You have to tell the truth about what's really happening. That's not about, 'An Aboriginal person came to my office and complained about native title because they're not getting their share.' I know that process is not perfect, and I'm not advocating that it is. What I'm saying is that I don't think anybody in this place can possibly sit here and say that they've been hunted off a piece of land, that they've been told not to go there—if they've been respectful—that they've been told that they should get out of the place or that we have ever put up a sign saying 'No whitefellas'. I don't think that's happened. If you can bring evidence of that, I'll entertain it for a little bit. But then I'll go and ask the question: why? If somebody tells you, 'Don't do that,' there's a reason for it. So what about when someone says, 'That's a sacred site'? I don't see anybody jumping on top of anybody else's grandmothers' and ancestors' graves, yet we think that that's okay? Do we think that climbing one of our sacred sites is okay? Do we think that ruining an area—like the example Senator Hanson used, of Great Keppel Island—and then going, 'We'll just hand it back now; we've come in for a party, we've wrecked the joint and now we're handing it back, and we'll let the First Nations people fix that up,' is okay? When that's included under native title, or even in the extinguishment of native title, we are questioned about our intention in that. I've read the media statement from the local PBC, who've said: 'Of course non-Aboriginal people can come here to Great Keppel Island. We would never deny that. We want to restore it. We want to make sure that we can share it.' So I find this myth and the accusation that was made today that First Nations people—the three per cent of Australians that claim to be Aboriginal—are telling people not to go on country absolutely laughable. It's laughable because it's not happening. There are sacred places for men and women's business. There are ceremonial grounds. There are issues that require us to have a little bit of respect for others, whether it be people's religion, their race or their disability, and we've had a whole conversation this week about the NDIS. But to deny why native title exists is just abhorrent. It is just unbelievable that people can sit in this place, come in here for an acknowledgement of country every morning and still think that they can make accusations that we would run people off country and that we want to money grab. The money was something that was brought in on the boat. That bit you're right about, because we see the value in the land. We are the custodians of this country, but we cop a lot of negative flack. The racism in this country, since the referendum, has gone up. That is something that is true, and our people have felt and copped the brunt of that. The rise of that is because of this. 18:36 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I support the referral of the native title system to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee because the native title system is currently hurting mainland Aboriginals. In practice, native title is racist against Aboriginal people. I also support the reference because I support Australia and all Australians—one united nation, one nation. Since the introduction of the Native Title Act into Australian law in 1993, more than 50 per cent of the Australian land mass has come under determinations of the Native Title Tribunal—54 per cent, to be precise. The legislation, though, is not a true reflection of what was in fact determined in the High Court, which considered the unique circumstances of Mr Eddie Mabo's family and the situation on Murray Island in the Torres Strait. The Native Title Act, when drafted, relied significantly on United Nations declarations, which were mentioned six times in a 2½ page preamble. That's what it's all about—United Nations declarations and other agreements related to the rights of Indigenous peoples. Locking up land from private ownership is on the UN agenda. What is not so well understood is the total failure of the Native Title Act to provide practical benefits to the lives of Aboriginal people living in remote areas of Australia. That's why it is racist. It is hurting and holding back Aboriginals, especially those in remote areas of Australia. Less well known is that some native title claims grant exclusive rights which may allow the native title holder to exclude non-Aboriginals from accessing the land—fact. This may prevent other Australians accessing beaches and landmarks of significance unless they pay for the privilege. More symbolic than practical, the act has effectively locked up large tracts of land from the use or benefit of individual Aboriginal people. It's locked them out. The only ones who have benefited under the act are those wealthy community barons, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, who are part of the white and black Aboriginal industry and rip off needy Aboriginals. Instead, they divert much of the billions of dollars in Aboriginal funding to themselves, sucking it up and keeping it from the people in the communities. Those who benefit are the white and black Aboriginal academics, activists, Aboriginal community leaders, shonky lawyers and dodgy Aboriginal corporations, who do nothing to help individual Aboriginals. I've travelled widely through Aboriginal communities across Queensland, including every Cape York community—sometimes three times through a community. I've been to all of the communities at least twice. When we were in Cape York, we met with local community leader Mr Bruce Gibson, for example. He's one of many. He shared his views on native title and its impact on his community. And, by the way, we hear these comments from Aboriginal elders in other parts of Queensland as well, in communities like Gympie and Maryborough—mainstream communities. Anyway, getting back to Mr Bruce Gibson, he said that native title was important for the recognition of the Indigenous perspective of their relationship with the land and for recognising that Aboriginal people were the first inhabitants of Australia and that they had inherent rights to the land. That's fine. His view was that the Native Title Act was not providing Aboriginal people—and, remember, Mr Gibson is an Aboriginal from an Aboriginal community and a fine man—with something tangible, because they could not use native title to advance any individual interests. It's racist, because white people in this country can go and buy land. They can use that as collateral for a business loan or for building their own family house. Aboriginal people in communities cannot. The land is locked up and given to the barons of the community. Land under native title cannot be mortgaged to help build a home or be used as collateral to support a business loan. The land is essentially locked up and not used to support small projects or family homes. It's racist. It hurts Aboriginals. This would seem contrary to the effective intention of the legislators. If the act is supposed to benefit hardworking Australian Aboriginals, it's failing, just as the Closing the Gap program has failed. Because the land is not freehold, nobody is able to work towards owning their own home, and the property is now locked away out of reach. The Commonwealth government can reclaim land and convert it to freehold, and some compensation is then paid to the traditional owners. Yet this does not benefit any individuals. With individual landownership prevented, there is little incentive to work towards beneficial community or personal goals. Bruce Gibson said that he wished to own his own place in his community. He cannot. Why? Because he's Aboriginal on an Aboriginal community. That's why. Native title doesn't look after him. He wishes to build up and expand his small business as a shop owner, yet he cannot buy the premises. He must hope that he can lease the shop from the local traditional owners, if he says the right things. These comments were echoed across the Cape, from constituents to council mayors and council members. It was universal—every community. There was not one person to whom we spoke who had a good thing to say about native title other than it providing some recognition to them as First Australians. That's why native title is racist. It hurts Aboriginals. Coming back to the Mabo decision, the Mabo decision was based correctly on Mr Mabo's island in the Torres Strait Islands—Murray Island, I think it is. But that was because there was a system of handing down title of land to succeeding generations. It was a means of keeping people who didn't hold title to the land out of their land. That system was in the Torres Strait. It was not on the mainland. There was no system of land tenure on the mainland. That Mabo decision should not have been extended. It wasn't extended by the High Court. It was extended by the Labor Party under Paul Keating. They made that up, and it's a falsity. I want to go to some key points that I've made in notes. With native title, there are no individual needs being met—no universal human needs. It's just a feel-good policy to make a few people in the inner-city areas think we've handed land back to the Aboriginals, when we never took it, and it hasn't been handed back. It's been taken off whoever had it. It provides enormous uncertainty regarding development, which is holding back Aboriginal communities. There's confusion between native title and the Aboriginal Land Act 1991 in Queensland. They're two separate issues. They're both taking up land in Queensland. There are many uncertainties in claims of native title, like two families claiming the same land. In some cases, one family from interstate is granted the land when the local Aboriginal people are denied the land. It's rife with these kinds of false claims. Look at Toobeah. Look at Deebing Creek near Ipswich. That hurts the Aboriginals. It also deflects and hides from Aboriginals' core problems, and they have got problems in remote communities, not in all remote communities—they're different; they vary—but there are problems. But they're not being fixed by the white and black Aboriginal industry. The problems are being exacerbated exactly as Senator Hanson mentioned. Let me tell you a story about my first time as a senator. I was walking up to the One Nation office in Brisbane, and three Aboriginal people approached me. I talked to them, and they said they were from the Northern Territory. I said, 'What are you doing here then?' They said: 'We've come to see Senator Hanson because she's the only one who understands our problems and the only one with the guts to tell the truth. She's the only one.' These are Aboriginal people from the Northern Territory who came down from the Territory to Brisbane to see Senator Hanson because she's the only one who gets it and she's the only one who understands. There's a flow-on from the guilt and grievance industry, the white and black Aboriginal industry that I mentioned, that's hurting and suppressing Aboriginals, entrenching dependence and entrenching victimhood. The Aboriginal people are wonderful people, essentially salt of the Earth. Why are we keeping them down? Why are we suppressing them under a blanket of bureaucracy? We need sunset clauses on native title applications, just like the Queensland Aboriginal Land Act of 1991. It had a sunset clause that came into force in 2006. We need a moratorium on native title allocations. We need to review the Native Title Act, and that's why I support this reference. We need to reverse the closing of landmarks. Prominent Aboriginals in this country have admitted that the closing of landmarks is based on obsolete practices. The closing of Mount Warning was strongly opposed by an Aboriginal elder, a woman, but her voice was not heard. It was suppressed. Mr Marc Hendrix is doing a marvellous job of publicising the truth about Mount Warning's closure. It was a bunch of gutless bureaucrats and politicians from the New South Wales state government that succeeded to rubbish. It succeeded to the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull, and it was spread by a small, tiny group and opposed by Aboriginals, including elders. Wise females were just ignored, just buried. The One Nation MPs, I'm sure, will review the Aboriginal Land Act of 1991 in Queensland, and also we need a review of the Native Title Act. I'm going to make some comments about Senator Ayres. Labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the incompetent, the dishonest and the fearful. Senator Ayres put together not one single coherent point, just a lot of labels and lies. That was all we got from Senator Ayres. He retreated. He put forward no arguments. It was all just hollow words. Pauline Hanson is known for her love of Australia and her love of Australians, regardless of skin colour. Let me tell you a story from when we first came to Canberra in the Senate in 2016. We went to the Griffith Vietnamese Restaurant, where a lot of politicians have gone over the years and written on the walls. We couldn't get out of the place because the Vietnamese people, the other Asian people, wanted autographs with Senator Hanson. Why? Because she protects the country. She protects the country and makes sure we keep our values in this country. That's why Asian people, Indian people, Chinese people and Middle Eastern people come to this country—because they like the values of this country. We have got to protect that. These concerns about native title are echoed right across Queensland and in other parts, including across the Territory as well. We know from prominent Aboriginals that they agree with Senator Hanson and with me. It's way over time for this native title regime to be reconsidered, and I recommend its referral to this committee for the benefit of all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and for the benefit of all Australians. Thank you. 18:49 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I had no intention of speaking on this disgraceful and farcical motion, but, unfortunately, I was here at the time Senator Hanson made her speech. And I'm really sorry that Senator Cox had to listen to that speech as well, because I haven't heard such incomprehensible drivel in a long time. On top of that, it was dripping in white supremacy, colonisation and racism. In some parallel universe, or maybe the dream world—or perhaps, more aptly, the nightmare world—that One Nation live in, they seem to think that they are calling out racism. It would be laughable if it weren't such a serious issue. Here's the truth: no matter where we are in this country, we are on stolen land; sovereignty was never ceded; this is, always was and always will be Aboriginal land. So deal with it, Senator Hanson. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Are there any other contributions to this debate? We're past 6.30, so, if someone calls a division, it will have to be deferred until tomorrow. I put the question on the motion moved by Senator Hanson referring matters to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee. A division being required, it will be deferred until tomorrow. The debate is adjourned. BILLS 67 BILLS Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 67

Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024

Second Reading 67 18:51 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I rise to speak on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024. I will say at the outset that I support this bill and will be voting for it. The issues that have been raised deserve to be properly investigated and addressed. It's in the best interests of construction workers that this bill pass urgently, because construction workers need a strong, effective industrial voice and a strong, effective union. It is clear that this bill will deliver the most effective way of delivering that. The longer this issue drags on and the longer it takes to address the issues that have been raised, the longer it will be until we are back to having strong industrial representation for construction workers. That, of course, explains why the Liberals and Nationals are seeking to delay and draw out this process with a lengthy inquiry. We on this side of the chamber are coming at this issue from a very different direction to that of those opposite. We have introduced this bill because we believe every construction worker deserves to have union representation that always acts in their best interests. That is the motivation behind this bill. The Liberals and the Nationals come at this very differently. Their motivation in this saga is to destroy union representation in the construction industry altogether. It's just another piece of their policy puzzle to attack unions, destroy job security and drive down wages. As the Liberals have happily admitted, attacking wages is their deliberate policy. Those opposite don't want the issues that have been raised to be solved. You don't need to take my word for it. Why don't you just look at their own record? Their first call in response to this saga was to call for the Australian Building and Construction Commission to be reinstated. What a farce! The issues that have been reported on all took place while the ABCC was active. They were supposed to be the tough cop on the beat, yet all that happened under their noses because they were too busy pursuing 'the real issues'—real issues like Eureka flags being flown on building sites. The ABCC spent half a million dollars on legal action to stop a Eureka flag being flown on a building site when the developer, Lendlease, didn't even have an issue with it. No-one—not the union, not the workers, not the developer—actually supported the ABCC action. It was an ideological farce. Some of the other famous wastes of money the ABCC embarked on, with the full support of the Liberals and Nationals, included prosecuting the CFMEU for having COVID-19 safety posters in a break room, because the posters had the union and employer association logos on them. We know they launched cases about union stickers on hard hats. We know because they launched cases about union officials having a cup of tea on a work site. And my personal favourite—the half a million dollars the ABCC spent on losing an appeal to the High Court for a case about the CFMEU requesting a woman's bathroom be put on a work site. It was half a million dollars, and they went all the way to the High Court to prevent a woman's bathroom being put on a work site. The ABCC was not a serious regulator, and those opposite cannot be taken seriously, either. That's not a matter of opinion; it's a matter of fact. The man those opposite hand-picked to lead the ABCC, Nigel Hadgkiss, had to resign in disgrace because he was exposed for intentionally misrepresenting the industrial rights of unions for two years. He spent two years lying to prevent unions and their members from leveraging their rights, and he got caught and he resigned in disgrace. This is the calibre of the ABCC. Of course, resigning in disgrace is a bit of a trend when it comes to the conservative ideologies—those opposite charged with attacking the trade union movement. Another thought bubble that those opposite have had is to have another union royal commission. The last time they got into power they had the same idea. Unfortunately, it turned out that the most disgraceful conduct by anyone at the inquiry was by the man they put in charge, Dyson Heydon. For those who have forgotten, an investigation on behalf of the High Court found that Mr Heydon had sexually harassed six female associates while he was a member of the court. Mr Hadgkiss and Mr Heydon are the sort of company those opposite keep in their ideological pursuit of trade unions. The reality is that no organisations in our society are more heavily scrutinised or excessively attacked than trade unions. It's one of the core principles of the Liberal and National parties: people should be deprived of the opportunity to join unions and collectively bargain. We have farces like the trade union royal commission witch-hunt and the ABCC, and then we had Senator Cash, as the minister, requesting that the Federal Police raid the Australian Workers Union—but not before tipping off every media organisation in the country. It was quite extraordinary: the minister of the day calling for 32 federal police to raid a trade union without appropriate cause. Then Senator Cash refused to be interviewed and refused to provide a witness statement to the investigation into that decision. For those that have forgotten, the AFP told Senate estimates in 2019 that they believed their evidence regarding the leaking of the raid to media may have been destroyed. When you have a federal minister directing police raids on unions and tipping off media ahead of time and you have the evidence of the tip-off being mysteriously destroyed, it really hits home about the environment the unions have to operate within in this country. For these reasons, and for the good of union members, we know there is a heavy burden on all union officials to operate with the highest levels of integrity—and so they should—and ensure the highest standards of good governance. We know also that, when people do the wrong thing, it will be used by those opposite to smear working people fighting for fairness as a whole. That's why there is no-one more determined to ensure the best standards of governance in trade unions than the trade union movement and the Labor Party. There are some unions that operate in particularly challenging circumstances. There are some unions that have to represent their members in industries where criminal and corrupt conduct by employers is the standard for some of those businesses to do business and where unions and good, legal employers are threatened, intimidated and coerced. In my view, there are few industries where that sort of conduct is more widespread than in the construction industry. I know firsthand because I've represented tip truck drivers and others in the construction sector. I can tell you that not a day went by without seeing people not being paid what they were owed. Not a day goes by without seeing workers being misclassified and having their wages stolen, their super stolen, their entitlements stolen. Not a day goes by without seeing workers put in unsafe, dangerous and deadly conditions. And, after transport, it is the deadliest industry in the country. Quite often, the reason for those unsafe conditions, the reason for those deaths and injuries, is that somewhere an employer, contractor or developer is cutting corners to save a buck. You never hear anything from the Business Council or Master Builders Australia about that. You never hear anything from those opposite about that. In fact, the Liberals and Nationals came in here and voted against criminalising wage theft and industrial manslaughter. The ABCC, throughout its existence, did precisely nothing about safety issues, wage theft, super theft, sham contracting or any real issues impacting workers in the construction industry. That's despite super theft in the construction industry totalling about $420 million per year and wage theft totalling $320 million per year. That's $740 million per year stolen from workers. The only organisation that has done anything about recovering it is the CFMEU and other unions in that sector. We certainly never heard anything from the Liberals, Nationals or the ABCC, before it was rightly abolished, about that issue. As an example, back in 2018, the redevelopment of the Royal Hobart Hospital was one of the biggest construction sites in Tasmania. The ABCC went out to that site on numerous occasions and never found anything wrong. But it turned out that there were nearly 200 Chinese workers engaged on that site, many of them on student visas or other temporary work visas, who had not been paid for six weeks. They had not been paid any of their entitlements. Many of them were victims of sham contracting arrangements. The ABCC, despite being at the site multiple times, never sniffed a single thing, but the CFMEU came in and in no time recovered $1.3 million for those workers. Decent companies who'd bid for that work—good construction companies who look after their workers—were outbid by a company that was stealing and thieving, and the ABCC did absolutely zip. That's more on one site than the ABCC recovered in wage theft across Australia in the preceding 2½ years. On top of all that, when the CFMEU had done all the hard yards in recovering the wages, when it came time for the ABCC to actually prosecute the developer—guess what? The ABCC dropped the prosecution. Surprise, surprise, surprise! It turned out that the anti-union authority didn't have a lot of interest in prosecuting dodgy employers. The fact is that the work the CFMEU do in the construction industry saves lives. They campaigned tirelessly to criminalise industrial manslaughter, and that is now law. They campaigned tirelessly to ban engineered stone, which was driving a silicosis epidemic, and that is now law. While they were saving lives, recovering wages and protecting jobs, they were under perennial attack from those opposite, from the ABCC, from Master Builders and from others. It's not about any issues which have been reported on in recent weeks, which deserve to be thoroughly investigated. They do have to be investigated. That's why I support this bill. Let's stop pretending that the Liberals, the Nationals and groups like the Business Council give a damn about the lives and livelihoods of construction workers. You never have before, and you certainly don't now. We expect we're going to have some ideological attacks, and that's fine in this debate. But we, on this side, want to get these issues investigated. We want them investigated urgently and thoroughly, and we want a strong well-run construction union representing their members' rights again. I note that even Master Builders have called for this bill to be passed urgently and have rejected calls for yet another inquiry. Their CEO, Denita Wawn, said on Sky News yesterday: …We desperately need this legislation passed, preferably this week, and certainly no later than next week's sittings … It's not often I quote Ms Wawn. Andrew Tillett in the Financial Review over the weekend reported that Master Builders are not alone in telling the Liberals and Nationals to pull their heads in, saying: The Civil Contractors Federation also called for the legislation to be passed as a matter of urgency. Yet again, the delaying tactics of those opposite are supported by no-one and serve no interests other than their own political agenda. So, get out of the way and support this bill. 19:04 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales (): I rise to speak on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024. Senator Sheldon said that we are coming at this from a different direction, and I think that is undoubtedly true because what we've heard from Senator Sheldon and his colleagues is that the Labor Party just wants to get rid of this issue as quickly as possible. They want to get it off the front pages. They want to take the minimum amount of steps that barely pass the test of credibility to make sure that the CFMEU can continue with its militant activity and pour donations into Labor Party coffers and that the climate of lawlessness that the CFMEU has presided over and fostered in the construction industry—the price for which we all pay as taxpayers, infrastructure consumers and home builders—can continue. We have to remember how we got to this point today. One of the very first commitments and acts of this Labor government was to abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission. In his media release of 24 July, the then minister, Tony Burke, said, the ABCC is 'a totally unnecessary body'. The CFMEU was pretty proud about this commitment being implemented. In their July 2022 newsletter, they boasted: We manned polling booths, worked the phones, donated and talked to our membership on the importance of electing an ALP Government. Now it's their turn to repay the working men and women of this country. The ALP made commitments to the trade union movement, NOW LET'S HOLD THEM TO ACCOUNT! So the quid pro quo—pretty starkly demonstrated there—for the CFMEU's support for the Labor Party at the last election, including $6.2 million in donations, was for the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. In the 12 months before it was shut down, the ABCC had filed 17 cases against the CFMEU—one every three weeks—for alleged breaches of industrial laws. In a 2021 proceeding brought by them, the Federal Court of Australia found that the CFMEU had broken industrial laws by taking coercive action against a Newcastle crane company to secure a desired result. The allegations were very similar to what were aired by the Nine-Fairfax newspapers and 60 Minutes in their disclosures of last month. In fact, only two months ago, we heard from the then head of the CFMEU's Victorian division the same sorts of tactics that the Labor Party is now professing to be surprised about. At the time, John Setka threatened to shut down the AFL and AFL linked building sites unless they sacked the head of their umpiring department, someone with whom he had a personal grievance. Is this the way that a body that is interested in the welfare and interests of its members carries on? No, this is a body that is drunk on power, that is abusing its power, that is used to getting its own way and that is used to the government, particularly Labor governments at the state and federal level, bending over backwards to keep them pleased. We've heard from those opposite and will continue to hear how important this solution is and how quickly they want it dealt with. But what they are trying to do is to fix a mess that they directly created. By removing the oversight and policing of the CFMEU, they clearly allowed the worst elements of its behaviour to flourish in plain sight. We've seen employers and firms around the country intimidated by the high price of union payback should they resist the soaring costs of CFMEU approved practices and contractors. This practice has been allowed to flourish because the Labor Party, in one of its first acts in taking office, abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission and effectively gave control of the sector to its supporters in the CFMEU. We've seen criminal activity, threats, corruption, bribery, intimidation, violence, bullying, standover tactics, misappropriation of funds and other accusations of lawlessness as revealed by the investigative reporting. The Albanese government was warned this would happen, but they abolished the ABCC anyway. Tony Burke, in his media release in July 2022, said that the ABCC is 'a totally unnecessary body' and 'a politicised and discredited organisation established by the previous government to target workers purely for ideological reasons'. Well, it's clear that it was never an unnecessary body, and it's clear that its abolition has only fuelled the very misbehaviours it was created and designed to prevent. We have a number of concerns about this bill. Frankly, we know why those opposite are in a rush to have it passed—so they can get it through with the minimum of scrutiny, so they can make a number of small cosmetic changes and so they can suggest that they are now dealing with what has been shown to be endemic corruption in the construction sector. But they've created these problems. We think this bill has a number of defects, defects by design rather than by accident. Firstly, the draft legislation gives the minister far too much discretion over the administration progression. Under this legislation, the minister could stop the administration of the union at any point if he wanted to without giving reasons. That is unacceptable. We need to ensure that the administrator appointed applies not only to a select few of the CFMEU's construction divisions but to all of them. Under the current bill, as drafted, the minister could make a unilateral decision to end the administration of one or more of the state divisions at any time. Furthermore, given the seriousness of the matter and the economy-wide impacts of corruption and lawlessness in the building industry, we need the administrator to be a transparent office which reports to parliament regularly. And we believe the legislation should also set clear objectives of how the union, and particularly the construction divisions of the CFMEU, need to change and reform before they are taken out of administration. But, at the moment, this bill just sunsets after three years, regardless of whether anything is actually achieved by putting the union's divisions into administration. In short, this is a cosmetic fix only. It's designed to give the illusion or the appearance of action, but it ensures that the minister still holds all the power. It ensures that, when this issue is no longer on the front pages or dominating media interests, the minister could, if he or she wishes, end the administration very quickly, and the bill provides no benchmarks, no goalposts, no performance objectives that have to be met before the CFMEU can be allowed to function normally again. So we're concerned that this legislation does not go far enough, that it is just a temporary fix, and that is why we believe we need an inquiry into this bill—to scrutinise this legislation carefully. This problem has been two years in the making, since the government abolished the ABCC. We've had two years of allowing problems to accumulate in the sector, and throughout that time we were told by those opposite, by the government, that there was nothing to see here, that the ABCC was a totally unnecessary body, that the CFMEU could be policed by the same sorts of regimes that govern other sectors. Well, manifestly, that has not proven to be the case, and so we think it's worth taking the time to make sure that we scrutinise this bill, that a committee is allowed to inquire into it, that we can make sure that whatever remedies are proposed for the CFMEU are sufficiently strong with sufficient oversight and sufficient transparency to give the entirety of the public confidence that the sector is being reformed and, importantly, to give employers and building contractors confidence that they are not going to be subject to the wilful intimidation and standover tactics practised by the CFMEU in the past, that they can begin to once again select contractors on their merit rather than because of fear of reprisals and that building costs can come down as a result. We believe that, if Labor is genuinely serious about cleaning up this sector, then it would seek to bring back the ABCC or a similar body with greater reform and oversight powers. Rather than just put the construction divisions of the CFMEU into administration, they should deregister the organisation entirely and make sure we have penalties for breaches of the Fair Work Act that are fit for purpose. Since the ABCC ceased to exist and the investigations mandate it had commenced into the CFMEU was passed to the fair work office, the fair work office has, on my understanding, not commenced any new litigations against the CFMEU. In fact, the fair work office discontinued a number of cases that had been commenced by the ABCC. We are struggling with housing affordability in Australia, we are struggling with overblown budgets on major construction projects and we are struggling with a shortage of workers. And so when we consider how important this sector is to the economy and we see the CFMEU practices which have become embedded and normalised in the construction sector, on many estimations these practices have added a 30 per cent price premium to big infrastructure projects. This has flowed all through the industry, and has resulted in many decent, honest, fair-minded businesses having to accommodate themselves to the CFMEU's preferences in order to remain viable entities. Now we've seen all that, it's important we get these changes right and that we do not just adopt a quick fix to suit the political convenience of those opposite. We have this opportunity to clean up the construction sector and we should take it. I know those opposite are ideologically opposed to the ABCC—I frankly don't mind if we call the new body something else—but in the interests of Australia and the Australian economy and anyone who wants to build a better and fairer Australia, we need to make sure this part of the economy is properly reformed, policed and put on a firm footing. The allegations that have been revealed in recent weeks are frankly mind-blowing, so that's why I would urge those opposite to give everyone here who wishes to speak on this bill to opportunity to speak to allow a full examination and open litigation of the merits of competing processes. Those opposite should refer the bill to a Senate inquiry so as to allow the Senate to conduct its work of proper deliberation, oversight and scrutiny. And those opposite should make sure we hear from those who have been affected by these practices in the building sector—many of whom, up until now, have been too intimidated to speak out. We need to make sure the minister of the day—and the government and the courts and our law enforcement agencies and civil society—has the tools that are the necessary and the platforms that are available to them to make sure we can stamp out this endemic corruption. This corruption is an incredible burden on our economy, and the practices have been allowed to continue for far too long. 19:17 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I welcome debate on this bill, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024, which is aiming to place the CFMEU into administration. We should really be aiming to place the CFMEU in prison. But this criminal union's puppets in the Australian Labor Party will never go for that—or go that far, for that matter. Getting in bed with bikies and organised crime; criminal assaults on non-union workers trying to make a living; stalking and illegal intimidation of non-union workers at their own homes; organised wage theft on an unprecedented scale in the coalmining industry; economic productivity in free fall; major construction projects worth billions of dollars at a standstill; the renewables scam driving record energy bills and leaving families desperate and homeless; a national housing and construction crisis seeing major building companies go out of business every week: the CFMEU and their Labor puppets are directly responsible for all of these things, and this is mostly just in Queensland. And while Labor will deny it, the CFMEU will proudly proclaim what they've done and wear these crimes like a badge of honour. Labor unleashed these criminals to hold Queensland's economy hostage, faithfully eliminating any and all barriers and checks on the CFMEU's conduct and power. The Greens and Senator David Pocock are accomplices to these crimes by backing the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, the ABCC. This legislation we're debating today is a classic case of shutting the stable door long after the horse has bolted. I've heard the tough talk about big fines and jail terms, but I have no faith this government of union puppets will do anything effective to rein in the excesses of the thugs running the CFMEU. That's because Labor has enabled these excesses. Right now Brisbane is hosting Ekka, the largest annual event in Queensland, with an average of 400,000 people going every year. For the second year running, people going to Ekka will be unable to use the Exhibition train station thanks to the CFMEU's protest delaying its safety certification. The larger issue is the $6.3 billion Cross River Rail project, already months behind its deadline, with costs blowing out last year by almost a billion dollars thanks to the CFMEU. In May this year, CFMEU thugs physically assaulted non-union workers attempting to enter a Cross River Rail worksite to do a day's work. These gutless cowards can be heard in the footage saying that people were not permitted to cross what they called 'a picket line'. The entitlement is breathtaking. These thugs actually believe that standing in a line gave them the authority to ignore the law and physically harm people. Even worse, they followed one of the non-union workers to his home and committed another physical assault. This disgusting unwarranted entitlement has been enabled by the union's Labor Party puppets. The criminal bosses of the CFMEU know that no matter what their members do, no matter what law they break, Labor governments will always have their back. It was there for all to see in the innocent denials from union-affiliated Labor ministers—that they were unaware of the CFMEU's links to organised crime and the criminal behaviour of some of its members. That's why the CFMEU has all the characteristics of a toxic weed. It will always grow back to harm the economy, harm innocent workers, get in bed with organised crime, and cost taxpayers and investors billions of dollars. Labor has been embarrassed into acting after years of enabling this criminal behaviour, but you'd be forgiven for believing that nothing will change. Labor is thoroughly cowed by the CFMEU. Last week the Commonwealth Parliament Offices in Brisbane introduced heightened security measures just for a press conference by the new industrial relations minister. They were obviously worried about CFMEU members crashing it—and they were certainly justified considering that a CFMEU protest last year caused criminal damage to the building. This parliament needs to take a very long hard look at an Australian union movement that has mutated into a virtual mafia, holding the national economy hostage. Union bosses should be exclusively focused on fair pay and safe conditions for their members. That should be their only purpose and only role. It is not their role to force union membership on workers who do not want it—and that constitutes the vast majority of workers in Australia. They see the toxic behaviour of the CFMEU and they want no association with it. In the past 30 years, trade union membership has fallen from more than 40 per cent of all Australian workers to less than 13 per cent, yet over the years the unions have used their Labor puppets to force union membership on people who don't need or want it. They don't do this to look after workers' rights—no-one believes that nonsense anymore; they do it to satisfy their naked greed for money and power they have not earned and do not deserve. A great example of this greed was uncovered by my One Nation colleague Senator Malcolm Roberts. Senator Roberts's work has revealed what has been called the single largest case of wage theft in Australian history. This was a dirty deal between a mining company and the CFMEU that dudded thousands of Queensland and Hunter Valley coalminers out of an average of $40,000 in entitlements. Labor are now saying that they exposed it. Ha! The truth is that they washed their hands of it and did nothing. They didn't worry about these mineworkers in Queensland and the Hunter Valley. They walked away from it, and yet they want to take credit for it. That's what they're saying—that they did the work. They did absolutely nothing. Another example of this was the now abolished Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. This was created for small owner-operators in the trucking industry out of business, funnelling their workers into the big freight companies, where Transport Workers Union membership would be forced on them. Thanks to a desperate campaign by small businesses, the Abbott government got rid of the RSRT. Another example was the terrible industrial relations legislation passed last year with the support of Senator David Pocock and the Jacqui Lambie Network. This is a transparent attempt to force union membership on the farming and small business sectors, faithfully enabled by a Labor government that relies on the CFMEU for a lot of funding. Where was the new industrial relations minister when this was forced on the Australian farmers he was supposed to defend as the agriculture minister at the time? He was voting for it and promoting it. That's why I have absolutely no confidence Labor will undertake more than ineffective token measures against the criminal bosses of the CFMEU. This is evident in the legislation before us. It looks good at a first glance but, when you read it closely, there's a lot of wiggle room for Minister Watt to protect the CFMEU. Describing the process for placing divisions of the CFMEU into administration as a 'scheme', section 323B of the bill says the minister may—the minister may, not will—determine a scheme only if he's satisfied it's in the public interest. Section 323D says the minister may vary the scheme or revoke a scheme. The requirement to appoint a general manager and an administrator reeks of another job for the boys. There are no requirements for criminal checks on these appointees. This is why I have no confidence this will rein in the excesses of the corrupt leaders of the CFMEU. If Labor were serious about this, they would reinstate the Australian Building and Construction Commission as an independent body with the power necessary to hold union bosses to account. We must have a strong independent watchdog as a powerful check on union activity. It took a double dissolution election in 2016 to create it in the first place, with Labor fighting tooth and nail against it to keep their corrupt CFMEU money flowing freely. We also need to bring back the Registered Organisations Commission and have another good look at the ensuring integrity bill. As I said earlier, I had my reasons for not supporting it before but I'm prepared to have another go. It may also be worth examining the proposal for an industry regulator made by Master Builders Australia—the construction industry compliance and corruption agency. Importantly, this proposal includes the agency being home to a permanent cross-jurisdictional police unit dedicated to targeting and eliminating criminal activity and organised crime. A more direct and simple solution would be to ban unions or any associated entities from making donations to political parties. There are bans on property developers making political donations in the Australia, as well as tobacco and gambling interests, so there should be bans on unions making them too. Corrupt union bosses are no less toxic to Australians than tobacco or gambling addictions. If Labor had any moral centre, it would refuse to accept donations from the CFMEU anyway. We know that won't happen. But they're too dependent on that money. The CFMEU is a parasite that Labor just can't get away from. Perhaps the worst example of how corrupt union bosses are destroying the country is the renewable scam. Industry super funds, many of which have CFMEU bosses as directors, are some of the biggest investors in renewable energy. They made their Labor puppets set up the renewable scam which guarantees generous returns for these investments underwritten by taxpayers. Those returns end up in Labor's election coffers. It's the main reason behind Labor's childish scare campaign and outright lies about nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is the proven emissions-free technology that, if adopted in Australia, could effectively end the union bosses' renewables scam. As I've said before, you only have to follow the money to get to the truth of this scam which is crippling Australian households and businesses with some of the world's highest electricity costs. All of this needs to stop. Labor will not stop— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 The debate is interrupted. Senator Hanson, you will be in continuation. ADJOURNMENT 73 ADJOURNMENT Korean War: 71st Anniversary 73 19:30 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I was delighted and honoured on 27 July 2024 to attend the 71st anniversary of the armistice which brought a halt to the Korean War. This commemoration was hosted by my friends at Ipswich RSL. In the Korean War there were some 17,000 Australians who served, of whom 340 died in service of their country, 1,216 were wounded and 30 became POWs. Very tragically, the armistice was agreed on 19 July, but it took effect on 27 July, and in the last three days of the war, 2 RAR suffered six killed and 24 wounded; the armistice had been agreed but had not been signed and had not come into effect. The commemoration held by the Ipswich RSL was extremely well attended by veterans, family members, representatives of our wonderful Queensland Korean community, cultural performers who gave exceptional performances and representatives from all levels of government and all parties. At the event, the following Korean War veterans or their family members received the peace medal provided by the Republic of Korea. I want to read their names in honour of them. Mr Tony Oddi served in Korea with 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, from March 1954 to March 1955. Mr Malcolm Rainbow served with the New Zealand Navy on HMNZS Hawea in Korea between 1952 and 1955. Mr Russell Milligan, the son of a Korean veteran, Mr Robert Milligan, who served in Korea with No. 77 Squadron from February 1952 to July 1952, received a peace medal. An award will be given to Mr Graham Frost, the son of Mr William Henry Frost, who served in the Royal Australian Navy on HMAS Sydney from August 1951 to February 1952. Mrs Florence Jendra, the daughter of Frederick Sheppard, who served in Korea from September 1951 to July 1952 with 3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, received a peace medal. Mrs Donna Read accepted a peace medal in memory of her brother, Merlyn John Elliott, who served in Korea with 3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, from February 1953 to May 1953 and was killed in action on 25 May 1953. I'd like to say a few words in relation to the background of this commemoration. I can do no better than quoting the words of Mrs Debbie Wadwell, who is the secretary of the Ipswich RSL and who does a wonderful job in that capacity. Debbie does a tremendous job in that capacity. She provided me details with respect to how this commemoration came about: I was preparing 5 years ago a Vietnam Veterans Day service in early March and Life Member of RSL QLD Mr Matthew Rennie OAM … came into the Memorial Hall and asked what I was doing. When I told Mr Rennie I was planning Vietnam Veterans Day he asked "what about the Korea War" why is no one honouring our service? I said to Mr Rennie we will be this year (2018) and he said I will believe it when I see it. We saw the fifth commemoration at Ipswich on 27 July 2024. Lastly, I'd like to refer to a wonderful young man I met from Korea, Mr Kim Seung Woo, who came to Australia as a student as part of a program and was in Australia between 13 July and 9 August, a very limited time. He heard about the Korean War commemoration service and came to Ipswich to participate. It was quite inspiring and meant a lot to the veterans and families who were there, so I really want to congratulate Kim Seung Woo for coming along. He did great honour, I think, to his family and to his country by paying respect to Australians who served in the Korean War. I'll close with his words: 'I hope the alliance between the Republic of Korea and Australia will last forever.' Energy 74 19:35 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania I believe all Australians want a mature conversation about our country's future energy needs as we commit to and work towards a pathway to net zero. The next decade will be critical for Australians, because 90 per cent of our baseload electricity sources, largely coal-fired power stations, will reach the end of their lives during that time. We need to make tough decisions now to ensure the security of our electricity grid for current and future generations. The Australian community, those who elected us to this place, demand this from us. But, under the Albanese Labor government, that is not happening. Instead of wanting a constructive conversation, this Labor government has steamrolled us into a renewables-only approach. There are many regional communities across the country, including in my home state of Tasmania, that feel they are being pressured to accept large-scale renewable energy projects without consultation or social licence. A renewables-only approach, relying solely on solar and wind energy generation, has not been achieved in any advanced economy in the world, but Labor wants us to believe that our sun and wind are somehow just better and that we have more access to these resources than every other country. I want to make something perfectly clear: I'm not against renewables. For me, as a senator for Tasmania, it's quite the opposite. I certainly appreciate the solar panels on my home, and I've been the beneficiary of living in a state powered by renewable energy. Tasmania's hydroelectric schemes have put us on a positive footing in this area and mean we are far less reliant on finite fossil fuels. As Tasmanians, we are rightly proud of our hydroelectric schemes and appreciate the foresight, courage and determination of previous generations in building them. We are a renewable energy leader. But, as you would also understand, we're Australia's smallest state. It's on that basis that I acknowledge that not all states and territories are in the same fortunate position as my home state. I know that in our larger states blackouts and brownouts are becoming and will become increasingly common as increased demand and the shutdown of coal-fired power stations reduce the availability of reliable energy generation. Across the country, large-scale renewable projects like wind farms and solar farms have been lost in regulatory purgatory, in the environmental approvals process or in the Federal Court as communities struggle to grasp the impact these projects have on their communities and agricultural land. Labor and the coalition are agreed in the pursuit of net zero by 2050, but we fundamentally disagree on how to credibly reach that goal. We need our leaders to stand up and provide meaningful solutions and alternatives to the challenges we face as a nation. Like those leaders of the past who saw the need and built our hydroelectric schemes, Peter Dutton is demonstrating his courageous leadership with the coalition's nuclear power policy. As I mentioned earlier, I believe that Australians are open to a mature conversation about energy and are willing to look at all the options available to us to help us reach this goal, including nuclear energy. It was therefore disappointing to note that a Labor senator, Senator Polley, recently suggested in an op-ed that Tasmania would become home to a nuclear power plant, demonstrating the fearmongering this government will go to to avoid having a mature debate about our nation's energy security. In the context of Australia's energy needs, Senator Polley's fanciful suggestion does not make economic or logical sense. It only serves as an attempt to drum up fear amongst her constituents—those she represents. It is also a deliberate attempt to misrepresent the coalition's policy, which aims to provide reliable baseload power to complement existing and future renewable energy sources, which include Tasmania's hydropower. While the Albanese Labor government wants to stoke fear based on outdated assumptions about nuclear energy, the coalition wants to ensure we have safe, secure, reliable and affordable energy for the future. Right now, in households and businesses across the country, Labor's expensive renewables-only approach is failing. Rather than decreasing by $275 as promised during the election, power bills have increased by $1,000 under this Labor government. It is clear that a sensible plan is needed to reduce power prices and secure cheaper, cleaner and consistent energy. The coalition's policy is to replace coal generated power with zero-emissions nuclear power to supplement renewables and gas. It does not come at the expense of renewables, as Senator Polley and the Albanese Labor government would have you believe. We face a critical decade ahead, where tough decisions will need to be made for the good of current and future generations—our children, our grandchildren. I believe Australians deserve a mature, evidence driven debate about the merits of nuclear technology and not a war of words driven by emotional ideology or a scare campaign based on untruths. The Australian people deserve better. Aged Care 75 19:40 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania We all have someone we love who is receiving a form of care, whether that's child care, aged care or care provided by the NDIS. Today I want to talk about aged care, specifically care minutes. It seems like a bizarre concept to measure care to our elderly loved ones by the minute, but that's how we do it. Everyone who lives in a residential aged-care facility is entitled to 200 minutes of care each day, which is just over three hours, and at least 40 minutes of that care must be provided by a registered nurse. The rest could be provide by an enrolled nurse, personal care worker or assistant in nursing. That all sounds good, but things start to come unstuck when you get down into the nitty-gritty. Those 200 minutes are added up for every person living in each aged-care facility, and then they're averaged out. Your mum might get 180 minutes one day and 201 minutes another day. But, before I go on too much further, let's look at the definition of care minute. A care minute means 60 seconds of care for your loved one provided by a nurse or aged-care worker, right? Actually, that's not in all cases. That care can be provided by a nurse or aged-care worker face-to-face, or it could mean these staff members are speaking about care with a family member. They might be putting together a care plan for your loved one or they could be arranging appointments for them with another health practitioner. Of course, all of these things are important in making sure everyone in a residential aged-care facility is receiving the care they need, but there's a lot of wiggle room in there for some creative maths when it comes to totting up those care minutes at the end of the quarter. The Department of Health and Aged Care recently released the care minute targets and the care minutes actually delivered between October 2023 and March 2024. When I got right down into that data for Tassie, I could see there was a real mixed bag when it came to the care Tasmanian facilities were providing. Some aged-care facilities went way over and above their care minute target, while others fell way short. About half were meeting their targets. Half of Tasmania's 70-odd residential aged-care facilities meeting their targets and providing the level of care doesn't sound right though, does it? It doesn't sound right to me, and I expect it doesn't sound right to you either. So I looked further into the numbers provided by the department. It seems that Tasmania's smaller residential aged-care facilities are doing better than the larger ones when it comes to meeting their care minute targets. Based on the care minutes delivered in the six months to the end of March this year, it looks like smaller facilities in Tassie that have up to 30 beds are more likely to have better care outcomes. But maybe the ratio between the number of residents and aged-care staff in these smaller facilities skews in favour of the resident, which shows staff resources are being underutilised. I suspect that is the case when it comes to aged-care facilities in the more remote areas within the state, like King Island and Flinders Island, where there is an overdelivery of care minutes. But, hey, if elderly residents on the islands are getting extra care, let's celebrate that. What I'm not celebrating, though, is that the larger facilities—those with more than 151 beds—are underachieving in care minutes as a whole. In fact, nearly two-thirds of aged-care facilities across the country aren't meeting their care minute targets, and the care minute targets are set to go up again on 1 October this year. If facilities aren't meeting their requirements now, how the heck are they possibly going meet these new targets? It's time to face the facts. Target care minutes aren't working. It's no good keeping a bad system in place just to show that you ticked a box. The idea behind care minutes is good, but, when the majority of facilities across the country are failing to meet their requirements, it's clear there's something very wrong. What's worse is that some facilities didn't spend the extra government money on more staff to meet these targets. So whilst your loved one isn't receiving the care they need, the facility has stashed the money in its back pocket. The Labor government has been stalling on introducing the new Aged Care Act despite a promise to get it done in this term of government. The new act is an opportunity to review this care minutes system. It's okay to admit when something isn't working, especially when ignoring it can come at the expense of the care of a loved one. If Labor are going to stall on important reforms to aged care, the least they can do is fix existing policies that are little more than window dressing. Parliamentary Standards 76 19:45 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales Disclosure is a very important thing, and access to information is part of this parliament. One of the great privileges and the thing I enjoy most about being here is the access to information, the ability in a committee hearing to be informed by those with a finger on the pulse of industry, of the environment, of many different things. On 16 April this year we were in the supermarket inquiry with the Woolworths CEO Brad Banducci in the stand. During the lunch break, I went up to Sky to do an interview. While there waiting to be introduced to some of the journalists, they asked: 'How did that go? What are you going to do this arvo?' I jokingly said, 'I should be shorting Coles because Woolworths sank by almost two per cent on the stock market in that first hearing morning.' I didn't think much of it at the time, but Coles did exactly the same in the afternoon—dropped almost two per cent on the stock markets from the information given at the committee hearing. It started me thinking, so I reached out to a friend at a senior principal level in the financial markets, who desperately wants to remain unnamed—so I won't do that. I tried to recreate the trades. What would happen? How would I benefit from this information if I knew this was going to happen? Very simply, very easily, he said: 'You will put all the money on that option, on that stock. If you move a stock by a percentage of one or two per cent, suddenly it can be a multiplier.' We could look at what they did, so we recreated that trade. If I had taken $10,000 at the beginning of that day and put an option on Woolworths then floated it over to Coles, I would have turned that money into somewhere between $40,000 and $90,000 by the end of that day. The disclosure of what we do as parliamentarians, our disclosures around our trades and the information we have really concerns me. We have to say what we've got. I sold some things, so I only have a savings account and properties now. But what are we doing with these transactions? Because I find that people will only do what they are willing to justify. I'm not saying that anyone is doing wrong but I'm saying the temptation is there. Tomorrow I'll be moving a motion for an inquiry into big box traders and retailers. I hope it's supported. No-one will know until the vote is on the floor. But the evidence I've got around some of these retailers is very, very damning. Some of that information has come out under the protection of parliamentary privilege, which we can extend for the purposes of legislation or inquiry and all these sorts of things. We hold that position dear. So it is not beyond the realm that I or someone could manipulate the markets, manipulate things for personal gain and have no reason to declare, no obligation to disclose what they've done. I note in the USA in 2012, they put the STOCK Act through, which I think abbreviates to Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act. Within 30 days, you have to disclose any transactions you have in financial markets, in stocks. I think it needs to go further. I think we need to disclose the buying or selling of any financial instruments, of futures, of options, of stocks, within a 30- to 45-day range and a scope, not the exact value but scopes of value. If we're truly to be taken seriously that we're always doing the right things, disclosure should not hurt. If I want to go and buy a stock or sell a stock for a reason—not from here—I should be able to do it, and I should have nothing to fear from disclosing it. But if there is a pattern of behaviour—I noticed in the US they were looking at the financial collapse in a number of trades, and what happened in a lot of trades in Silicon Valley, and they looked a bit funny. They looked a bit smelly. You have to be held to account. I would love to see a modification to our disclosure rules. There are people calling for it. Will Bennett at the Sydney Morning Herald and Sean Johnson at Open Politics are calling for a ban on the sales of stocks and the purchasing of stocks by members of parliament—I think that is too far. I know where they're coming from, but I think it's the same harm. There has to be a clearer method of tracking and a clearer method of disclosure so people can see if we are trying to manipulate the markets, if we are benefitting and if we are getting information that they do not have the time or the ability to get. Disclosure hurts no-one, it benefits everyone, and there should be more. Indigenous Australians 76 19:50 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia In this first sitting week after the winter recess I'm reminded of August last year, when the Prime Minister announced the date that Australians would be heading to the polls for the Voice referendum. Well, $450 million later, this government has made little progress to deliver improved outcomes for Indigenous Australians since the referendum's plummeting defeat in October. Twelve months on, we're still waiting for this Prime Minister to take an initiative to provide real results for Indigenous communities, not an unnecessary ballot. Instead of focusing on Closing the Gap targets, five out of 19 of which are off track, the Prime Minister chose to pour $450 million into a referendum that failed. This time last year, Mr Albanese was selling the referendum to the Australian public as a step towards addressing longstanding inequalities and bringing about meaningful change. Well, since its grim defeat, the Prime Minister has failed to offer an effective plan B—just shrugging his shoulders at Indigenous Australians right across the country. We're still waiting to see any real ideas on how he plans to address the complex needs of our most vulnerable communities. Rather than just offering up a referendum and calling it a day, we need to see real action by this Prime Minister. We do not need Constitutional change to create effective policies in partnership with Indigenous Australians. What we need is listening—something that the Prime Minister might want to consider doing. Despite countless studies and Productivity Commission reports highlighting the failure to meet Closing the Gap targets, the Prime Minister's approach has been all smoke and mirrors. According to the National Agreement on Closing the Gap, by 2031 we should see 96 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students achieving a year 12 or equivalent certification. To stay on track for that commitment we need to reach 85 per cent by 2026. With 2026 less than 18 months away, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reported in 2022 that only 65 per cent of Indigenous Australians were enrolled in year 10. It's fair to say the year 12 attainment will reflect a similar shortcoming. Just last week the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Performance Framework summary report also reaffirmed this educational disparity, with remote communities suffering the most. With the Albanese Labor government continuing to throw millions of dollars at Indigenous affairs, it's high time we asked where exactly this money is going and why it is not translating into promised outcomes. In my home state of Western Australia, for instance, regional communities stretch across almost our entire state. According to the last census in 2021, WA and NT had the lowest proportion of Indigenous people attaining year 12 or equivalent qualifications nationwide. That's 61 per cent in WA and only 40 per cent in the Northern Territory. These figures are more than just numbers; they represent real lives, real families and real communities that are trapped in a cycle of closed doors and missed opportunities. As the dollars and the unmet targets pile up, Australians are left without an explanation for why their taxpayer money is not producing significant results. As the Prime Minister continues to dismiss calls for an audit into government spending on Indigenous affairs, this is not good enough. Australians—indeed, Indigenous Australians—deserve better. The government's latest budget promised to spend a further $110 million of federal money in Indigenous education over the next four years. But how is the government ensuring and giving assurance to the Australian public that these hundreds of millions won't end up in the same waste basket as the last $450 million that was spent on the referendum? What we need are tangible and real outcomes. What we need is meaningful change, not more high-profile, hollow policies and unmet targets. Tasmanian Community Fund, Freedom of Speech, Environment: Activism 77 19:55 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania There are a couple of things I wanted to talk about tonight, the first of which is the Tasmanian Community Fund, which over many years has done some amazing things for the Tasmanian community, particularly those in need, be it women fleeing from domestic and family violence or communities that need new facilities, such as all-abilities playgrounds or community halls. You name it; they've done it. Sadly, though, more recently, they were participants in a political and divisive campaign. Every year, the Tasmanian Community Fund receives an appropriation from the Tasmanian government through their budget of many millions of dollars. That is provided to the board independent of government to then be administered to the community for, as the act sets out, the benefit of all Tasmanians. Sadly, though, the board last year decided to provide $557,000 to the 'yes' campaign in the referendum. That is taxpayers' money that went to the 'yes' campaign of the referendum. The Tasmanian Auditor-General has conducted a review of the Tasmanian Community Fund and how they do business. That report was absolutely scathing of the fund's board and the work that they had done—their lack of documentation, their lack of risk assessment and management and their lack of identification of conflicts of interest and how to manage them. There was no documentation at all backing their decision to provide over half a million dollars of taxpayers' money to the 'yes' campaign. What's worse is that, in 2020, the Auditor-General, the same office, provided recommendations to the TCF board to up their game when it came to documentation and the way they did business. Those recommendations were ignored. And here we are in 2024,with the same entity making the same recommendations, far more scathing this time though, and it is a real shame that this money, instead of going to communities that need it in Tasmania, is being provided to divisive campaigns. Instead of saying, 'I'm sorry; we got it wrong,' the board has doubled down, saying they did the right thing and that, of course, the Auditor-General got it wrong—a bizarre claim, if you ask me. The fact is that they've now engaged lawyers. Some have suggested public relations firms. I would love to know who's funding their work to justify their contribution to the 'yes' campaign. These are questions they must answer, and they're questions I've written to the board about today, along with the Premier of Tasmania and the relevant minister. What's more, given they refused to accept the recommendations in 2020 and have doubled down on their terrible decision in 2024, I think the board needs to resign. If they won't, they need to be sacked. It is a very sad day for what has otherwise been a very good organisation in Tasmania. I turn to another matter now, and that is relating to the University of Tasmania—a very alarming event, particularly off of recent events that have occurred globally. At the University of Tasmania, a lecturer of food science participated in an event which has become rather something of a headline grabber in Tasmania, and it has caused a great deal of concern for the Tasmanian Jewish community. There was, as I said, an academic from the University of Tasmania, Adel Yousif, who has described Hamas as a legitimate resistance movement amongst other things. This issue is something that has caused great concern across the global Jewish community and many observers of this conflict in the Middle East. Mr Yousif said in a slideshow he presented to educators for Palestine and educators for peace, an event that was held in Hobart on 26 June, that there are a range of misconceptions relating to Israel. The first one was that Israel is a democracy. The second one was that Israel has the right to exist—that's apparently a misconception! What kind of response would you have, as a member of the Jewish faith and the Jewish community in Tasmania, if you had a fellow Tasmanian saying that? Another misconception is that Hamas is a terrorist organisation. This is a group, as we know, that, sadly, butchered, raped, mutilated and kidnapped civilians in Israel on 7 October last year. To suggest it's a misconception that this is a terrorist organisation, which is actually its designation under our intelligence authorities, frankly, is an alarming thing. The reason I raise this is that the University of Tasmania say, in defence of this member of their academic staff, they want to protect freedom of speech. I say: okay; that is not a problem, but this is where we need to temper our support of things like freedom of speech against other rights as well. We have to weigh up the risks of allowing people to say whatever they want, whenever they want, whatever the cost, against what impact that might have on the community. We only had the terror threat level elevated in this country, on the back of incredibly serious advice about the probability of something occurring in our country, because of the very events I have just talked about: the conflict between Israel and Hamas and the public debate around that. The fact that there are people out there espousing such things is part of the reason we have this issue. I hope the University of Tasmania, protectors of free speech though they are, look at what is being said under the banner of free speech and weigh up the consequences and costs for our community. To allow that to go unchecked is, I think, a grave error, and I hope the University of Tasmania reconsider their approach on this matter. Finally, I'd like to talk about another matter that occurred in Tasmania. Observing the law is paramount for a functioning democracy. For people to be able to go about their business and to live their lives to the fullest of their potential, we all must abide by the law. That's something that is fundamental in a functioning democracy. So it was interesting to see that we had supporters and members of the Bob Brown Foundation before the Tasmanian Magistrates Court just last week, and they were charged with and found guilty of trespass. They wore it as a badge of honour. They went outside the court and held a press conference and told us all how wonderful it was that they had broken the law to achieve their end. The same people who don't respect the laws of our land went and set up their own 'Tasmanian Environmental Court of Law', run by the citizens of Tasmania. Because the law of the land, as passed by the parliament, constituted of people who are elected by the citizens of this country, is not good enough, they set up their own court to sit in judgement—based on a summons from this 'Tasmanian Environmental Court of Law' I'm reading from—over proprietors of certain businesses and members of government for the following: (1) Continued total support and endorsement of native forest logging and habitat destruction in Tasmania despite full knowledge that it contributes to the climate emergency and puts people and endangered species' lives at significant risk. (2) Colluding with successive Federal and Tasmanian governments to undermine federal and state environmental and biodiversity protection systems. The penalty this citizens' court is going to issue to these people is 'life imprisonment or the immediate payment of $1.3 billion'. How they have quantified this dollar value or decided that the recipient of the summons I'm reading from is deserving of life imprisonment I don't know, but I find it ridiculous. These people think that the law doesn't apply to them—that it should be broken because it is wrong, that our courts get it wrong, as do the people who author laws to protect people who are going about their lawful business. The Bob Brown Foundation and other groups go and do things in forestry coups. You've got well-meaning, hard-working, honest men and women—people I know my fellow Tasmanian over there, Senator Urquhart, supports—who work in the forestry industry in dangerous conditions and in terrible weather as well. You've then got these people who are now issuing summons to these honest, hardworking men and women and who honestly think it's okay to go and lock onto machinery, chain themselves to gates and chain themselves to tree trunks in industrial situations where you've got spinning blades, heavy equipment and machinery moving about. Of course, the law doesn't apply to them because they're doing the angel's work, and the rest of us are just pure evil. But they can sit in judgement of us. I say: 'Shame on them. Take your summons back. Let the rest of us get on with doing what we do best and respect the laws that apply to everyone and should apply equally to all Tasmanians who are doing the right thing.' Indigenous Australians 79 20:05 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Australia is a country envied by many people around the world. This is evident from the number of people who have migrated or those applying to migrate to our beautiful and unique part of the world. Australia is my place of birth, as it was my parents' and children's. Yet, on a daily basis, I'm made to feel inferior and not entitled to enjoy, connect to, use or have the knowledge that this is my land—a country that I love and would fight for to defend my way of life and connection to it. How could this happen? It's happening to all Australians who are non-Indigenous. This is becoming more apparent now from Aboriginal activists, our own Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and former coalition and Labor governments. Aboriginals and their corporations don't pay tax on royalties or leasing agreements. Why? A fund was set up under the Howard government to buy land in perpetuity, funded by taxpayers. This is separate from native title claims. When billions of dollars in royalties have been handed over to these Indigenous corporations, why do we continue to fund Indigenous corporations, land councils, charities and programs? Where are the accountability, progress and milestone reports? Where are the outcomes? There are very few. Corruption and nepotism are rife, with the leaders of these entities preying on the Australian taxpayer and disadvantaging Indigenous people for personal financial gain. A royal commission needs to be held to expose the corruption and enrichment of some over the majority of Australians. You don't need paperwork to identify as an Aboriginal person. It's estimated that only one per cent of people who identify as Aboriginal in Australia are full-blooded Aboriginals. In the first census that included the Indigenous population in 1971, 115,953 people identified as Indigenous. In the 2021 census, the figure was 812,728—an increase of 25.2 per cent from 2016—which is approximately three per cent of the population in Australia. Why am I fed up to the back teeth with being disenfranchised in my own country, along with many millions of my fellow Australians? Let me explain. A non-Indigenous Australian can no longer visit or climb iconic landmarks such as Ayers Rock—Uluru—Grampians National Park, Mount Warning, the Glass House Mountains and some beaches. These are only the few places I have named. This is nothing more than a power play over other Australians, making a point that this land belongs only to the Indigenous people, and everyone else can go to hell. The endgame is to set up an Indigenous black state with their own government that will be paid for by everyone but them. Australians will have to pay for the privilege of travelling across Australia, whether on land, sea, rivers or flying by plane, believe it or not, because they own the air as well. Australians will be paying rent. Trust me, if we don't take a stand now, we will be paying, and we will pay dearly. Welcome to country or acknowledgements of country are performed at virtually all government departments, private businesses, commercial flights, schools, universities, sport events and so on. I refuse to say it myself. As a good, obedient politician, I turn my back when it is said every sitting morning of parliament. In 1976, Ernie Dingo and musician Richard Walley performed what they claimed was Australia's first contemporary welcome to country. Children are being made to perform welcome to country and being taught that the land belongs only to the Aboriginals. I refuse to be welcomed to my own country, and I advise every other proud Australian to protest against this division. Other Australians are denied the right to enter some waterways and fish but not Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people. What is traditional about fishing when outboard motors, fishing lines and nets are permitted? Turtles and dugongs and other species are protected from ordinary Australians but not the Indigenous. Most of these people have never lived traditionally and never will but are granted these rights over other Australians on this basis. Talk about racism! It makes my blood boil when I hear people such as Bruce Pascoe making claims that the Aborigines were farmers or environmentalists. Apart from very few tribes, they were nomadic hunters and gatherers. They burnt the shrub and bush to chase out the animals for food, not for environmental reasons. The activists would want me to believe they did it because they knew about climate change and wanted to save the planet. Give me a break! If they respect their traditions and want their culture, then why build the white man's house? That's not traditional. Alcohol and tobacco are not traditional. The Prime Minister's Voice to Parliament was overwhelmingly thrown out by Australians, as it should have been. It was divisive, insulting and full of lies that were only said to further pit one Australian against another with more rights and privileges. The PM claims now that he didn't advocate for a Makarrata Commission—another lie. He endorsed and promised the Uluru Statement from the Heart in full which included the Makarrata and truth-telling. When is he going to be truthful about Indigenous child sexual abuse and domestic violence that is the highest per capita in Australia? When will he acknowledge Aboriginal juvenile crime destroying townships and communities? When is he going to call for a royal commission into the corruption and misappropriation of approximately 35 billion to 40 billion of taxpayers dollars spent each year supposedly on three per cent of the population? Most Australians are doing it tough. Homelessness, health, dental, education, or the cost of living are everyday struggles. Why does the colour of one's skin or cultural background based on self-identifying entitle them to jobs, special health care or education? One black child sitting beside a white child in a classroom should be entitled to the same education. This whole Aboriginal identity racket is racist and not tested. How often do we see people as white as me, with red or blonde hair and green or blue eyes claiming to be Aboriginal? Our country has also been divided by allowing the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flags to be flown on the floors of parliament across the country and on government buildings. These flags never existed before the 1970s. We went to the Olympics under the one flag. Why can't we live in our own country under the one flag? I'll put it to Australians. If war were ever to come to our shores, I ask Australians this: how many of you would take up arms and possibly lay down your lives to defend a country which is being denied to you? I acknowledge that some Indigenous soldiers fought to defend our nation in the First and Second World Wars, but, if a black nation were established with our own nation, would they be capable of defending it? My answer is no. How many of the three per cent would fight, or would they claim every other Australian owes them and must defend their nation. Never forget it was mostly migrants and Australians born here who fought and sacrificed their lives for our freedom and way of life. Their hard work has made Australia what it is. This country would not be what it is today if not for them. No Indigenous culture made Australia what it is today. Lies, feeling sorry for the past and playing the victim will never change or amend the true agenda of those who want nothing more than to appease their hatred for their failures and to blame everyone else but themselves. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, I say in this relation to myself: I confess I have been an irritant, a thorn in your rump, an obstinate woman who has my own mind and the disagreeable habit of sharing it with you. Mr Churchill also said, 'What is the use of parliament if it is not the place where true statements can be brought before the people? What on earth is the use of sending members to parliament to say what they are told to say by the whips and loudly cheer every ministerial platitude? What value can we place on our parliamentary institutions if constituencies return only tame, docile and subservient members who try to stamp on every form of independent judgement. For that is precisely what some have suggested. But let us put that all behind us. Let us not dwell on the dark pits of disaster. Let us move forward to face the challenges which lie ahead.' I ask my Senate colleagues: have you got the intestinal fortitude to face the challenge? One Nations calls for accountability and transparency in the Aboriginal industry gravy train, which only a royal commission can deliver. One Nation calls for a united Australia—one people, one nation under one flag. Criticism is not racism. One Nation demands equal rights for all and special rights for none. That's the only way that's fair in a true democracy. United Kingdom: Protests 80 20:15 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Watching the sad events currently unfolding and underway in the United Kingdom, one can be forgiven for thinking we'd descended into the dystopian world so long predicted in the classic literature. George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four is just one warning, which ironically appears to have been become an instruction manual for the political left. An interview with George Orwell recently surfaced in which Orwell thought there was a possibility Nineteen Eighty-Four could happen in the UK. He was right, again. Orwell's description of what looks like the UK under Labour's Keir Starmer reads as follows: In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement— that's porn and transgenderism by the way— There will be no loyalty except loyalty to the Party. But always there will be the intoxication of power. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who's helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever. The moral to be drawn from this dangerous nightmare situation is … don't let it happen. One Nation are doing everything we can to prevent this nightmare overtaking Australia. Sadly, the globalist Liberals, Labor, Greens, Nationals and teals intend to push ahead into hell. Another futuristic story, written in 1961 and titled Harrison Bergeron, from American science fiction writer Kurt Vonnegut, predicted a future where human behaviour was controlled—physical movement and appearance and thought. High-IQ citizens were punished with earpieces that played loud sounds every 30 seconds to prevent them from thinking so they did not outshine low-IQ people. The strong were literally weighted down with ball bearings to reduce their strength to that of the worst weakling. The attractive were forced to wear ugly masks so nobody was made to feel uncomfortable gazing upon someone more attractive than themselves. A quote to explain his predication, which is often incorrectly attributed to Dostoevsky, simply reads, 'Tolerance will reach such a level that intelligent people will be banned from thinking so as not to offend the imbeciles.' Vonnegut's view was mirrored in an interview with a former resident of the Soviet Union that was described to me. It consisted of the fellow drawing three stick figures on a piece of paper, two at the same height and one taller, then saying, 'In the Soviet Union everyone is equal,' before taking his pencil and drawing a line across the top of the two smaller figures thereby severing the head of the third. 'Such is life in the Soviet Union,' he said. Keir Starmer's communism is the victory of those who have lost their humanity, morality and faith or, as Orwell describes them, 'those who thrill in the delight of the kill'. Perhaps UK citizens would agree it's time to add a footnote to the famous quote from Descartes, 'I think therefore I am—arrested.' It's just like the young man in Belfast who was recently arrested for observing a protest, only to have District Judge Rafferty and the Belfast Magistrates Court decide that someone's presence, including as a curious observer, involves them in such disorder as to justify the refusal of bail. And off to jail he went. That young man had never been in trouble with the police before and had even left when the event became violent. There's no provision in common or statute law that reads, 'Injustice is allowed if it exists to make an example of one to intimidate others into disobedience,' yet here we are. Similar behaviour was observed in Australia during COVID. The conversation around events in the UK has so far missed an important element. The United Kingdom has been here before. Former Queensland premier Campbell Newman reminded the internet last week of the Areopagitica, which carries the full title: A speech of Mr. John Milton for the Liberty of Unlicenc'd Printing, to the Parlament of England. This was a pamphlet published in 1644 to protest a parliamentary order of the previous year requiring government approval and licensing of all published works and pamphlets. This measure was introduced after Milton's treatise in favour of divorce upset the king, Charles I. History appears to be repeating—the uniparty's misinformation disinformation censorship bill. In Areopagitica, Milton defends the free circulation of ideas as essential to moral and intellectual development. Furthermore, he asserts, to attempt to preclude falsehood is to underestimate the power of truth, a lesson for our eSafety Commissioner, who clearly believes the reverse is true. While the immediate objective of the Areopagitica repeal of licensing was not obtained for another 50 years, the tract has earned a permanent place in the literature of human rights. Repeal took 50 years because, as it turned out, each new government kept that power in order to protect themselves from criticism. Power freely given is never freely surrendered. Here we are 380 years later and Australia is making exactly the same mistake, but One Nation isn't. The rest of the parties in this place are. Keir Starmer famously took the knee during Black Lives Matter riots and now puts English lives matter demonstrators on their knees. The start of the trouble was the murder of three young girls at the hands of a suspected Islamic terrorist. If you want to look for the cause of the frustration being demonstrated among everyday Brits, look no further than a failure to keep the public safe. It is basic. Fear used as a weapon of control during COVID has bitten the hand that created it. There is an opportunity cost to arresting citizens for thought crimes like: praying in public; watching—but not participating in—a protest; making posts on social media critical of the government—posts which do not incite violence or incite the breaking of a law; posting up first-hand stories of vaccine harm; and of course, criticising the religion that can't be criticised using nothing but their own words. That opportunity cost is the policing of real crime. Over the last 10 years, according to the UK's statistics office: assault with grievous bodily harm is up 100 per cent—doubled; assault with an injury is up 80 per cent—almost doubled; rape of an adult female up 370 per cent—almost five times; rape of a minor is up 100 per cent. In fact, the conviction rate of rapists in the UK is currently five per cent and not all of those even go to jail. Only last week a migrant was given a suspended sentence for raping a 13-year-old British girl. The court accepted his defence that he did not know that an adult raping a child was against the law in the UK. Imagine being that child's parents. Imagine being that child. Is it any wonder the Brits are demonstrating this two-tiered justice system? The commentariat, who are denying the right of people to protest peacefully, including many of the usual suspects in here in Australia, are commenting on a world their wealth and their elitist lifestyles insulate them from. A Merseyside chief constable made a comment last week, apparently unaware this is the exact upside-down policing, the exact two-tier policing, the public are protesting about. They said, 'What I would say to those people who think they have gotten away with being involved in disorder, we are coming for you. We have hours of social media and closed circuit TV footage. I have officers working around the clock to identify you. We know who you are and we know where you live and where you work.' Why is this relevant to Australia? Because our law enforcement have been equipped with the powers to do exactly the same thing. The Identity Verification Services Act together with the Digital ID Act, which Labor minister Katy Gallagher passed through the parliament this year, allows law enforcement to obtain the image of any person anywhere any time from traffic cameras, security cameras, closed circuit TV and main roads, even in supermarkets. All this with a spurious 'suspected of a crime' justification. It then allows law enforcement to go through the video, one frame at a time, to extract a photo of each attendee and run them through the national identity database, which currently contains data on 17 million Australians. Our police will indeed know your name; address; where you work, live and visit, and, once fully implemented, the system will be able to locate you from traffic cameras, payment scanners in shops and public transport touchpads in real time. Welcome to your digital prison. One Nation warned you directly, loudly and often. During the next manufactured social and medical crisis, there's no doubt our law enforcement will commit the same abuse of civil rights as we see happening in the UK right now. One Nation believes human rights should not be made subservient to the greed and hubris of those who would stamp on the face of their fellow citizens in the acquisition of wealth and power or, perversely, in the name of social justice. Measures to facilitate this censorship and destruction of human rights are winding our society back to the time of Milton, 380 years ago. The irony is this is the same Left who accused One Nation of wanting to wind the clock back! As a closing remark, let me make it clear there's no excuse for violence on either side of a protest. Equally, the actions of a few do not justify the removal of rights from the many. The actions of the few do not justify the removal of rights from the many. Human rights are universal, part of being human, inherent in each and all of us from birth. Carter, Ms Sarah 82 20:25 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia I rise tonight with sadness, love and gratitude—sadness at the sudden death of Sarah Carter. Sarah, as others in the Senate and the other place have highlighted, was an extraordinary human. I rise on my own behalf as well as having my colleagues Graham Perrett MP and Tania Lawrence MP associate themselves with these remarks. But many other coalition and other senators and members have spoken about her too. We had the great privilege of travelling with Sarah in Kenya with Save the Children. Unsurprisingly to me—Sarah was in the Labor Party—she had this wonderful capacity to communicate, which is why people like Michael McCormack and so many others have paid tribute to her. But she wasn't just there to communicate about herself; she was there to elevate others. In our journey around Kenya and on the many other trips that she facilitated for other MPs, she elevated the voices of families living on meagre food rations in Kenyan refugee camps; those who regained sight through the Fred Hollows Foundation; communities in Vanuatu, Solomon Islands and PNG with no access to roads, drinkable water or health care; and mothers with cervical cancer and no home. Throughout Sarah's life she was an absolutely dedicated community advocate, and I know that the shock of her passing to her colleagues, her friends and her family is absolutely unfathomable, and I pay particular tribute to her colleagues at Save the Children. She spoke up very strongly for the community of Maribyrnong, which she served for a long time as a councillor and mayor. She stood up for the children of Gaza and their desperate need for more aid, and the access of aid into Gaza for children. Sarah taught me a great deal during my trip to Kenya in 2022. She supported Save the Children to reveal the lives of others in a way that called other people, including in this place, including in governments, to action. She called on us to do more. And, in her name, we should. In speaking tonight, I want to make visible the many causes that she stood for. She wanted all those she stood up for to be able to make their own direct plea to Australia for our support for them to have a better life. She always reminded me of the power to bring people together to find solutions, and I have to say it's the opposite of what our colleague Senator Hanson has said to the chamber tonight. I recall, while I was sitting on the bus with her in Kenya, we looked outside the bus and saw poverty passing us by. We spoke about our numerous IVF cycles, her frustration at the IVF cycles in Victoria during COVID, my gratitude at successfully becoming a parent and her processing her grief that hers had, thus far, not been successful. I want to pay tribute to her standing up for the right and ability of women to access IVF. Perhaps surprisingly for some who didn't know of Sarah's medical diagnosis, we spoke of her own knowledge that she had been diagnosed with a clot. I don't have the terminology right, but it was something that could cause an aneurysm that could kill her, and it had a likelihood of doing so in the future. I say this not for any particular gratuitous reason, to highlight her cause of death, but really to say that Sarah was one of those people who was able to elevate the circumstances of other people and our capacity to do something about them even when she knew she could do nothing about her own diagnosis. Senate adjourned at 20:30