2024-08-14 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Wednesday, 14 August 2024

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

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 BILLS 1 BILLS COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill 2022 1

COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill 2022

Second Reading 1 09:01 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I rise to speak to One Nation's legislation to end the pandemic of discrimination against Australians who stood for the right to refuse COVID-19 vaccinations. One Nation first introduced similar legislation in 2021. It was when parliament sittings were being conducted remotely and when the untested jabs were being rolled out while lockdowns were being imposed. It was when bureaucrats and elected representatives deliberately trampled all over the democratic rights of the Australian people. It was when discrimination against those who stood for the right to choose vaccination was at its worst. It was so bad and so pervasive that the Senate even refused to record One Nation's votes on our own legislation because we had the temerity to do what they should have done from the beginning. One Nation introduced this updated version of the COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill 2022 in November 2022. Here we are now, debating it in 2024, and discrimination against people who refuse vaccinations continues even today. Australians who stand for the right to choose vaccination are ordinary Australians. They are doctors, nurses and paramedics caring for our health. They are police officers enforcing law and keeping us safe. They are soldiers, sailors and aviators defending our sovereignty. They are people who work alongside us in an office, in a factory, at a mine, at a farm or in a shop. They are volunteers helping their communities. They are people in line with us at Centrelink, and they are people sitting next to us in corporate boardrooms. They are people who live next door, down the street, across town and interstate. They are people: born here and overseas; Indigenous and non-Indigenous; men and women; and adults and children. They are our people. They are our fellow citizens. They are Australians just like you and me with families, mortgages, worries, hopes and dreams. They are no different from anyone else. The pandemic of discrimination which was unleashed upon our fellow Australians took many forms. They were demonised not only in our own country but internationally by elected governments and unelected health bureaucrats, a message amplified by a disturbingly compliant and complacent media. They were physically beaten by police for protesting vaccine mandates and hair-trigger lockdowns, destroying their families, jobs, businesses and the economy. They were attacked in parliaments by their very own elected representatives. Many of these people, thousands upon thousands, lost their jobs and their livelihoods, with little or no prospect on the horizon, and many of them are still denied employment in their fields today because they, like me, would not allow that crap to be injected into their body. They are still being punished by bureaucracies and government ministers who will never forgive them for not merely submitting to the jabs. These include vital frontline workers in critical fields like law enforcement, public health, the Defence Force and emergency services, all of which are short of skilled workers today. COVID-19 vaccine mandates are still in place in many jurisdictions, despite the virus having become endemic in the population. It is nothing less than petty, vindictive discrimination and naked vaccine coercion more than one year after the pandemic has been effectively over. However, two particular vaccine mandates are no longer in place. In February this year, the Supreme Court of Queensland ruled them illegal on the grounds that they breached the human rights of the police and nurses on whom they were imposed. That has been One Nation's position on the vaccine mandates all along. The vaccine mandates' discrimination and coercion were not only a fundamental breach of the basic human right to choose; they were a breach of the Australian Constitution. I draw senators' attention to section 51(xxiiiA) of the Constitution—which I have done on numerous occasions—which says parliament can make laws with respect to: The provision of maternity allowances, widows' pensions, child endowment, unemployment, pharmaceutical, sickness and hospital benefits, medical and dental services (but not so as to authorize any form of civil conscription) … What were the vaccine mandates if not civil conscription forced upon the Australian people due to the coronavirus? That is why the Prime Minister at the time, Scott Morrison, could not mandate it. He was gutless and he knew he couldn't do it, and that's why he handed it over to the premiers to force it on the people and businesses. He knew he was going against the Constitution. I also note the valedictory speech of former New South Wales premier Dominic Perrottet last week. Perrottet became the Premier at the height of the pandemic, in October 2021. In his speech last week he said: … if the impact of vaccines on transmission was limited at best, as it is now mostly accepted, the law should have left more room for respect of freedom. Vaccines saved lives but, ultimately, mandates were wrong. People's personal choices should not have cost them their jobs. When I became Premier, we removed them—or the ones we could—but this should have happened faster. If a pandemic comes again, we need to get a better balance, encouraging people to take action whilst at the same time protecting people's fundamental liberty. I'd have a lot more respect for the man if he had articulated and upheld those basic democratic principles when he had the power to do so. A mandate is still in place for NSW Health workers, and those firefighters who refused to be jabbed are still being refused work even now, long after their counterparts have not, since December 2021, been forced to have the jabs. I believe the same is happening with the firefighters in Victoria, unless things have changed. I can hear the bureaucrats and the politically elected minions saying: 'Thou shalt not disobey us. Do as you are told.' It was the unelected bureaucrats driving the pandemic response that trampled our human rights, not elected officials. This was coordinated and orchestrated on a global scale. The rushed COVID-19 vaccines, which cost Australian taxpayers an eye-watering—get this one—$18 billion to buy, not only proved ineffective in preventing infection and transmission. It cost us $18 billion to strip people of their human rights and force them to have a vaccine against their will. How much of that $18 billion went back over to Japan or to these big pharmaceutical companies that pushed a vaccine that was not tried, tested or proven? The evidence is very clear now. These untried and untested medicines caused immense harm to many thousands of Australians and to millions across the world. The Therapeutic Goods Administration reported more than 144,000 adverse reactions in Australia—an astronomical amount compared to other vaccines—and the evidence is clear that there were a great deal more. More experts are now speaking up about the lifelong impact on human health of these experimental jabs. Young men across the world are experiencing heart problems, mainly myocarditis and pericarditis. Not only are women's menstrual cycles being disrupted but we have more miscarriages and birth defects happening in our society—but no-one wants to own up to anything, do they? There are far fewer kidney transplant procedures taking place due to a sudden shortage of healthy kidneys, and there is an unexplained spike in deaths in Australia and around the world that are not related to getting the virus. On top of that, I was also informed that we now have a rise in unknown cancer rates. Cancers that were not very common are on the rise as well. To those people that have had this vaccine, I am sorry to tell you that you've compromised your body and compromised your health. One cardiologist said that by having the jab you've compromised your heart, 100 per cent. This is what the government has done to you. This is what the bureaucrats have done to you. You were led like sheep to the slaughter to have this vaccination against your will. If you wanted to have the vaccine, that was your choice. But people were forced to have the vaccine or they would lose their jobs. That's what I am angry about and that's what needs to be exposed here. People's liberty and their rights were stripped from them. I said at the beginning of the vaccine rollout that I would not put that shit into my body, as did many other Australians, but they had no choice. It turns out they were definitely onto something. Refusing the mandates may have saved their lives. Bureaucrats in Australia have been indemnified against the consequences of imposing these harmful mandates. That needs to be reversed. Australians are demanding accountability for being forced to accept vaccinations proven to be harmful to their health. We must unpack the entire Australian response to the pandemic. We must see the health advice which led to these mandates and who provided it. We must act before the World Health Organization's proposed pandemic treaty is imposed on the world. The only way to do this is by following One Nation's policy to establish a comprehensive royal commission into the management of the COVID-19 pandemic by all Australian governments. They won't do it because, at the time, we had a Liberal-National party government and we had state Labor governments, so, you see, they won't want to put a noose around their own necks. That's why this royal commission will never happen, because they know they're both guilty of it. For Christ's sake, the people want answers. The people want someone to stand up and say, 'I got it wrong.' Dominic Perrottet did it, but he is out of office now. At least he was edging towards it. Why can't we have the same backbone in some of the members of this parliament and our leaders of this nation? Premiers—whoever—and the former Prime Minister, please be upfront with the Australian people. If you're not upfront now, when will be the next time that you force this on the Australian people? When will be the next time that you listen to health officials from somewhere around the world saying, 'You've got to force this on the people'? Until we know how to deal with this properly, we're not going to move forward with this. The people are demanding answers. The mental illnesses that it has left people with are unbelievable. People have been left with numerous health issues. I'm pulled up all the time by people with health issues who had the vaccine, and I say, 'Don't have any more.' You couldn't see your loved ones—even in aged-care homes. Unless you had the vaccine, you couldn't see your people in aged care. They were dying. They were distraught because they couldn't see their families and they didn't know what was happening. How many people in good health have keeled over, dead, in their 40s and 50s due to heart failure? How many have died? I've heard of former Olympians and other people in good health that have, all of a sudden, died from heart attacks. Isn't it amazing! A lot of these people died and no autopsy was done. It was all hidden and buried. We don't want to tell people. An inquiry that One Nation got up had Pfizer and Moderna there and they said, 'Oh, no. No-one was forced.' What a load of rubbish. And why did the government indemnify these pharmaceutical companies? Why were they indemnified? Here we were giving vaccinations to people that weren't tried, tested or proven. I'll keep saying that. It was only 10 months prior to that. Any vaccinations given to people usually go through a period of about eight, maybe 10 or 18 years. They need to be properly tested. Yet this was not properly tested. A batch of this stuff actually killed people. Every batch that was manufactured was not tested. That was the problem. I am going to keep going on and on about this until I'm a pain in your backside, which I don't care, until the people get answers and until the people get a royal commission into this. I may not have the balance of power this time around, but I hope that people vote for One Nation at the next time election so that we get the balance of power. We will use that balance of power to force a royal commission for the people to have their say. That is what is dearly needed. One Nation is the only party that's fighting for this. I take my hat off to Senator Rennick, Senator Antic and Senator Canavan, who have also stood up for this. There are very few of us here. And Senator Babet is also standing up for this. I take my hat off to them. I respect them for standing up for their values and principles. They know it's wrong. To you, the people, we're fighting for you. But the rest of the people in this place couldn't give a damn about you or your future or your health—nothing! You're going to have to suffer until you throw them out at the next election. 09:16 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania The government does not support the COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill. This bill is yet another stunt by Senator Hanson and One Nation, and our nation's public health is too important for that. It should be rejected by all parties. The government's position on the COVID-19 vaccination is that it is voluntary, as are all vaccinations in Australia, although we encourage and aim to have as many Australians vaccinated as possible. COVID-19 vaccinations protect people in Australia against serious illness and death and have been instrumental in allowing society to reopen both socially and economically. Since the COVID-19 vaccination program commenced, vaccination has been critical in reducing hospitalisations, admissions to intensive care units and deaths. Vaccinations remain highly effective in preventing severe illness and death and are needed to maintain protection, particularly for priority and at-risk populations. As we can expect to experience further COVID-19 waves, to maintain protections we need to continue to follow the expert advice on the need for additional vaccine doses, particularly as new variants of concern and new vaccines and treatments emerge. We shouldn't focus on conspiracy theories and fringe agendas. Our priority continues to be ensuring that Australians continue to receive the vaccinations recommended for their age and health status. 09:18 Senator 283596 Queensland RENNICK () (): "We shouldn't continue to focus on conspiracy theories and fringe theories." I don't think the thousands of Australians injured by the COVID vaccine would take too kindly to that disrespectful remark there by Senator Urquhart and the Labor Party. Vaccine injuries are not a conspiracy theory. I'm actually ambivalent about a COVID-19 royal commission, because, quite frankly, I don't trust the judiciary, and they do not have the knowledge around the biochemistry of the vaccine. But what I do want out of this process is accountability. I want the people that made these decisions and I want the people who gaslit the injured people to be held accountable. I'm sick and tired of these people being mocked by people in this chamber, the other chamber, the media, the health authorities. They are mocking people who followed government's advice in good faith and then have been trampled on and gaslit, because it does not suit their political agenda. That is absolutely shameful. That is absolutely shameful. To think, that came from a Labor senator who's on the actual community affairs committee that covers the health portfolio. That they should get up here and refer to these people as 'conspiracy theorists' is an absolute disgrace. That is the nub of this issue—the fact that democratic governments are all about holding people to account. Democracy, as the great patriots in 1776 fought for, was to upturn the establishment, and no longer would we have the ruling elite destroy the individual. Yet what we've got here is a complete gaslighting as to what happened in COVID-19. Of course, it's not just the vaccine injuries that we need to look into. We need to look into the whole sorry saga. I will slightly disagree with Senator Hanson: I don't what the judiciary involved. I actually went to the Supreme Court and sat in the Supreme Court when those brave police officers stood up for their own rights, and I listened to a judge say that he didn't want to understand the biochemistry of the vaccine. Well, if you don't understand how the thing works, how on earth can you possibly rule on it? That's what the nub of this issue is. We need to understand how respiratory infections work. We need to understand pathogens, because there are different types of pathogens, and I'll touch on that now because I've got 15 minutes to speak. It's very important that you understand there are different types of pathogens. You have bacteria, you have double stranded DNA viruses and you have single stranded mRNA viruses. Your bacteria is generally dealt with by the use of antibiotics. One of the reasons why we haven't had severe pandemics in the last 100 years is thanks to those great scientists like Fleming and Florey, who discovered penicillin, and we have effectively been able to use antibiotics to control the spread of bacteria. An issue that we need to look at here is why the COVID-19 evidence taskforce recommended against using azithromycin, which is a widely used antibiotic, for people who had COVID. If you understand respiratory infections, you will know that you might initially catch a viral infection, but older people or vulnerable people will get a bacterial infection. This is another thing that needs to be looked at: the lockdowns in Victoria in August 2020 that led to about 800 deaths in aged-care centres. Why were those people locked down in aged-care centres when they should have been put in hospital? That's something that hasn't been looked at all. Aged-care centres weren't equipped to deal with people who had COVID. Those people should have been sent to hospital. Was that deliberate by the then premier to make sure that, if they went to hospital, it didn't become his responsibility? Was it all too politically convenient to let them die in aged-care centres so that the state government of Victoria could blame the federal government, which was a Liberal government? The other thing, but it is one of many things that need to be looked at, is the politicisation of health, and we saw it with the premiers every day. They would get up there and perform their stunts like clowns in the media circus, terrifying people about the risks of that virus. It's a virus which, mind you, I accept was a risk to older people and people with vulnerabilities and comorbidities—all viruses are—but it's how you react to these things and it's how you handle these issues that matter. Locking down healthy people of the working-age population was completely unnecessary. You don't destroy the strong to protect the weak, yet that's exactly what happened here. We know that the Labor government could never accept they lost the 2019 election, and we all know that in politics Labor are generally considered to be more trustworthy with health and education. The Liberals and the coalition are generally considered to be more trustworthy with defence, the economy and law and order. So Labor played to their strengths. They knew that they could terrify everyone—could lock everyone down—with their repeated propaganda. And that's what it was: it was nothing but propaganda in those daily press conferences. It was, 'Ooh, there's COVID in the sewage!' or Dan Andrews saying, 'If you don't take this vaccine you're going to be lining up for a machine that helps you breathe.' What type of hysterical hyperbole was that? That was not medical advice. That was unashamed and unabashed propaganda being used to exploit people who didn't understand what we were dealing with. Now, some people—and I have to deal with these people as well—think the whole virus thing is not real. I disagree with that. I think viruses are real, they're genuine, and they need to be dealt with. But the fact of the matter is that most people could have coped with it—okay? And we did not need to lock down. The other thing we really need to address when we look at this whole handling of the COVID pandemic is the PCR testing. There were two issues with the PCR testing. One issue was that the cycle threshold was set at 40. That would pick up any sort of dead virus in your body. If you'd had a virus in years gone by and any part of that was left in your body, that could pick it up. The other issue—and this is what really annoys me—is that we cannot get the primers or the genetic sequence used in that PCR testing to actually find out what the PCR testing said was COVID. We know that COVID is a virus with 29 proteins, of about 1,200 nucleotides in each protein. We know the sequence of COVID. What I've asked for from the TGA—and they won't give it to me because it's commercial-in-confidence—is the primer used in that PCR test to determine whether or not that PCR test could distinguish between COVID and other forms of viruses, whether it be influenza A or B or whatever. It was interesting: when the Olympics were on, I noticed that people had COVID. They didn't have the flu; they had COVID. This is really, really important, because, as we've just heard Senator Urquhart say, there will be more waves of COVID. Really? Well, there's nothing new in that; we've had waves of viruses for thousands of years. Ever since man started to domesticate animals, we've been catching viruses from animals and sharing them amongst animals and humans and whatever, through contact, for thousands of years. This is nothing new. What is new, however, is the level of organised global propaganda by concentrated media that have access, through technology, into all of our phones, very easily. Once upon a time—I remember, when I was growing up—you might listen to the news once in the morning on the radio, and you might have a news bulletin at seven o'clock at night, and, if you wanted to get the newspaper, you'd have to go out and get the newspaper, and that would be it. Today's technology allows news to be streamed to you every second of the day, and so that message can be constantly repeated. We saw that, yet again, here in Australia. Clive Palmer rang me, as he wanted me to join his party early on when I withheld my vote, and he told me that, when he tried to put out advertisements to warn against the vaccine, he was told that no media would actually put those advertisements out because, if they did that, the government said, 'We will not give you any media advertising.' That was an absolute disgrace. It raises the question: is our media too concentrated in this country? And I think it is. I think it was the Morrison government that abolished the cross-media ownership laws in this country. Well, we need to bring the cross-media ownership laws back and we need to break up the monopoly of, basically, the Murdoch press, the ABC press and the Nine-Fairfax press, because those three media organisations control, I'm guessing, 80 per cent of the mainstream media, and there is very, very little room to have a contrasting opinion, and if you do—heaven forbid!—you get shut down. So we need to have a look at that. We also need to look at the excess deaths, yet again. We heard Senator Urquhart say that the vaccines saved lives. I would really like to know how you work that out, unless you are doing autopsies on all those deaths, unless you are getting tissue samples, unless you're looking for the presence of the spike protein, and the spike protein from the vaccine is different from the spike protein in the virus. There's a proline insertion at the 986 and 987 proline amino acid insertion. That will tell you very quickly if vaccine proteins are hanging round in the body causing damage. Then we have the lipids, four different lipids, despite what Adjunct Professor—not a real professor, adjunct professor—Skerritt told me in estimates—that the lipids are nothing more than dietary lipids that you eat on your steak or sausage. They are not. They are actually lipids designed to cross the cell membrane of any cell. The virus could not do that; it could only cross the membrane of the cell with an ace receptor. Here's the thing: the spleen and the bone marrow don't have ace receptors. Those two organs are very important because they produce white blood cells. If you start messing around with organs that produce white blood cells to protect your immune system you are playing with fire. Yet this vaccine used to process core transfection, and this was the first medicine to ever be used that could cross the cell membrane, go inside your cell, where the ribosomes would start processing a new pathogen based on whatever was in that MRNA code. So we really need to have a further investigation into that. And this is the thing: when they say 'save lives' or whatever, I actually think the lockdowns early on probably did save lives, for what it is worth. I am not disputing that, but at what cost and benefit? We went from 164,000 deaths in 2019 to 162,000 deaths in 2020—sure. So 2,000 people fewer died in 2020 because of lockdowns, right? But in 2021, we had an extra 10,000 deaths. So what caused that? Because COVID was not in the community in 2021. Maybe that was a bit of a blowback from the fact that we had delayed or deferred medical checkups. I think that is entirely plausible. But to have an extra 10,000 deaths in eight months was a spike of 10 per cent, and those deaths jumped the very first month after the vaccine rollout occurred. For these guys to gaslight those figures as being not related to the vaccine is absurd, especially when COVID was not in the community. It is much harder in 2022 when you had an extra 30,000 deaths. Sure, COVID was in the community. What was COVID or what was the vaccine? We don't know, even though I suspect it was probably both. Australia is unique in a sense because we stayed in lockdown for so long. Then we need to look at those border lockdowns, because we had thousands of people in my home state, Queenslanders, locked out of Queensland and living in tents in Murwillumbah or living in the back of their cars. My office was bombarded with people who could not pay their hotel bills. They got caught out. They had bills of $10,000. They could not get to work. They had pets locked up in their houses, and, most importantly, they could not see their loved ones. I have a close friend who was in this chamber once upon a time who could not be there when her sister died because you guys stopped that from happening and that is disgraceful. That is absolutely disgraceful. I do not care what sort of inquiry it is. We need to get real and we need to hold the people to account that caused so much unnecessary suffering to Australians. 09:33 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia The Australian Greens acknowledge that the Australian government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic, including access to vaccination, saved the lives of many people and ensured that our communities were protected from the very worst of the COVID-19 related illnesses. We saw in other countries where they did not have the same access to vaccines that many, many more people died from a preventable disease. This was a tragedy and it needs to be recognised in this debate that vaccines save lives. Access to safe and affordable vaccines is especially important for the health and safety of immunocompromised people, disabled people, people living in residential aged care and First Nations people. The Australian Greens also acknowledge that the experience during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the wellbeing and mental health of many people in different ways, and some people continue to experience harm as a result. I am eagerly awaiting the report detailing the findings of the Commonwealth Government COVID-19 Response Inquiry. It is my hope that this report will provide clear, tangible recommendations for improvements for future pandemics. We must ensure that our governance frameworks for future pandemics are created and formulated in such a way that people are not left in vulnerable situations nor left to experience discrimination. In the context of the COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill 2022, there are a few areas that I want to reflect on, which relate to improvements I'd like to see following the COVID-19 pandemic. The first area of priority for reviewing our response is the treatment of disabled people. We know that the COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately impacted disabled people. Many people experienced, and some are still experiencing, extended periods of being locked in their homes, shielded from the world to protect themselves. Many people experienced discrimination in hospital wards, where doctors were forced to make policy decisions that saw disabled people's lives valued less than abled people's lives. Just think about that, as a person going into your local hospital. Maybe, through the course of your life, you've had other negative experiences with being in medical settings. You've said, 'I'm in pain,' and you haven't been believed, and you've said, 'I need help,' and help hasn't come. In a moment of real, serious fear, you go to that space in need of help, and you are made to feel as though there is, or you are proactively informed of, a policy which, regardless of the intent, has the end effect of treating your life, health and safety as less valuable than that of a non-disabled member of the community. It was a truly terrifying time. There are countless more examples of how state and territory and federal government policies can be improved to uphold the rights of disabled people in a pandemic. The second matter that I'd like to raise in my contribution today is the impact of ongoing poor health. I'd like to reaffirm that vaccinations saved lives through the pandemic, and I would also like to acknowledge that, for some people who received a vaccination, they did experience injury from that vaccination. The Australian Greens have heard from the community that the government's response to vaccine injury, particularly the vaccine injury inquiry, has been inadequate. There have been insufficient commitments to long-term research into support for people experiencing vaccine injury, and the compensation program has been too narrow in its criteria to support people. The COVID-19 Vaccine Claims Scheme, which provides compensation for people who experience vaccine injury, is due to conclude on 30 September. The Australian Greens believe that this scheme should be extended beyond this date as there are still people receiving COVID-19 vaccinations right now, and there should be a review into the program to understand how the eligibility criteria could be improved. The pandemic caused a decline in many people's mental health, and many people are still experiencing poor mental health as a result. Too many people are still not able to access the mental health supports that they urgently need. This is because, in a cost-of-living crisis, appointments with counsellors, psychologists, psychiatrists and GPs are simply too expensive. Cost should never be a barrier for people accessing health care in this country. This government could be doing so much more to invest in the wellbeing of our community. The Greens priority is for far more mental health services to be available under Medicare, with a return to 20 sessions available under the Better Access scheme, and for investment in the peer support workforce. In closing, the Australian Greens believe that we need a comprehensive review of policy settings of state, territory and federal governments. Implementing this bill without taking a panoramic approach, driven by a panoramic view, to adjusting policy settings is not the way to best support our community right now or into future pandemics. Lastly, the Australian Greens are calling on the Australian government to hurry up and meet their election promise of funding a national centre for disease control. We need a coordinated and comprehensive approach to managing future pandemics, and a fully funded CDC is a key milestone in achieving that goal. 09:42 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria When I hear senators in this chamber call for a CDC, do you know what I think of? I think of more government control. I think of more bureaucracy. I think of all of the garbage that came along with the previous pandemic we just had, the so-called COVID pandemic—the pandemic that only happened on the TV screen. I rise to support Senator Hanson's COVID-19 Vaccination Status (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill 2022 to end vaccine mandates. I think it's about time that we end vaccine mandates. It's been four years since 2020, and we've still got vaccine mandates for a virus with a near 100 per cent survival rate, a virus that didn't do anything to you unless you were already on your way out the door, if I can use that analogy—absolute freaking garbage. The fact that we are debating whether or not people can be discriminated against on the basis of a COVID-19 vaccine beggars belief. That is what it does; it beggars belief. We are still having this debate right now, in August 2024, long after the perceived threat of COVID has passed and well after the vaccine has been exposed as being less safe and, of course, less effective than what was originally pitched by those in positions of great power. We hear senators stand up in this place all the time and rail against discrimination of all kinds—on a regular basis, I might add. Discrimination in this place—you all consider it a dirty, obscene, hateful thing. You all say that don't you? Except on this one issue. Except on the issue of a novel COVID-19 mRNA vaccine. And do you know what? All those senators, shocked at any kind of discrimination, suddenly transform themselves into serious rule makers and strict regulation enforcers. Let's be real: in my opinion they transform into authoritarian human rights abusers. If we were discussing abortion, as an example, I wouldn't be able to count to 10 before the outraged mob would demand that I be cancelled. They have demanded that, by the way, but they haven't succeeded because I'm built different and I don't care what the outraged mob thinks. I'm sure that many in this place would stand and eloquently present the sacred principle of bodily autonomy if I were talking about abortion. They would defend a woman's right to kill her baby—kill her baby—which is what abortion is. Tell me this: what kind of society applauds the murder, cheers it on, cheers on the murder of their own children? That is a society in decline. That is a sick society that will soon cease to exist. When it comes to the matter of whether people should be forced or not forced to take a COVID-19 vaccine on threat of losing their job, bodily autonomy is suddenly about as popular as bat soup in Wuhan. That's what it is, bat soup in Wuhan. I've been calling it a vaccine but let's be honest, it's not a vaccine. It is a product. It is a product that does not give you lifelong immunity. Do you know what it does instead? It turns you into a big pharma client for the rest of your life. It turns you into a pincushion. That's what it does. A lot of people think that big pharma is here to help. Maybe they are sometimes, but what does big pharma love most? Big pharma loves repeat business. They love repeat business, and through this novel mRNA COVID technology they have just that. They have customers for life. It's something that needs to be talked about and it's something we don't talk about enough in this place and everywhere else in society. Why would the Victorian health system continue to penalise people for not having had the COVID jab when we know that the COVID jab does not stop you from catching or transmitting COVID? It doesn't stop you from catching it. It doesn't stop you from transmitting it. Why are we mandating this garbage? Why would so many job advertisements continue to insist that they want people who have had this COVID jab when we know that the COVID jab is also not entirely safe or free of serious side effects—including death, which I'm sure you would agree is pretty darn serious as a side effect, right? You don't have to be jabbed to be in this chamber and thank God for that because I'm not and I never will be, but you do have to be jabbed to fight fires in Victoria. How does that make any sense at all? How does that make sense? You have to be jabbed to go and fight a fire. Come on, it's 2024! Maybe we can forgive the hysteria back in 2020 because the mainstream media, big pharma, the globalists at the WHO and all these jabronis were pushing this issue hard. Maybe we can forgive what happened in 2020, but we can't forgive it now. It's time for change. Talking about Victoria, it's silly to expect anything in my home state to make sense after so many years of Labor mismanagement. Do you know what we have in Victoria, in my opinion? Labor has been in power for far too long and when you're in power for far too long, what happens? You get stale. You put all your apparatchiks in the important positions. That's what happens. We're at a point now where we really don't have any more competition. They've kind of wiped out the Libs in Victoria. They've wiped them into irrelevance. That's good for Labor and their socialist agenda, but it's bad for the Libs. Hopefully, they can pull their finger out and do a bit better than what they're doing at the moment, bring forth some good policy and start standing up against these people. But I digress. Why would we continue to penalise people for not having had the COVID jab when it is now accepted by almost everyone, apart from the hypochondriacs, of course, and the people whose X bios still have those little syringes in them, along with the Ukraine flag and the LGBTQIA2S+ flag and all the other garbage, or who have photos of themselves on their social media still wearing masks to this day? Ridiculous. COVID is not a serious illness. It's just not. I'm sure you all know someone in here who has had COVID and has been just fine. Of course, sure, COVID can be fatal. Sure, it can, if you've got serious comorbidities—okay, fair enough—or if you're 85 years of age. But so can the flu. So can the regular flu. Did we shut down the nation for the flu? Did we impose mandates? Did we lock you in your house? Did we do what Victoria did and say, 'You can't go five kays from your house, because, if you go five kays from your house, the virus will get you; if you go one kay, no worries'? Back in Victoria, if you went to a restaurant: 'You can't stand up. If you stand up—trust the science!—the virus will get you. It's going to get you. If you sit down though, no problem. You're safe.' Absolutely ridiculous. Do we insist that people are vaccinated against the flu before we employ them? Of course not. So why on this issue? As I said, it doesn't make any sense at all. But not only is it senseless; it's hypocritical, and it is morally wrong. The only reason that I can see for continuing COVID vaccine mandates in certain industries is pigheadedness. That's it. I get it; having enforced mandates to now drop them out of the blue—to just drop them—is something of an admission of error. And who wants to admit error? But, on this point, I give credit to one man, the former New South Wales Premier Dominic Perrottet, who in his valedictory speech admitted that the COVID-19 mandates were in fact a mistake. His admission, sadly, comes a little late for those who were already forced to take the vaccine against their will under his government, which I might add was a Liberal government. Liberal Party, have you read your 'we believe' statement lately? It might be time for you to jump on your website and read your 'we believe' statement because, let's face it, you're being wiped into obscurity very slowly because you don't stand up for your own principles. You know what, Liberal Party? If you want to win elections, if you want to take back the states from the socialists, just stick to your principles. You don't need to do anything else. Read your 'we believe' statement. Read the speeches by that great man, Menzies. Have a look at it, and just do what he said. You don't need to reinvent anything. Just do that because, if you don't, you're going to continue to slide into the nothingness that you are becoming. And you're going to embolden the crossbench. And you know what? My time will come. It may not be today, but my time will come. Now, Perrottet—at least Perrottet admitted publicly that his policy was wrong. At least that. This should have never been enforced in the first place, but at least he admitted it. The reluctance to admit to error I think is just stubbornness. That's what it is. It's stubbornness. Are we pushing people today not for medical reasons, not for scientific reasons, but for reasons of pride? Are we pushing them to have the mandates on them still because of reasons of pride? Is that what's going on? I think maybe it is. Certain senators, bureaucrats and employers still simply don't want to admit that they potentially got it wrong. But I want to admit: pride does not make for good public policy or the fair treatment of citizens. It just does not. Vaccine mandates, in 2024, for an illness that in the vast majority of people is nothing but a cold do not make sense, and they will never make sense in any context whatsoever. They'll never make sense in any context whatsoever. I wholeheartedly support Senator Hanson's bill. I urge my fellow senators to do the same. I don't know if they will. They will probably not, because you know what? You don't have a backbone. You can't stand on your own. You can't just say no to the apparatchiks in the background—the bureaucrats that influence your decision making. Stand on your own two feet! Be a man, have some cojones and do what's right for your country. Do what's right for your people. Don't do what the little insects in the bureaucracy want you to do. To all the ministers in this place, I can't stand you guys. You don't make decisions for yourself. You always defer back to the bureaucracy. Am I right? I know you do. Stop referring to the bureaucracy. Make the decisions; take accountability. You were elected to basically run the show. Don't let the bureaucrats tell you what to do, those insects. That's what they are. They are insects. You know what I would do if I were ever in government? The very first thing that I would do is sack half of these bureaucrats. I'd put them out on their butts and I'd say: 'You're never working for the public service again, you bums. Get out of here!' 09:56 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That the question be put. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion, as moved by Senator Roberts, on closure be agreed to.    

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

 35 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 23 NOES Askew, W. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Reynolds, L. K. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

10:04 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the bill be read a second time.    

The Senate divided. [10:04]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question agreed to.

10:07 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania Apologies, that was my error. I seek leave for the question to be put again. We were on the wrong side, and that was my error. Leave granted. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the bill be read a second time.    

The Senate divided. [10:12]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question negatived.

 Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 10 Second Reading 10 10:15 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia Here we are, dealing with a very important bill that is before this parliament. The Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 is well overdue. We tried to deal with this, when we were in government, in the last term of parliament. Unfortunately, there was no cooperation at all from the then opposition, the Labor Party. The chief cheerleader of the CFMEU in this place is now the minister, and he's been dragged into this situation, along with the Prime Minister, to once and for all—it should be once and for all—deal with the lawlessness, the dysfunction and, as we've seen at times, the corruption that's involved with the CFMEU. It is unacceptable that workers, who need to be represented by a reputable organisation and reputable officeholders, are in a situation where their representation—whatever fees they pay and whatever their involvement in their workplace—is treated in such a poor way as has been done by the CFMEU, demonstrated through what's been revealed. Over the last few weeks, every time that this issue has been raised in a press conference or in a question, the minister—or, indeed, the Prime Minister—stands up and acts like the thuggery, the lawlessness and the corruption that is occurring within the CFMEU is some revelation, as if they've never heard of it before. I've been here for about five years now, and I have sat through most of the Senate estimates on the education and employment committee. Every time we spoke to the various agencies, whether it be the ABCC when they were here, the ROC or indeed the department, you had the minister at the table—and often it was Senator Watt representing the then workplace minister—defending the CFMEU. We brought to them, time and time again, instances of corruption, instances where courts had found that there were gross breaches of standards that would be acceptable in a workplace and instances of intimidation, particularly with the way women were treated in workplaces, and there was a defence every single time. So, for the minister and the Prime Minister to act like this is the first time that they're hearing about it, like this is some revelation and like this is some surprise fools absolutely no-one, because we know they have been running a protection racket for the CFMEU for far too long. This bill that is before us is an important bill; however, it does not go far enough. There are amendments that are necessary to improve this bill. It is a step in the right direction, granted, but it needs to go much further, and there have to be some loopholes closed in order for the coalition to support this. We could do this very quickly. We could actually pass this bill today, if those loopholes and those gaps that exist within this bill are addressed. I'm going to take you through some of those today. It was in the early days of this government that it abolished the ABCC. They couldn't do it quick enough. Again, because they wanted to return their favours to their paymasters and preselectors, they abolished the ABCC with haste. This was the watchdog. This was the fair cop on the beat, as it was put by the then prime minister Tony Abbott, who set up the ABCC in his first term. The first thing this government did, among a number of other things, was abolish the ABCC. The construction industry needs special attention—more than what the Fair Work Commission can provide in its broad remit. They need a specialist targeted commission to make sure that construction workplaces are able to operate efficiently and without the intimidation and the sorts of behaviours that we've seen occur on construction workplaces. But this government abolished that body within the first few months of forming government. It's a great shame. This body should be re-established. You can call it something else if you want to save your political face. You can call it something else; I don't care. But you need to create a watchdog, a mechanism, to ensure that Australian workplaces on construction sites are able to operate without the sort of behaviour that we've seen occur on workplaces. The problem with this bill is that, as Senator Michaelia Cash said in her contribution, we have a situation where the foxes are looking after the henhouse. Now, the rabbits are looking after the cabbage patch when it comes to this situation, because there are so many gaps and so many loopholes. We've got up to, I think, 20 amendments that we'd like to see approved by the Senate to close those loopholes. At a minimum, the legislation should set clear and concise objectives of how the CFMEU needs to change before it's taken out of administration. That's not provided under this bill. Any business that operates in Australia, anyone that employs anyone in this country, makes sure to set KPIs so that they know what they have to achieve. This administrator needs to have KPIs. Australians need to be able to know what it is that they need to achieve in order to be counted as successful and, certainly, that needs to be in order before the CFMEU—or its future; whatever it might be—is taken out of administration. These KPIs need to be set. This has to be a priority. This needs to be a priority so that we can drive the cultural change that is necessary within that organisation. It needs to apply to all branches of the CFMEU and not just in some states. It should be everywhere, including Western Australia—my home state. The Premier over there seems to think that there's no problem over in WA. Well, if you talk to any construction firm over there or talk to anyone about the cost of doing business and how that's impacting upon projects that are delivered for Western Australians, be it through the government or through private investment—talk to anyone that's involved—they'll tell you what's going on in workplaces. You can bury your head in the sand as much as you like, but the reality, the truth, speaks for itself. This government needs to get serious about addressing the corruption and the issues that are going on. It needs to be across all states. Presently, this bill just sunsets after three years, regardless of whether anything is actually achieved by the administration. Again, there are no KPIs, but there's a sunset at three years. All the CFMEU officials need to do is just wait their time. And guess what? There'll be another election, and, by the time three years go by, there will be enough time for those funds that you've been receiving from the CFMEU to be received in time for the next election. That's what that's about. Let's call it for what it is. There should be an extension. It should be at least five years. It needs to be longer; it should be a long time. Three years is ridiculous. It's ridiculous. The remnants of the CFMEU just can't wait it out, and that's what they'll do if that amendment is not passed and that issue not addressed. We'll see them rise up out of the tall grass and rise back from the ashes. That's exactly what we'll see. The bill gives too much discretion over the administration process to the minister. That's the other problem that needs to be addressed. There's too much discretion over the administration process given to the minister. If anything, there should be more distance between the processes and the minister. There should be a separation here. The minister's hands are all over this. He needs to step back. This bill needs to address that and make sure. At a minimum, this bill should include restoring the ABCC and the ensuring integrity bill, which the former government introduced in 2021. As I stated, there was an opportunity back in the last parliament for this government to address all of these matters through the ensuring integrity bill, but they voted against it. They didn't want to see integrity in workplaces within registered organisations because they are their paymasters. They are beholden to them. Minister Watt was against those pieces of legislation back then, and he's against them now lock, stock and barrel. But that's what they could be doing. They could implement the ensuring integrity bill. We had a lengthy inquiry about it, so the evidence is already gathered. You could implement those changes right now. You could implement those measures within that bill. Call it whatever you like. Give it a different name so you can save your face; that's fine. But think about the Australian workplaces and workers that need to be protected and properly supported. Minister Watt on 27 November 2019 said of the ensuring integrity bill: The original version of this bill was dangerous and extreme … This current version of the bill remains dangerous and extreme. Is it any wonder the minister is dragging his feet when it comes to transparency with this bill? If the ALP was fair dinkum about this bill, it would be restoring the ABCC. After all, the Labor government abolished this watchdog because the CFMEU wanted it gone. They've got to deal with this. At the time, when the abolishment was occurring, the Master Builders Association warned that there were no grounds to abolish the ABCC or divert from the long-standing bipartisan approach of maintaining special interest relations laws for the building and construction industry. It said: The work of the ABCC is not yet done and its removal will undo the significant improvements it has delivered for our building and construction industry. Minister Burke's comments on the ABCC, when he introduced the bill to abolish it on 27 October 2022, were: The Australian Building and Construction Commission and the Registered Organisations Commission are ineffective and discredited institutions, more concerned about prosecuting workers and their representatives than tackling rampant wage theft or addressing workplace safety, or educating and promoting good workplace relations. What a crock! This demonstrates that they are out of touch with the reality of what's going on. They are infected with a disease that has them absolutely addicted to the funding and donations that come from the CFMEU and their preselection powers over their organisation as a party. They couldn't be quick enough to get rid of the ABCC. Well, they can deal with that. Between 2016 and 2022, the CFMEU racked up $19 million in penalties for breaches of workplace laws. In 2017, the judge described the CFMEU as 'the most recidivist corporate offender in Australian history'. Another judge said the CFMEU believe receiving fines was a collateral 'cost of doing industrial business'. In 2018, a judge said the CFMEU 'simply regards itself as free to disobey the law'. The silence of the Labor Party is deafening on this issue. This bill has to be improved in order for it to pass. We stand willing as a coalition to support the government with this bill if they will pass the very sensible amendments that are necessary to improve this bill. If we need to examine these amendments by way of an inquiry, we can do that quickly. I'm the deputy chair of the committee that would look at it; I'll work over the weekend if we need to. We can deal with this. We can have this bill passed very quickly. Let's get the feedback from stakeholders. Let's implement these necessary changes. Let's support the amendments that are necessary to ensure that there is good, proper functioning of this organisation. It's necessary for Australian workplaces. We've seen cost overruns at construction sites, on construction projects that Australians rely on, because of the thuggery, intimidation and kickbacks that occur. It's driving up costs for businesses and it's impacting Australians in their everyday lives. 10:30 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Trust has been lost. Anthony Albanese and his Labor government have lost the people's trust, lost the people's confidence, lost the people's support. Labor supports the CFMEU because the CFMEU gives it massive donations—millions and millions of cash for election campaigns. Labor is wedded to the CFMEU. Labor is dependent on the CFMEU. Labor is hiding the biggest wage theft in Australia's history. Five years I've spent exposing the scam. We have an excellent independent report, Coalminers wage theft, done in February this year. It vindicates what I've been pushing for five years. Some miners in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley are owed $41,000 per annum in wage theft. The Independent Workers Union, a new, fair-dinkum union operating in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley, has lodged complaints for many miners because the CFMEU and the Mining and Energy Union have not bothered to do so. They won't go after the back pay of the wage theft. I'm aware of a complaint lodged just recently, in the last couple of days, to the Fair Work Ombudsman by the Independent Workers Union, seeking, for one person alone, $211,000 in back pay—$211,000 in wage theft that this Labor government condones and hides. The CFMEU drove the theft of wages from Central Queensland and Hunter miners. The workers' former protectors in the CFMEU are now their exploiters. They're hurting workers. I wonder: will Labor's administrator allocate the CFMEU funds to make good the miners' wages? For one person it's $211,000; there are over 5,000 miners losing up to or around $41,000 per year of service. Labor MPs are complicit because there has been a protection racket for their mates in the CFMEU. Labor MPs in the Hunter denied and then ignored my claims—my claims put to them in writing. I hand-delivered, to Dan Repacholi's office here in parliament, my letter to him explaining this. Not a peep! Instead, we got lies from Mr Repacholi in the Hunter, and similar from Joel Fitzgibbon. Minister Watt in the Senate has denigrated, ridiculed and dismissed more than 5,000 miners' legal improvement entitlements. And I have been proven correct. Let's return to Monday and Minister Gallagher's word, 'urgent'. 'This is urgent,' she said, as to the administrator for the CFMEU. I add two words: 'cover up'. It's a cover-up. Minister Gallagher says Labor's administrator is 'urgent', yet Minister Watt dropped this bill on us late on Monday night. What gives? Do you expect us to believe that it was drafted on Sunday—that they did an all-nighter in the department on Sunday with lots of coffee? Why did Labor drop it on us without giving it to us earlier? Is it to avoid scrutiny? Yes—I can see some senators agreeing. When did the Greens and the teal Senator Pocock get copies? We've had instances in the past where they have got copies of new bills two weeks before we have and they've been dropped on us at the last minute. Then Senator Gallagher sought exemption from the normal bills process. Speaking of exemption, Senator Gallagher said, 'The Albanese government says it's a clear path.' Yet the bill is littered with the word 'may'. It's a very unclear bill. It needs the word 'will'. Secondly, she said, 'The people of Australia are expecting a clear response.' With an unclear bill? I echo Senator O'Sullivan's call for a hearing. Then Senator Gallagher said, 'We will give you a firm view at the end of the week.' You will only get a firm view with a hearing. We need a firm view and scrutiny of this legislation. We need 'may' to be replaced by 'will' quite often. We need an opportunity for bipartisan input. I'm a former member of three unions. I know genuine unions are necessary. The genuine union movement has a long and proud history, going back to Wales and the lodge system in the Miners Federation, which I was a proud member and participant of. Yet today so many union bosses have forgot their workers and members. Why? Today workers' protections are enshrined in law—as they should be—including safety, wages, conditions, security, retirement, health and many other provisions. Now the union bosses erode and steal these for personal gain, as the CFMEU and the Mining and Energy Union have done in Central Queensland and the Hunter. Personal gain and power, that's what it's about now, not looking after members. Why? Because they're an untouchable monopoly. Workers need choice. Workers don't have choice. They must join the union in their industry. That's it. There's no choice. The Red Union in Queensland and around Australia and in New Zealand is giving workers choice. Thirdly, the Fair Work Commission and the Fair Work Ombudsman have failed to protect miners and workers. The Fair Work Commission has overseen and approved the theft of wages from casual coalminers in the Hunter Valley. As a boy, I lived in Central Queensland and the Hunter coalfields. My dad was in coalmining. I graduated with a mining engineers degree, an honours degree, and then decided I'd better go and learn something, so I worked at the coalface. I came across Bill Chapman, the legendary president of the Northern District Miners Federation. He was a wonderful man. I sided with him in an open-air meeting when I worked at Westfalen's No. 2 mine when I worked on the night shift there. My dad was complimented, highly, by Bill Chapman at my father's retirement. My dad and Bill used to argue a lot, but they respected each other, because Bill was genuinely concerned about workers. I knew Mattie Best before he died. I worked with him. I played football with him. He was my football coach in Central Queensland when I played rugby league. He was a genuine union delegate who had respect from workers and management and fellow union bosses. He called out safety issues when they were abused. I am proud to support real unions that work in workers' interests. I worked as a mine manager with the CFMEU union bosses. We developed a landmark award that I instigated, and I instigated many previously undreamt-of provisions because they were to the benefit of the workers and productivity. I worked with the union. The rank and file in the CFMEU in Victoria during the COVID mismanagement erupted in a mutiny against vaccine mandates and lockdowns. The members realised their union bosses did not care, and they revolted. Labor then abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Senator Watt said, 'Australians expected parliament to deal with criminal allegations inside the recalcitrant union promptly.' How, looking at this vague bill? Where is the trust? It's been smashed. Labor supports the CFMEU because of donations; Labor is wedded to the CFMEU because it's dependent on donations. Yesterday we heard Senator Pocock, a teal senator, say: 'We need to be cleaning up the union.' Has he forgotten that he supported the abolition of the ABCC? The CFMEU has assisted in theft from miners, as I've explained. They're now exploiting miners. The Labor Party has been complicit. Both Joel Fitzgibbon and Dan Repacholi reportedly get campaign donations from the CFMEU. Then we get Labor's fabrication. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 Minister McAllister? Senator McAllister 121628 I wonder if Senator Roberts could be asked to refer to people by their proper titles. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 Thank you, Senator. Senator ROBERTS 266524 Labor fabricated an imaginary loophole, which the miners in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley told me was a fabrication, and I worked out it is. Then they pretended to close the loophole with their closing loopholes bill. All it needed was enforcement of the Fair Work Act and the Black Coal Mining Industry Award. Minister Watt and Minister Burke, his predecessor, and Mr Fitzgibbon and Mr Repacholi are complicit in this way theft, the largest in Australia. Labor enabled casuals— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 Senator, please resume your seat. Minister? Senator McAllister 121628 Senator Roberts is reflecting very directly on a range of people, including ministers who represent the government in this chamber, and he should withdraw. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 It would assist the chamber. You were certainly straying into impugning members of the parliament. Senator ROBERTS 266524 To assist the chamber, and for that reason, I will withdraw. But Labor enabled casuals in coalmining. The Black Coal Mining Industry Award prohibited casuals on production; it still does. Labor, under Prime Minister Gillard, changed the coal long service leave provisions legislation to include casuals. I'm told that Anthony Albanese read the bill into parliament early in 2011. That's what enabled this wage theft. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 Senator— Senator ROBERTS 266524 Sorry—Mr Albanese, the Prime Minister. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 This is happening reasonably regularly throughout your contribution. Could you please make sure that you refer to everyone to whom you are referring using their correct titles. Senator ROBERTS 266524 Certainly. Labor has forgotten workers. It's actually helping union bosses—union bosses from the CFMEU—to exploit workers. Minister Watt knows of the wage theft, because he advised us of the Mining and Energy Union's application for a new enterprise agreement. We advised him the application confirms our work. And yet there has been no Mining and Energy Union application for back pay. Why? Because when they were part of the CFMEU they deliberately conjured up illegal enterprise agreements. We've had no word from Minister Watt regarding the investigation into wage theft that the Senate required thanks to my amendment to a bill earlier this year. We do not believe that Minister Watt is fit to oversee the CFMEU administrator. It's a furphy. Look at the other unions, the health and safety unions, stealing from the lowest-paid workers in Australia, and SDA union bosses corrupt. The Fair Work Act covers union bosses' greed, theft and abuse. Look at Craig Thomson. We're tired of the cover-ups. Let's get on to the root cause. It was publicly revealed in the Australian Financial Review on 12 April this year. Their journalist David Marin-Guzman wrote an article headlined 'CFMEU push to take control of the Labor Party'. I quote: John Setka is planning to use the militant construction union's hundreds of delegates and members to boost the CFMEU's influence on internal Labor politics in the Victorian and federal parliaments. Another quote: Such a large membership drive could give the CFMEU significant control over Labor preselections and party conferences, which elect the party executive and vote on policy— even the Premier in Victoria. That's what's going on here; it's a power play. Then we see Labor Premier Steven Miles in Queensland accused of silencing the Crime and Corruption Commission. Mark Le Grand, who spent 10 years as chief investigator at the then Criminal Justice Commission in the wake of the 1989 Fitzgerald inquiry, told the Australian there would have been no point in having the royal commission if Fitzgerald could not report on its investigation. Labor want to shut down the reporting. I could go on with more quotes. We then have Robert Gottliebsen telling us of the dire predicament of Australia's productivity decline. Falling productivity—yeah, that's the key to wage rises! The CFMEU is guilty of destroying productivity. When productivity falls it kills industry, kills the future and kills jobs. Add that to the energy prices, the industrial relations policies, the inflation, the productivity decline. It's killing the economy, killing national security and killing the standard of living. This is about more than just the CFMEU administrator; this is about trust. We see in Queensland that the Labor Party and the union movement are not two separate entities; they are one entity. Minister Grace Grace, when she lost her seat and Campbell Newman took over a decade ago, went straight into a job at $180,000 a year at the Queensland Teachers Union. Then, when Labor got back into power, she slid straight back into working directly with the Labor Party. The whole time she worked with the Labor Party. We've seen the Labor government in Queensland outlaw the Red Union because it's competition for the Queensland Teachers Union and the Queensland nurses union. There's a monopoly in industrial relations and no accountability. Then we have provisions. I draw people's attention to provisions such as to 323B in the new act, clause 1, clause 2, which I do not have time to go into at the moment. These are things we are focusing on. Section 323C clause 2, section 323D clause 1—so loose, so vague, so open. We need accountability. We need competition amongst unions with better service to members. We need higher sustained wages now and into the future, because an industry that is healthy will pay higher wages. That is a proven fact. Protecting union monopolies will continue union demise and lead to lower wages. Choice is essential. Look at the players in this: Chandler McLeod Group, part of Recruit Holdings, the world's largest labour hire company working with the CFMEU and the Mining and Energy Union in the Hunter and Central Queensland. Federal government itself uses billions of dollars of labour hire. The Fair Work Commission has approved these awards. BHP forced people to change from being BHP people with permanent employment to Tesla labour hire with a big pay cut, thanks to the union, and then forced to go to Chandler Macleod with another big pay cut. We need open scrutiny, we need a hearing, not window-dressing. It needs to be sent to committee, or at least get a hearing on Friday. We are thinking of an amendment requesting the administrator investigate coalmining wage theft as per one union report and organise for the CFMEU finances to cover that—but it is not part of the bill, so we won't be doing that. We want to amend the bill to allow disallowance of the minister's regulations. We want to see criminal charges. We want to see the watchdog brought back and comprehensive reform to industrial relations. 10:46 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales It is my pleasure to be making a statement on this Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024. The opposition wants this bill to be dealt with as fast, or as quickly, as possible, I would say, because this is a major issue impacting the economy and the Australian way of life. The driver of this problem is the fact that the government is generally driven by vested interests, and this is the same charge that Alfred Deakin made 100 years ago when he said the problem with the Labor Party is it is not there to govern for the people; it is there to govern for narrow vested interests—in this case, the trade unions. The CFMEU has been a major donor to the Labor Party, and its constituent arm, the major Super funds it is associated with, have also made significant payments through to the ALP's associated unions. The enormous flow of funds has bought policy in Australia. These organisations buy policy from the Labor government and, in buying policy, they are buying the outcomes that are good for the union, not the outcomes that are good for the Australian people. That is a consequence of the Labor Party's history and present structure whereby its members of parliament in the Senate and in the House are reliant upon these organisations for support, for their preselections, for campaign financing and for manning the polling places. This is the consequence of the structure of the Labor Party and it is a cancer, frankly, because the people who pay the price for this are of course the Australian people, and the price that the Australian people are paying for the CFMEU buying the policy of the national government is a 30 per cent tax on construction costs in Australia. So every time an apartment is built in Australia, where the CFMEU is associated, there is a 30 per cent premium paid to the CFMEU. We're living in a period where under-40s feel more frustrated than ever about the political system. One of the major things people under the age of 40 are concerned about is access to housing. The fact that the average worker feels that the house that would be an entry point for them—maybe an apartment in a city—is out of reach is a disgusting blight. The death of the Australian dream is in part due to this 30 per cent tax, which is levied on all Australians by the Labor government and its best friend, the CFMEU. These are the corrupted priorities of the government hurting all Australians, particularly younger Australians, who will only be able to access the Australian dream if we correct course and are able to build more houses at a reasonable price. That is where we are. I just want to be very clear about what is at stake here. This is not an obscure issue. This goes to the heart of one of the major problems facing the Australian people, particularly younger people. Younger people ought to know that it is this model of government that is causing so many people to feel that the Australian dream is, in fact, out of reach. This 30 per cent issue has been addressed by the Master Builders Australia CEO, Denita Wawn, who has said: We have always said that up to 30 per cent increases occur on construction sites, because of the activities of the CFMEU. I was visiting a site recently in Sydney where it was very clear to me that these activities are causing a massive slowdown and an increase in cost in construction. Another developer, Mr Diaswati Mardiasmo, has said, 'There are guys on site attending, and it's all about enforcing the 'no ticket, no start' type arrangements.' He goes on to say: … which means if you're not in the union, you don't get to work on site. On large sites, there may be anywhere between five and 10 of these guys walking around, and that's a cost that gets built into the system, and it's a significant cost. The country is paying the price for these people to walk around construction sites, which is a pay-off to the union and is presiding over a massive drop in productivity. Labour productivity has fallen 18.1 per cent, almost 20 per cent, in the construction sector in recent years, far worse than other parts of the economy, apparently in large part because of the CFMEU, which has been blamed for these massively inflated costs. If you look through the EBAs, you will see that, wherever the CFMEU is involved, the output is lower and the costs are higher. At a time when the Australian dream is slipping away, putting the CFMEU in charge of the housing agenda is a very twisted priority. I wonder whether in fact the government will live to regret their judgment to abolish the Building and Construction Commission, as one of the first acts passed when they came to this particular parliament. Minister Watt was able to achieve his great dream of doing that. And I wonder whether that will come back to haunt the Labor Party, because the ABCC was perhaps the only institution capable of trying to rein in some of this appalling behaviour, which is hurting younger Australians. If we turn to the remedies here, we've got Labor's bill, which is a start but something which needs to be significantly amended if it is to do the job. The bill as it stands gives Minister Watt complete control over administration. Given his past statements defending the CFMEU over many years, I doubt that that is a good judgment or in the public interest. That is why the coalition has recommended amendments to the bill, and we've also sought, as Senator O'Sullivan has said, to have a hearing and an inquiry into this bill, because it's so important that we get this right. The abolition of the cop on the beat here really is an unbelievable outworking of the last couple of years. It's been a bizarre parliament to be a part of, in fact, because not only have we rolled back tax reforms of previous parliaments but the parliament have rolled back integrity and governance improvements, including this and in the broader construction sector. We believe that reinstating the Building and Construction Commission would be a very good start. We think that this is an important institution, and we think that putting in place the ensuring integrity provisions is also absolutely important here. The other bizarre element is that the government in this parliament have opened the door for the CFMEU and the Cbus Super fund to be part of the Housing Australia Future Fund. So having abolished the Building and Construction Commission and established an enormous slush fund for housing—it builds no houses but spends millions of dollars on administration and has a number of union hacks on its board—they're now opening the door for this organisation to be do business with the Cbus fund, which has three CFMEU trustees on its board. I note that this morning the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, APRA, has said it will apply licence commissions onto the Cbus Super fund and another super fund that has CFMEU trustees on its board. It is very good that APRA has decided to act. It has taken APRA a long time to move here, but the government seem disinterested in looking to protect worker savings where there are CFMEU trustees on the boards of compulsory super schemes. They also seem to be relaxed about the idea of the Cbus fund partnering with the Housing Australia Future Fund. The Cbus chair, Mr Wayne Swan, who is also the president of the Labor Party, is the only super fund official who has publicly committed to invest with the Housing Australia Future Fund. That strikes me as very curious because the last time I looked Mr Swan was not the chief investment officer of the Cbus fund, he was the chair of the fund, but apparently he can commit $500 million of members funds to co-invest with the Housing Australia Future Fund. So why would we be giving the CFMEU and the Cbus people taxpayer funds in partnering with this organisation when we know that these are the people that are making housing so much worse in Australia? These are the people who are charging a 30 per cent premium on housing in Australia, making the Australian dream disappear from sight. This is another example of the government's twisted priorities and their fidelity to being a government for vested interests. Ultimately, it comes down to a trifecta of failings on housing. There's the CFMEU tax of 30 per cent. Labor has also presided over enormous inflationary pressures in the housing sector. Rents went up by seven per cent in the last dataset. And then there has been a litany of failures on the housing policy itself. There has been a reshuffle of the ministry in recent weeks, which has seen a new housing minister come into play, but the new housing minister has the same problem as the old housing minister in that she has committed to the same failed policies. The Australian Housing Future Fund, which is a multibillion-dollar boondoggle, has built no houses but spent millions of dollars on administration. Then you've got the housing targets, which will be 200,000 or 300,000 houses short because of ballooning costs, an inability to get skills and a range of other factors. You have a complete failure on supply. You cannot solve this housing challenge without building more houses, and Labor's two supply policies on the housing targets and the Housing Australia Future Fund have both failed. Then you look at what Labor have offered on the demand side to help first home buyers. They've offered this bizarre shared-equity scheme, which has mostly been offered by state governments for years. It has been extremely unpopular; in fact in some states they've been abolished by state Labor governments. No-one wants to live in a country where the government owns half your house so that is why they've been very unpopular policies. And that is all the government is offering. Oh, there is one more policy: a tax cut for foreign fund managers to build build-to-rent houses. The government have waved the white flag on supply. They've waved the white flag on trying to level the playing field, or tilt the playing field, for first home buyers. And their remaining tax policy here is one that seeks to give a tax cut to Vanguard, Black Rock and even maybe Cbus if they can find a way to structure themselves as a foreign fund manager. With Wayne Swan at the helm maybe they'll find a way to do that, but that is where we are on housing. It has been an absolute disaster in terms of the policy; a disaster in terms of rampant inflation, which Australia has almost uniquely in the Western world, in the liberal democratic world; and a disaster in terms of this 30 per cent premium from Labor's best friends in the unions, which is causing the cost of construction to be uneconomic in so many cases. Ultimately, young people will work this out. Young people will work out that, unless the country is going to find a way to build more houses, then the housing crisis will never be solved. With the CFMEU running the government, the Labor Party will never be able to solve Australia's housing crisis. What that means for young people is that the Australian dream will be further and further away. Why does it have to be the case? All because Labor has an internal problem where it must run its government for some narrow vested interests. If only Labor could think about the long-term interests of the nation and think about what's important to people, not what's important to the union movement, the CFMEU and the like, then I actually believe that they would be able to solve this. But this is a structural problem that the government have. They only get out of bed every day for these rent seekers. They are making housing a nightmare in Australia. This bill is a starting point. We think it should be improved. In any event, it needs to be dealt with very quickly because the nation cannot afford to pay for this 30 per cent premium on housing any longer. Young people can't afford it, and the lead time to building houses is so significant that the 30 per cent premium staying there for any longer than it needs to means that that Australian dream is just going to disappear out of sight. 11:01 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales On the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024—how did we get here? How did we get here at this moment where everyone is shocked and amazed at the actions of the CFMEU? How can we be shocked and amazed when we know that this has been happening for years? We have known that the CFMEU was out of control for years. While the Australian Building and Construction Commission was in existence, it ran 35 court actions against the CFMEU, not because they were biased, as has been claimed by those on the other side, but because the CFMEU were aggressive, intimidated people in the workforce, disrupted the workplace, discriminated, boycotted and practised unlawful conduct. Indeed, time and time again, we heard evidence of this behaviour through Senate estimates. I was on the committee. I questioned the ABCC multiple times. Despite knowing this, and despite having the evidence through Senate estimates and through the courts, what did Labor do when they got into government? They abolished the ABCC. What did they do to protect workers and to stamp out workplace bullying? They abolished the ABCC. That's right. Instead of taking action against the bullies, they got rid of the policeman. They got rid of the ones actually protecting workers, managers and employers from intimidation and harassment. On what planet? How does that make sense? And now—what do we learn now? Not thanks to the government and any strong action on their behalf but thanks to investigative journalists—and it's not every day that someone in this place thanks the media, but today we can do that—the media have taken the blinkers off. Through their investigations, we learned that the actions the ABCC took were right and legitimate. We learned that the CFMEU have done all that they were accused of doing by the ABCC and found guilty of doing by the courts. But we also learned they got involved in organised crime. They have employed bikies to intimidate and harass people. They've decided that the $19 million in fines that they racked up since 2016 were just a cost of doing business. Imagine that. That is $19 million of members' money—members who are largely blue-collar workers, who have paid their union dues supposedly because they want to work in a safe and respectful environment. Instead, the union decided that $19 million of that money was worth being spent on paying fines for illegal actions that actually risk the lives and livelihoods of those very same blue-collar workers. Take, for example, the report on the ABC yesterday from a health and safety worker who was sworn at, threatened and physically abused for trying to do his job. I thought unions were all about protecting the safety of the workplace. I guess that's only if the inspections are done by one of their own, and, when I say 'one of their own', I mean one of the CFMEU, because we've also seen reports recently of CFMEU members bullying and harassing members of other unions. How's that for solidarity? Despite all this evidence of a union out of control, despite all the fines applied not by the ABCC but by the courts—they were found guilty in the courts—despite the CFMEU continuing to be found to be in breach, even after the abolition of the ABCC, and with all that proven guilt of bullying, harassment and intimidation, Labor came to government and took action to protect the bully. And now the bully has been outed. Now that it's not just the courts exposing the bully and now the bully has been exposed in the public domain, what do Labor do now? They feign outrage. 'We had no idea,' they claim. Where were you during Senate estimates? But the veil is very thin. Just this week, Jennifer Hewett, in an excellent column in the Financial Review, said: The shock evinced by Labor governments at the crime, corruption and thuggery alleged in the construction industry surely deserves a special prize for acting. And I agree. It was remiss of me. I failed to congratulate the new minister on his promotion, but now I understand why he dropped the ball in the last six months on his previous portfolio of emergency management and why we're still waiting to see the results of round 2 of the Disaster Ready Fund. He was clearly too busy auditioning for his current job. He spent the last six months auditioning for the job that he's eyed for years, his dream job: the minister for the unions; the minister to deliver for the unions, Labor's largest funders. Now, he finds himself having to look like he's cleaning up a mess of Labor's own making, but, given the way he has drafted this legislation, as long as he looks like he's doing it, it seems to be good enough for him. What else has he done? He sought to appoint blame on employers. In some reports that we've seen recently, Minister Watt has said that, for every bribe paid, there had to be someone paying it, so we should look at them. What? Totally ignore the fact that the poor someone who has been bullied, intimidated and threatened into paying, tantamount to the old standover tactics and protection rackets of the old New York often betrayed in Hollywood movies—the poor bodega owner who either pays for protection or gets vandalised and traumatised on a weekly basis. He's saying that the bodega owners are at fault for paying for the protection. Is that not victim-blaming? Seriously. Through this horrid, sordid mess, we see Labor's true colours. They talk the talk about safe and respectful workplaces but have absolutely condoned the reprehensible behaviour of the CFMEU for years, abolishing the very body that was established to help stamp out the bullying and intimidation. They talk the talk about supporting victims and whistleblowers, while attempting to shift blame onto them. Then, with this bill, we also see—like so many other actions they've done during this term of government—them talking the talk on transparency, while ensuring everything is cloaked in a veil of secrecy. Yes, while this bill does propose appointing an administrator to come in and clean up the mess—that is, the construction arm of the CFMEU—there is no transparency. There is no requirement for said administrator to have to submit progress reports. There is no public accountability. How will we in this place and, indeed, how will the public know that the administrator is actually being effective? How do the public have any confidence that the CFMEU, after their 'up to' three years of administration, will be released as a straight, well-functioning union that prioritises workers above intimidation and harassment? As has been the common practice of the government, they're demanding that this very hastily drafted bill be passed forthwith, without adequate time for scrutiny and without inquiry. But, at least, we are currently having a debate. Despite this haste, we are applying our scrutiny to this bill. In the short time that we have had the bill, we've already identified some really key flaws, and we will be proposing amendments. So, if the government is serious about getting this bill through and cleaning up the CFMEU, and if they are serious about transparency and good governance, they will accept our amendments, because our amendments make this bill and the administration process more accountable and more practical. For example, our amendments will return transparency to the process. We will make the process fit the rhetoric. We want to ensure the administrator provides written reports to parliament. We need to be able to see the progress being made. We'd like to see the administrator appear before Senate estimates so they are accountable. There should be clear KPIs and a clear objective statement that the administrator must achieve before the administration can end. Currently, the bill establishes an administrator for only 'up to' three years—it's taken decades for the corruption to set in; it may take longer than three years to clear it out—and, under this bill, the minister can end the administration at any time, with no defined achievement that the administrator must make. The government wants us to leave the decision on when the administration should end in the hands of the unions' key champion, Minister Murray Watt. So, when the media circus has moved on, when union thuggery is no longer on the front page and when the public's attention has turned to the next deadline, maybe the day after the next election if—and I hope it doesn't happen—this government returns to power, Minister Watt can quietly determine: 'The job's done. There's nothing to see here.' He can pick up the phone and say: 'Thanks, administrator, mate. Your job's done. We don't need you anymore. Off you go; you can go home.' Meanwhile, we, here in this place, and those watching on at home, will have no idea whether anything has actually changed. If this bill is not amended, that could be the outcome. If that happens, how long will it be before there is a return to the thuggery, before the bikies are put back on the payroll, before the standover tactics return to the construction industry and before, again, we are faced with lengthy delays and cost blowouts because of union thuggery? If all of that happens, you know there won't be an Australian Building and Construction Commission to monitor, watch over and take action against such practices. That is why we need our sensible amendments applied to this bill, to ensure that we get this legislation right, because this is too important to get wrong. 11:15 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland Well, the Mafia has nothing on the CFMEU. That is the kind of statement I'm getting from building contractors, from workers, from people in the community. This building came together in a bipartisan way to address workplace cultures. We passed legislation, codes of conduct. We are very conscious that we are holding ourselves out as the nation's example. We were here to call out any culture of intimidation, a culture of a fear of speaking out, a culture of discrimination, a culture of helplessness felt by recipients and victims of workplace abuse. Yet that bipartisan will to call out bad workplace culture evaporates when it comes to dealing with the kind of thuggery and intimidation on other workplaces across Australia. When we talk to industry, when I talk to workers, about what is happening on work sites across Australia, they immediately ask for anonymity. That is their first request. They will say that bully boys do not belong. That request for anonymity proves we have an industrial environment where people are too scared to come forward, too scared to call out that sort of intimidation and thuggery. But through the prism of anonymity, they will tell the stories of what has been happening on the Cross River rail site in Brisbane. We have seen on TV the scuffles, the fights. What we don't always see is the workers being followed home and intimidated there. What we do not see is parents being sent photos of their children at school, with the insinuation being there will be a consequence for their children if they do not toe the union line. Businesses are being intimidated into using certain contractors and being subject to outright vandalism and delays on their project when unions do not get their way. This includes things like the power supply to the site being cut, things like toilets being filled up with concrete and toilet paper to undermine all the plumbing work that has been done, doors being kicked off their hinges to demonstrate they are not fit for purpose. This is what is happening on building sites and it has been happening for decades. It is only now being brought to the notice of the public with a demand for a consequence for this outrageous behaviour. The malicious lodgement of ambit improvement notices aims to tie up companies in legal costs, where they have to go to the courts and have them proven as being unreasonable and thrown out so they do not receive consequences for future projects. In my home state of Queensland, I heard stories of workplace health and safety inspectors who are on stress and sick leave because they have been bullied so much. How did we get to this situation? What it does is undermine every union in this country. Every union in this country who is represented by a union official sitting opposite has been undermined by the unwillingness of people to call out what has happened with the CFMEU. We have watched the current minister, Minister Watt, spend almost his entire time in this place being the CFMEU's biggest cheerleader. We have seen it at Senate estimates, where he would mercilessly attack the building regulator when they dared to hold his mates at the CFMEU to account. Members of this government said, 'There is nothing to see. I had no knowledge of what was going on,' when it would have taken only the most cursory conversation with the construction site worker, a building contractor or even their CFMEU mates to know that this was a case. I thought it was extraordinary to see the tattoo that has been emblazoned across the chest of John Setka. That's terrifying. That's not something that should be around his neck. Senator McDONALD 123072 Thank you, Senator. That is such intimidation. And it's not intimidation for those of us on the coalition side; that is a clear message to members of the Labor government that they are coming back to haunt you. I won't put up with that, and I hope you don't either. I say that because it has not been about fair pay; it has been about payoffs. When the government mandates 30 per cent pay hikes for these well-paid construction workers, what does it do then for nurses, police officers, childcare workers and teachers across the public and private sectors? They are not getting a 30 per cent pay rise. This is not about fairness; it's about payoffs. Labor has brought forward this bill not because new information has been found out but because they have been caught out protecting the CFMEU. It has been a part of Labor's DNA to turn a blind eye to these intimidations and threats. It has been part of Labor's DNA to wilfully walk past behaviours that are, at their heart, criminal. Having wilfully turned that blind eye and having wilfully walked past those behaviours in clear sight, Labor now asks us to trust them and to trust their minister, who is the CFMEU's greatest cheerleader, to be the watchdog. We have no confidence that this minister intends to genuinely root out the evil that has existed in the heart of the CFMEU. Labor hasn't only been reliant on the support of the CFMEU; in many ways Labor has been a product of this support. The coalition will hold the government to account. We will shine a light into the dark places that Labor has sought to keep hidden. We are proposing amendments to this legislation that will ensure that the administration must apply to all branches of the CFMEU for a minimum of three years—the minister should not have the ability to unilaterally end the administration early—and to ensure that the scheme of administration can be varied only by the Federal Court on the application of the administrator. The legislation must clearly set out what must be in the scheme of administration. It should not be determined solely at the whim of the minister, who has been the greatest cheerleader for the CFMEU. Political donations, political campaigns and advertising by the CFMEU should be explicitly banned during the period of administration. Our amendments propose that, for the purposes of transparency, the administrator must provide a written report to the parliament every three months from the commencement of the administration about its activities and progress, and appear at Senate estimates. Further, a new 'fit and proper person' test must be introduced for all CFMEU delegates and officers, and I would hope that that would apply to all delegates and officers of all unions. The administrator should be given additional powers to investigate dealings between the CFMEU and other parties, including other registered organisations and political parties, and the administrator should be given the power to review and amend the CFMEU rules. There are three things that we think must happen. We must bring back the ABCC. It was the only regulator of the construction union and the only one calling out this behaviour, and there were still intimidation, threats, thuggery, cost overruns, workers going on stress leave and damage to worksites. All that was still happening, so we must bring back an empowered ABCC. We must reintroduce the former coalition government's ensuring integrity bill, which Labor blocked in 2019. These are just some of the things that would provide some protection to future workers in the construction industry and ensure that this doesn't lead further into civil contracting. We are seeing that play out right now. It's happened in Victoria. Queensland and New South Wales are the next battlegrounds to see that kind of intimidation, enforcement of subcontractors, overpayments and delays expand from the construction sector into civil construction. It's extraordinary that it has happened under Labor's watch, while they say, at the same time, 'There is nothing to see here.' We owe it to workers, their families and their children to stop this culture of intimidation. It's a culture that is not acceptable in this place. It is not acceptable in any other workplace in this country, but, somehow, it has become acceptable in the construction industry to cover your face, shirtfront other workers, stop them going to work, verbally and—worse—physically assault them and then follow them home so you know where they and their children live. This has been documented and yet, kicking and screaming, Labor has been dragged to finally acknowledge what has been going on for years. We owe it to workers, their families and their children to stop this culture, but we also owe it to the taxpayers of this country because, every time this happens on site, every delay—such as the 13 weeks of stoppages on the children's hospital in Victoria—and every site that has been damaged or delayed results in inflated costs. Who pays? Maybe you think it's the big construction companies, but it is always the taxpayer, particularly on the construction of public assets. In my home town of Townsville, the stadium overran by 30 per cent. Millions of dollars that was spent on building a stadium ran away from being spent in a hospital, on the roads or on other things that the Australian taxpayer deserved. They've paid for it. It's their money, and yet where has it gone? It's gone to cost overruns, bullying and intimidation on construction sites right across this country. Imagine what that would do to the budget. The Treasurer should get very excited about those kinds of savings. Mostly we owe it to all Australians, who've said they want better. They want better in their workplaces and they want better from their leadership. They certainly don't want to have us and the Labor government continue to walk past behaviour that is not acceptable anywhere in the world. So we will be supervising and watching the minister. I'm deeply worried that what the minister is proposing—unilateral powers and the ability to pull up the administration at his discretion—is a veneer of taking action that is tissue-paper thin, and that it is not because new information has been found out but because Labor have been caught out protecting a union that funds them and that has possibly intimidated people sitting right here in this chamber. I hope that's not the case. We will continue to provide a bright light to hold the minister to account, and we seek the support of others to make amendments to this legislation that will make it stronger and more powerful to protect the people specifically in the construction industry. Thank you. 11:29 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I want to start my remarks by putting on record my support for trade unions in this country and the work that they do. I mentioned in my first speech to this chamber that trade unions play an important role in our nation and they've done great things for workers, over many years, in Australia. I've been happy to work with many trade unions on various issues—most recently with the Transport Workers Union. There are some very good people, like Michael Kaine, in that union. I worked closely with the Australian Workers Union on manufacturing issues and with Mr Daniel Walton, when he led it up. I worked very closely with the MEU of the CFMEU, the mining division, when I was resources minister, and over the years I've been happy to campaign alongside mining union members for things like the New Hope coalmine. I recognise that the mining union have largely separated themselves from the rest of the CFMEU because of the issues that are needing to be tackled within the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024. It's very regrettable that we are at this stage and are having to fix something long after the issues have been widely known across the country. It is somewhat a mess of this government's making. They came to government and abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission, a commission that was clearly needed because the construction arm of the CFMEU was openly flouting the law, time and time again. This was well before any of their more salacious issues and the recent reports around criminal gangs and mafia-like connections to the CFMEU. But for years the construction division of the CFMEU has been openly flouting court orders, refusing to rein in their law-breaking tactics on workplaces and effectively seeing the millions of dollars of fines that have been imposed on them because of those criminal breaches as some sort of cost of doing business. That was very clear. It's been clear, and it was not like the Australian Building and Construction Commission had nothing to do; they were constantly trying to fight back against this organisation that seemingly had no interest in abiding by the law. This was all known. Everybody knew this, and that's why people like the mining union have desperately sought to separate themselves from the construction arm. The forestry division is, I think, trying to do the same. People wanted to run a million miles from the construction arm of the CFMEU, even within the trade union movement. Yet then we had Anthony Albanese elected Prime Minister, and, quite the opposite from what these other trade unions were doing, he rushed to embrace these law-breaking elements of the trade union movement. The Labor Party has taken $6.2 million in donations from the CFMEU since Anthony Albanese became leader. How do they explain that? We all knew this. We all knew they were breaking the law, yet the Labor Party were happy to be funded by people that were openly breaking the law. Most of our issues with this bill—we support the overall intent of doing something here; something has to be done, clearly—are with the simple fact that it's hard to trust a government that has been so closely tied to and financed by an organisation that it now tells us it'll rein in. They can be trusted, apparently, to re-impose a level of law and order on this element of the trade union movement. I don't think it's unreasonable for those of us outside the Labor Party to just be a little bit cynical about that and to say, 'Look, can we really trust a workplace relations minister who's just been appointed and who for years was the attack dog for the CFMEU in Senate estimates and in going after people like Senator Cash who are trying to hold this law-breaking organisation to account?' That's what Senator Watt did time and time again over the last decade, and now he gets up and has the temerity to say: 'Now you can trust me. Give me almost omnipotent authority to re-establish law and order.' I don't believe that for a second. I think what we really need here is proper accountability for this and ongoing accountability—not just in this sitting fortnight, not just while the glare of the media spotlight is shining brightly on these issues. We need accountability over many years to re-establish some level of law and order in this element of the trade union movement. This bill doesn't do that, because, as I was alluding to, this bill gives the minister enormous authority to do whatever he chooses to do, with almost zero parliamentary accountability. I'll go to some of the specifics later, but the general point here can be highlighted by the fact that, for some inexplicable reason, this bill exempts a variety of ministerial decisions made under the bill from disallowance. I'll explain to the average person what that means. Normally, the default provision is that, when a minister makes a decision under the delegated authority provided to him or her by legislation, there is always the ability of either chamber of the parliament to disallow that decision if they choose to do so. If a minister made a decision, say, on a certain amount of where fishing could occur in the oceans under legislation, either chamber could pass a resolution to disallow that decision under the default provisions of the way regulations work in this country. This bill says: An instrument made under subsection (1) is a legislative instrument but section 42 (disallowance) of the Legislation Act 2003 does not apply … Why? For what rationale at all can there be a justification that the minister does not want to be accountable to a disallowance motion by either chamber? There's no rationale for that at all. Sometimes, there's a rationale for that if the decision is of a national security nature or has to be made urgently and any kind of hold up by the parliament might create issues, but this is not one of those issues. This has been festering for years. It's hardly been something of urgent attention for this government. There is no reason why the parliament shouldn't have that review mechanism that it normally retains to be able to disallow a minister 's decision. This is just a power grab. That's what it is. It's a power grab. It's criminal activity, exposed criminal activity, and a crisis now in the construction sector being used and abused by this government to just grab more power and to try to do so under the distortion that they are actually doing something good for our national interest. It's absurd. So that should be changed. That's a very simple change. At the very least, there would be some level of parliamentary accountability there. There are also some other things that we should clearly do. After everything that we know now, why doesn't this bill ban the CFMEU from making political donations? That seems to make some sense, and it raises questions if the government doesn't want to do it. Why don't they want to do that? They are not going to give the money back, apparently. Again, if they really want to be trusted, if they really want to convince the Australian people that the very people who were the closest to the CFMEU can now be trusted to rein in this fox and protect the hens, give the money back. Give back the $6.2 million that the Labor Party received from the CFMEU since Anthony Albanese became leader. It's tainted money now, clearly. It's been tainted by crime. Give it back. Senator Cadell 300134 Give it to charity. Senator Davey 281697 Don't give it back to them! Senator 245212 True. You can't give it back to them. They're under administration. At least give it to charity or something. That's exactly right. Don't take the money. But they are not going to do that. Let's be realistic; they won't do that, of course not. But we could easily put in a provision here that the CFMEU no longer makes political donations while in administration. That seems fair enough. If they are in administration, why would they be making clinical donations anyway? No corporate business would do that. They've got to focus on getting themselves out of this process and should not be involved in politics while they're doing so. They should be clearly focused on their members right now, not on trying to influence politics. There is also the issue here that the minister, with just a stroke of a pen, can take the organisation out of administration—again, with no parliamentary accountability and no ability to disallow. We think there needs to be a proper and more vigilant process here than simply giving one minister of a government that's compromised by the CFMEU this untrammelled power. There are some very reasonable amendments to be made here. There's also a suspicion that we have, understandably, that the government is somehow trying to ram this through with these clear issues in the bill and not expose them to public scrutiny. There should be some hearings on this. We can do that quickly, and we can make sure we get it through, but the government has not felt the need to act for two years while it's been in government, and now it wants to pass this within two weeks. There's something fishy about that. It should be done properly. It's a serious issue, and there is no reason that there shouldn't be proper hearings and proper accountability so we can get to the bottom of these particular issues in the bill and make sure we get this right. It's very important we get this right. Obviously, there's the issue of making sure that people and significant institutions like the CFMEU abide by the law. That is very important in our law-abiding society. If we allow people just to break the law willy-nilly and not face consequences, then it will destroy our harmonious society. That is the principal reason we need to act here. But there is also a broader issue: the conduct of the CFMEU, their tactics, are imposing an enormous cost on Australian society, and especially on average Australians. The biggest issue people face right now is simply the cost of living—their ability to buy basic things at the shops, to stay in their own home, pay their mortgages. It's a major issue, and there is a connection here because one of the major reasons for this cost-of-living crisis is our poor productivity performance. That's been going on for a number of years, but to some extent the chickens have come home to roost the last few years. We have constantly had an inferior productivity performance for some years; meanwhile we kept spending government money, we kept interest rates low and eventually, when you have too much money, too much government spending chasing too few goods being produced you end up with inflation. That's positional. There are two ways we can fix that. There's a hard way and an easier way—well, they're both hard, but one of them is much harder on Australian families. The harder hard way for Australian families is we have to have the Reserve Bank keep raising interest rates until the pain's too much and we take out that excess demand from the economy. That's very hard for people, and we're seeing the consequences of that now. The less painful way—it's still hard, but it's less painful—to impact on Australian families is to increase our productivity to produce more goods so that we soak up excess demand and then we don't have to raise interest rates by as much to bring inflation down. The productivity performance of the construction sector in particular has been absolutely woeful. In fact productivity in our construction sector is effectively at the same level it was in the year 2000. There has been a 0.2 per cent a year increase in multifactor productivity growth in the construction sector for 24 years. For a quarter of a century, for a generation, we're basically at the same level. It's one of the worst-performing sectors across the Australian economy. If we could lift the construction sector's productivity performance to that of the economy wide average—just the average; get it to the average level and have some moderate increase in productivity performance over time—that would unlock $56 billion in savings—$56 billion we could potentially spend to build other things. And if you put that into real things, tangible things that people can understand, $56 billion could build a thousand new schools. It could build 10,000 kilometres of new roads, and don't we need that! We need that in regional Australia in particular. Regional roads are horrible at the moment. I don't know what's happened there, if it's the productivity performance or not, but in the last few years the basic standard of our roads, like the Bruce Highway and other country roads, have become horrible. It's a safety issue right now. We're losing people because of that. We could do that—10,000 kilometres of new roads. That would be great if we could improve productivity in the construction sector. It would also help us build 25,000 new hospital beds too, that $56 billion. Again, we need that. We have public hospitals currently sending people to private hospitals because they do not have enough beds, they do not have enough space. We could invest in that. There is a real cost here for not reining in the lawlessness of the construction, the C of the CFMEU. And while this is a belated effort by this government to do this—it is a mess that they have made by abolishing the ABCC, which they're trying to clear up—it is very important that we get this right for those reasons, for all Australians to get this right and make sure there is a proper cop on the beat. We could strengthen this legislation. We also need to reintroduce the ABCC, if the government was serious about fixing this problem and making sure we have a construction sector that delivers for all Australians and is not corrupted for the political purposes of the Labor Party. 11:44 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania Actions have consequences. That's something we have to remember in this chamber as we are here debating the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024. Actions have consequences. It was this government that abolished the ABCC. We the coalition warned, at the time, that that would have significant consequences—that abolishing the ABCC would result in more lawlessness from the union movement in this country. Now, here we are debating a piece of legislation that this government has been forced to introduce to address the disgraceful behaviour of a union, the CFMEU. Australians need to remember that it was this government that abolished the ABCC—the regulatory authority; the cop on the beat—that could've been looking at this sort of behaviour. Not only that; I think there were many in the government that knew of the disgraceful behaviour of the CFMEU, and they decided to abolish the ABCC anyway. That is a very poor reflection on those in the government, and they need to remember actions have consequences. The government, I think, are being very creative with the truth, when they say that this bill that we're debating here today will entirely clean up the scandal plagued construction sector. I frankly don't think anyone in Australia believes the act that they've put on in the parliament this week or believes that the party that have taken millions in donations from the CFMEU at the same time that CFMEU officials were engaged in criminal activities—the threats, the corruption, the bribery and the intimidation and violence that we've heard so much about in recent weeks—are suddenly going to be the government that protects consumers from the CFMEU, because, like I said, this is the government that abolished the ABCC. Why did they do that? They did it because the CFMEU told them to. As the shadow Attorney-General said, this bill that has been presented by the Albanese government is so weak that it itself could've been co-authored by the CFMEU. It provides the minister, a Labor minister who sits in a party room with all of their colleagues who have benefited from CFMEU donations, with the power to end the administration that the CFMEU will be put under early. Of course, the bill is silent on the Labor Party continuing to receive donations from the CFMEU, despite the obvious conflict that this presents. Consequences have actions, and, while we welcome the fact that the government have brought legislation into this place this week to address the issue that they knew about—the issue that they themselves created when they abolished the ABCC in relation to the CFMEU—we in the coalition would certainly like to see this bill strengthened up. Like I said, it goes part of the way to addressing these issues; it's not going to go the full way to rid Australia of the incredibly disgraceful behaviour of the CFMEU. You have to ask the question: well, why is that the case? The CFMEU's militant and corrupt behaviour is driving up the cost of building in Australia. That affects all Australians, and my colleague Senator Canavan certainly made some pertinent remarks in that regard in his contribution just now. But that's why we in the coalition want to see this bill amended before it is passed, because we think this bill needs to be strong and it needs to be effective if we are going to address this behaviour and attempt to drive down the cost of building in Australia. Like I said, we know that that cost is going up and up, and the impact that that has on all Australians is incredibly significant. I'm sure everyone in this place receives regular complaints from our constituents about how high the cost of living is. I certainly do, back in my home state of Tasmania, so the government should be doing everything it can to address that cost-of-living concern. Again, I don't think that the government is doing everything to address that concern, but this debate today is not where I will be outlining my frustrations in that regard. I'm sure I'll have an opportunity at some other time. The shadow Attorney-General, my colleague Senator Cash, has developed a range of important amendments to this bill that the government has presented. We would like to see these amendments agreed to and actually get a piece of legislation through this chamber and through the other place which will effectively hold the CFMEU accountable. Like I said, this bill is a start, but it could be vastly improved. We want to see sensible amendments, including that the administration that the CFMEU will be placed under must apply to all branches of that union for a minimum of three years. We want to remove the ability of the minister to end the administration early. It's important to remember that the behaviour from the CFMEU that we're talking about here is not casual disregard. It is pretty disgraceful behaviour from union officials. You only have to read the front pages of most newspapers in the country from over the last few weeks to see exactly what that behaviour is. We think that the way to deal with this is to place it under a lengthy administration, and that doesn't mean giving the minister the ability to end that administration early if they wish. We also believe the legislation must clearly set out what must be in the scheme of the administration, and this is, again, not something that should be determined solely at the whim of the minister. This is something that should be very, very clearly established in legislation. We also want to see an express ban, an explicit ban, on political donations, political campaigns and advertising by the CFMEU during the period of administration. Again, I don't think that that is too much to ask for in a situation where the CFMEU has behaved so badly, and we know that the CFMEU is obviously, like most unions, in the business of making political donations to one particular political party—that being the Labor Party. The situation we are now in with the CFMEU and the need to pass this legislation are direct results of the actions of the Albanese government, as I said in my initial remarks, and also of choices made by Prime Minister Albanese, who I think has shown real weakness on this particular issue. The government, in introducing this legislation, is trying to desperately fix a mess that it created. Like I said, actions have consequences. But this bill that they have introduced is weak and needs to be strengthened to ensure that Australia is protected from lawless thugs and corrupt union officials. The Albanese government was warned that this would happen. We warned them that this would happen. I'm sure many other commentators out in the community warned that this would happen, but the government abolished the ABCC anyway, to the cheers of their mates and their donors at the CFMEU. Prime Minister Albanese made the choice to change workplace laws in Australia to directly benefit an organisation which has donated $6.2 million to the Australian Labor Party since he became the leader. Of course, that organisation is the CFMEU. The CFMEU knew, and the Labor Party also knew, that, by abolishing the ABCC, the Prime Minister and the government were giving effective control of the construction sector in this country to the CFMEU and its militant union officials. Frankly I imagine the $6.2 million that has been donated by the CFMEU to the Labor Party since Prime Minister Albanese has been leader would have paid a very handsome dividend for them. They won the last election. Unfortunately, for this, all Australians are paying the price. As a result of the Prime Minister's decision to abolish the ABCC, and this government's decision to abolish it, we have seen criminal activity, threats, corruption, bribery, intimidation, violence, bullying, standover tactics, misappropriation of funds and other accusations of lawlessness by the CFMEU in the construction sector. As I said, you only have to look at a newspaper anywhere in this country at the moment to read these reports for yourself. The CFMEU construction division were undoubtedly bad before but under Albanese they have taken their lawless activities to a whole new level. Labor's open support for its CFMEU donors means Australian taxpayers are paying 30 per cent more on major projects, as my colleague Senator Canavan was saying. This has an effect on every taxpayer in Australia. The cost of construction is going up so significantly and, in some way, shape or form, that does hit everybody's back pockets. It particularly hits your back pocket if you're trying to build something at the moment. The government support for the CFMEU is a direct hit to the hip pockets of Australian families struggling with the cost of living. As I said earlier, I and many of my colleagues—all of my colleagues, I think—are completely unconvinced that the government is taking the cost-of-living crisis seriously. But certainly, in the way that they have sought to address concerns with the CFMEU through this legislation here today, I think that inability to take this issue seriously is on full display. We are glad that the government has introduced this bill to the parliament this week because we do need to clean up this government's mess. We do need to ensure that the CFMEU is dealt with appropriately. But this is a mess of the government's own making. This is a mess that has occurred because the government has not been happy to take a strong hand when it comes to the union movement. It has abolished the ABCC, which was the cop on the beat, the authority that had the power to stop this sort of behaviour from occurring. Whether it is because they have rushed to get this legislation in here, whether it is because they are still taking the calls of their friends in the CFMEU, the legislation that the government have introduced is a start but it is certainly not enough to appropriately deal with the disgraceful behaviour of the CFMEU. So we in the coalition will be moving a series of amendments when this bill goes into committee stage, some of which I have referenced, not foreshadowed, in my contribution here today and we certainly hope that the government will agree to strengthen this bill. We certainly hope that the government will realise they need to take this issue seriously when cleaning up their own mess and agree to the amendments we are proposing, because, yes, this is about ensuring that the CFMEU is held to account for its disgraceful behaviour. I know the overwhelming majority of Australians want to see the CFMEU held to account for its disgraceful behaviour. But this is also about dealing with the cost-of-living crisis, dealing with the rising construction costs and recognising that part of those rising costs are as a result of the behaviour of unions like the CFMEU. So we will be moving amendments in the committee stage, and I certainly hope that the government is open to considering those amendments, but we will have to see what happens when this bill goes into committee later on today if not tomorrow. 11:58 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia The Albanese Labor government has been and will always work for its union masters because the union pays its bills. Therefore, for Labor, the unions must come first. In the case of the CFMEU, its interests come before developers building the road and transport infrastructure we all depend on, before those who invest in apartment complexes, shopping centres and public infrastructure like hospitals and schools, before Mum-and-dad investors, before retirees relying on the best possible returns on their hard-earned superannuation nest egg, before medium, small and family businesses that bring the building projects to life and the workers they employ, who rely on the prosperity of those businesses for their pay. Before all of them and before the interests of everyday Australians, the Australian Labor Party puts the CFMEU first. Australians would not even be aware that most senators on the other side in this chamber are here because of their union links. Those opposite would find it difficult to argue against the claim that at least 70 per cent of the Labor Senate party room either has worked for or is closely affiliated with a union. In the 2022 federal election, the union spent $37 million on donations, campaign materials and election advertising, including $16 million in direct payments to the Labor Party. A third of those donations were from the CFMEU. The Australian Labor Party's dismantling of industry watchdog the ABCC, its go-slow on acting on the CFMEU until the public interest made it impossible to ignore and its connections to the CFMEU explain why this legislation in its current form is designed to put the interests of the CFMEU first. That's why the coalition will propose a number of amendments to make this bill better and give greater confidence that the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union cannot re-engage in the same behaviour—though it won't fix the harm already inflicted on so many. Labor ministers have known about that behaviour for a very long time but only now are decrying an abhorrent and intolerable culture in the CFMEU. The allegations as to the CFMEU are of systemic corruption and unlawful conduct, including corrupt payments; physical and verbal violence; intimidation; abuse of right-of-entry permits; secondary boycotts; breaches of fiduciary duty and contempt of court. For so long, powerful political friends paved the way for former secretary John Setka to become even more fearsome and brazen. You need look no further than the CFMEU recently taking on the AFL, seeking to sack its chief umpire and the former chair of the ABCC because he dared bring forward evidence of the CFMEU's bullying, thuggery and intimidation to the courts, which found the CFMEU had breached the Fair Work Act in 91 per cent of cases. John Setka threatened to 'pursue anti-union, anti-worker' Australians 'like him', and said, 'We will until the end of the earth,' and threatened to 'cost the AFL a lot of money' if they didn't meet his demands. Almost every Australian watching that saga play out, I'm sure, was astonished. As shadow minister for child protection and the prevention of family violence, I found it appalling to see in recent sittings the Australian Greens and the Labor Party ignore the CFMEU's shameful treatment of women. The female-dominated Textile, Clothing and Footwear Union merged with the CFMEU in 2018, but wanted to back out in February 2024. Their wishes, though, were voted down in this Senate chamber by the Australian Greens and the Labor Party. Other separate matters involving the mistreatment of women were also publicly vented. Minister Watt may be the new Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, but these issues are not new to him. Yet he and his colleagues would have you believe that this is all new. The clampdown on the CFMEU should have happened years ago. There was evidence for action. There was opportunity for action. The Labor Party would have none of it. In 2022, the South Australian Labor Party confirmed that the Victorian CFMEU's donation of $125,000 would be returned days after the Setka-led Victorian branch took control of the South Australian branch. In South Australia they knew it was unconscionable to keep the money, and South Australians would have responded with anger had they done so. That's what drove the return of the money: fear of public backlash—nothing else. The federal government could and should have done the same, but it didn't and it's still saying it won't. Master Builders in South Australia were onto the risk of the CFMEU muscling in on South Australia and had been ever since Labor abolished the ABCC. 'There's a lot more pressure on people in construction in South Australia to do what the union wants them to do,' CEO Will Frogley told the Advertiser two years ago. In a mysterious coincidence, a decapitated Kermit the Frog puppet was left on the fence of Frogley's family home, and Master Builders' cars and property were vandalised. Master Builders South Australia represents over 2,500 builders, specialist contractors, suppliers and manufacturers—hardworking Australians, hardworking South Australians. Last year I stood in this chamber to share an example of how the CFMEU was flexing its muscles in holding South Australian businesses to ransom. An agreement brokered by the John-Setka-led CFMEU included a swag of bonus allowances at a Wingfield crane firm that included $10 for each day workers arrived at work on time and wearing the correct uniform. Extraordinary! That's not reasonable; nor is it fair. The same year, the CFMEU spent thousands of its members' money to wrap an Adelaide tram in the union's slogan: 'A union of opportunity'. It was a blatant membership drive of the CFMEU and a breach of SA government rules, but the CFMEU carried on regardless. The CFMEU has driven, and always will drive, Labor Party policy and action. This bill is Labor admitting they have failed. They were warned in this parliament by industry, by regulators and by the courts. This bill seeks to reverse the vengeful acts the Prime Minister has made against the ABCC since he was elected. One of his tasks when he came into government was to get rid of the watchdog, the ABCC. As Jennifer Westacott, the former Chief Executive of the BCA, said at the time: Australians should have safe jobs, well paid jobs and rewarding jobs, but the government's radical shake-up of the industrial relations system will not deliver that. These changes will create confusion and extra costs … make it harder to hire casual workers and create uncertainty for employing anybody. Any government that's serious about cost of living would not do this. As it is, any government that is serious about the cost of living would also have acted on the CFMEU and its activities a long time ago. But, without accountability, we have seen criminal activity, threats, corruption, bribery, intimidation, violence, bullying, standover tactics, misappropriation of funds and other accusations of lawlessness by the CFMEU, and we've had skyrocketing costs that have seen Australian taxpayers forking out up to 30 per cent more on major projects. South Australia has had some pretty significant infrastructure projects too. Perhaps the government there might want to do a bit of work to find out how much extra the CFMEU's involvement in South Australia has added to those major projects. The inaction by the Albanese government until now has had perverse and far-reaching upstream and downstream consequences, even for those not directly associated with the CFMEU. It is one of the many reasons that business failures in South Australia soared 70 per cent early last year and are expected to get worse. And those failures are replicated right across Australia. Action against the militant CFMEU should have been taken a long time ago. This bill doesn't respond to the appalling actions of the CFMEU. All the Albanese Labor government is seeking to do is to get its own handiwork out of the headlines, out of the news cycle. The coalition's amendments seek to do more than the Albanese government is prepared to do. These amendments will make the bill better. They include the minister not having the ability to end the administration early; any variation to the scheme of administration must be agreed by the Federal Court, not the minister. Political donations, political campaigns and advertising by the CFMEU should be explicitly banned during the period of administration. The administrator must provide a written report to parliament every three months and appear at Senate estimates. A new fit-and-proper-person test is to be introduced for all CFMEU delegates and officers. Members should expect no less. The cost of fixing the CFMEU mess should not be borne by the Australian taxpayer. The administrator should be given additional powers to investigate dealings between the CFMEU and other parties, including other registered organisations and political parties. With these changes, the Albanese Labor government has the opportunity to do what it said it would and truly crack down on CFMEU misconduct—but I'm not going to hold my breath, and nor should Australians. The bill presented before us today falls well short of what is needed and what everyday, hardworking Australians should expect from their government. This bill, and the government's response to the CFMEU, confirms that Labor will continue to put their union masters first. For everyday Australians, hardworking Australians, hardworking small businesses, family businesses, investors and those retirees waiting for their superannuation funds to be maximised so they can enjoy their hard work in retirement—well, let's hope these amendments will be accepted so they don't have to watch, yet again, the Labor Party put union masters first and Australia's interests last. 12:11 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I rise today to speak to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024. It's pretty obvious that when it comes to unions—and unions are important, I want to add; unions are extremely important for protecting workers' rights. But they should not be used for protecting Labor's rivers of gold. That is what the Labor Party is all about today. It is no longer the party of the worker; it is the party of the rorter. It's, 'How can we use unions to exploit the Australian worker for our rivers of gold?' It doesn't matter whether they're channelling union fees into their coffers directly, via superannuation funds or via childcare centres—that's right, I said it; come at me! That is what the Labor Party is all about today. They do not care about the workers. They do not care about the children. They do not care about the individual. They want to maintain their command and control over the Australian workplace to make sure they enrich themselves. I've got to tell you: the Australian people have woken up to this. We saw it a couple of decades ago when the Howard battlers came across, and we see it all the time; more and more blue-collar workers are joining the coalition and coming over to the right because they can see through Labor. They can see through the games played by the Labor Party and their bullying tactics. It doesn't matter whether it's the CFMEU in the workplace or, as we saw on the weekend, the Prime Minister or the education minister using names like 'cooker', 'anti-vaxxer' and 'climate denier'; with anything that impedes or gets in the way of their rivers of gold, the Labor Party has to bully people. That's not the way to treat people. That's not respectful. It's not rational. It's not the way democratic debate should occur in this country. We see the leaders of the Labor Party showing us their immaturity and their shallowness in dealing with running a country. Every little step of the way, they are always trying to play games in how they can milk the system in order to enrich themselves and keep those rivers of gold flowing. I've got to hand it to you guys. I did a master's in finance and I didn't fail a subject, but I failed an assignment that was on superannuation about 15 years ago. I ripped into superannuation back then. I'll call out my own side too; I called John Howard out on this because Costello and Howard should have got rid of super when they got in back in 1996. But they didn't because they got into bed with the CBA, who took over Colonial Mutual, and with NAB, who took over National Mutual, and Westpac, Banks Trust, ANZ and ING. Superannuation today now controls $3 trillion. If you control $3 trillion, you control industry, and it's no wonder that, when we had the Voice vote last year, we had industry promoting the 'yes' vote. We've got this woke mind virus in our corporate boardrooms. We've got it in our childcare centres. We've got it in our education centres. We've got it in our universities. We've now got it in our corporate boardrooms. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Thank you, Senator Rennick. You'll be in continuation. We've reached the appointed hour, so I shall now proceed to senators' statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 27 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Outback Way 27 12:15 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland Outback Australia and northern Australia are known for vastness and big things. It is unsurprising then that the Outback Way is known as Australia's longest shortcut. The Outback Way will be the great Australian road trip, rivalling Route 66, as it winds 2,700 kilometres through the heart of Australia from Winton in Queensland, via the Northern Territory's Red Centre, to Laverton in Western Australia and on to Perth. We should all add this road trip to our travel bucket list. Imagine meandering through Dreamtime hues and nature's ancient architecture, both subtle and sharply striking at once, gently seeking into the outback folklore and tranquillity with every passing kilometre. Drink in pubs from the 1870s that once housed Cobb & Co Changing Station, see the Min Min lights at Boulia, visit the National Pioneer Women's Hall of Fame and the Royal Flying Doctor Service centre in Alice Springs, after dipping in the waterholes of the MacDonnell Ranges, and be transported back in time with Laverton's heritage trail, heritage precinct and relics of mining days past. Between these main centres along the Outback Way, marvel at the prehistoric stomping grounds of dinosaurs and sandstone deposits from 350 million years ago; listen to opera under star filled night skies; visit camel farms, cattle stations, roadhouses, outback art galleries; make paper from native grasses; fossick at gem fields; feast on bush trucker; and enjoy a sunset drink at Uluru. This may all sound too good to be true, and it almost is. While the picture of scenery along the Outback Way is magnificent, actual life along the route is less than ideal when the road is closed for several months a year due to rain, flooding, potholes, corrugations. Of course, it is in many places—large places—a dirt road. Sealing the Outback Way needs to be a national priority. Last month I attended the Outback Way Forum with representatives from the Outback Highway Development Council, the five councils located on the Outback Way—Boulia Shire and Winton Shire in Queensland, Alice Springs Town Council in the Northern Territory, and the shires of Laverton and Ngaanyatjarraku in Western Australia—and many others who appreciate and understand the value of the Outback Way to Australian tourism and to economic growth and efficiency. I applaud the councils' presidents and mayors for their relentless energy and efforts in delivering the Outback Way—Patrick Hill, President of Laverton Shire; Damian McLean, President of Ngaanyatjarraku Shire; Rick Britton, Mayor of Boulia Shire; Gavin Baskett, Mayor of Winton Shire; and Matt Paterson, Mayor of Alice Springs Town Council. Thank you for your collective vision, your dedication, your bipartisan commitment to Australia's tourism, mining, pastoral and defence and Indigenous community. I acknowledge the passion and contribution of our colleagues from the other place—Rick Wilson and Marion Scrymgour as co-chairs of the Parliamentary Friends of the Outback Way. I also acknowledge the excellent work of Mel Forbes as General Manager of the Outback Highway Development Council. The key goal of the Outback Way Forum is to fully seal the 2,700 kilometres of road that connects Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia. The council has lobbied for almost three decades to secure over $1.2 billion in federal state and territory funding to fully develop and seal this life-giving artery through Australia's centre. The Howard coalition government first secured $10 million funding for the Outback Way in 2006, and the coalition government contributed a further $678 million in 2022. The total funding has so far sealed 1,500 kilometres of the total 2,700 kilometre route, but there is still another 1,200 kilometres to seal. The project completion date is 2032. What difference will eight more years and a further 1,200 kilometres of sealed road make? To quote Utopia, 'It will build a nation.' On a serious note, though, to quote Linda Scott, the President of the Australian Local Government Association: The Outback Way project is an excellent example of an alliance of local governments working together, across State and Territory borders, over a sustained period of time, to deliver an extraordinary project for the Nation. The difference that that 1,200 kilometres of sealed Outback Way will make includes a third transnational route connecting the east and west coasts through Cairns and Perth, via Alice Springs. An additional 1,200 kilometres of sealed roads through our nation's heart will boost productivity and GDP by expanding mining, agriculture and freight efficiencies and, of course, tourism. It provides a corridor for commercial investment and development, creating a network of intermodal hubs and industrial estates. Intermodal hubs that manage shipping containers over long journeys will develop business opportunities across industry. It creates a new transport route to facilitate economic and social development in regional and remote towns and communities. It will enable more suppliers to service remote communities, offering more choice and competition, and, hopefully, reduce prices and the cost of living. It will ensure that products are on the shelves of supermarkets when train routes are cut, as happened recently in Western Australia. The sealed Outback Way will enable sustainable social outcomes by availing communities of improved job creation, health, education, safety, emergency access and greater social interaction between communities. It will make towns and communities more attractive to live and work in. It will provide a lifeline for residents and tourists who live and travel these remote routes. It will support Closing the Gap initiatives by providing better access to health and education. It will develop training and employment opportunities for Indigenous residents. It will enhance outback and northern Australia art trails and galleries. It supports new mining projects, such as the BHP $1.7 billion copper-nickel mine in West Musgrave, contributing to the electric vehicle industry. It facilitates access to critical minerals, reduces freight times and enhances economic capacity. It reduces the time needed to travel 300 kilometres in a mining quad from eight hours to four hours, enabling additional shifts, improving productivity and access to market and ensuring better driver conditions. It improves reliable access to markets for agriculture, with more efficient transportation of livestock and goods. It improves animal welfare, with greater access to domestic markets. It is cost effective: constructing two sealed lanes for one kilometre costs between $450,000 and $1 million, whereas urban road construction costs approximately $5 million per kilometre. The completion date of 2032 for the Outback Way is upon us, and federal, state and territory governments must continue their support for this nationally significant project, which improves the quality of life for inland Australia, connects communities and creates economic opportunity. The key factors are productivity, sustainability and livability. The landscape of the Outback Way lives in our consciousness through the inspiration of Albert Namatjira. We need to continue this legacy and capture the imagination of all Australians to see not just the dream but the reality of a fully sealed Outback Way for the best outcomes of the entire nation. Economy 29 12:24 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I rise today to speak about the heady days of the 1980s and what was pretty much the cultural flavour of the day: neoliberalism. I had planned to make this speech anyway, but it's actually quite relevant in light of all the insults thrown at me by the other side over the weekend, calling me a 'cooker' because I want to help parents raise their own children. Unlike those on the other side, who seem to be incapable of rational debate, I think we do have a cost-of-living crisis in this country. More importantly, we have a parenting and stay-at-home problem. I totally agree that it is very difficult for a one-working-parent family to actually be able to pay a mortgage today. That is why I rise to speak. I actually want to deal with the issue of house prices in this country and the issue of productivity. You may find it strange that a Liberal senator is getting up and speaking against the neoliberal ideology of the 1980s, but you shouldn't. If you read Robert Menzies's 1942 'Forgotten people' speech, you will see in his last paragraph that he says that we should not go back to the old and selfish notions of laissez faire and that there will be more control, not less of it. That's very important because the role of a good government and a good politician is to protect the people and their families. It is also the role of a good politician to stand up to the unrestrained authority of the institutions, whether they are superannuation funds, banks, politicians, bureaucrats or corporations. What we've seen in the last four or five decades is this rolling over to the institutions, who are basically unaccountable. How many times have I had, 'It's commercial-in-confidence,' thrown back at me about government money that's been paid to a company? I couldn't tell you, but it's too many times. Ultimately any taxpayer dollars that have been spent on contracts with the private sector should be totally transparent. I want to talk about the financial deregulation of the 1980s and get very specific about some of the things that happened. What brought me to this is that I'm calling for the reestablishment of a public bank, and some of the blowback I get is: 'We can't have government's running banks. Look at what happened to the State Bank of Victoria in 1990.' I did go back and look at why the Victorian state bank collapsed in the late eighties and early nineties. It was because they went and bought a merchant bank, Tricontinental. It was the losses from the Tricontinental purchase that actually brought the entire state bank down. If you'd had proper banking regulations that had prevented the government bank from getting involved with a merchant bank, that would not have happened. If ever there was a time when you did not want to get involved with a merchant bank, it was the late eighties with the heady debt levels and gearing ratios. Who can forget the Bonds and the Skases of the world and some of the astronomical losses that occurred in the late eighties? That is very important to point out, because if we didn't deregulate the financial sector—and I just want to be careful here about what I talk about, because it is a question of degree—things like that wouldn't have happened. Another aspect of the deregulation was that capital controls—foreign capital controls—were lifted. In 1985 the four major banks had $8 billion in foreign debt. By 2008 they had $800 billion in foreign debt because there are no restrictions on what the local banks could go out and borrow offshore. When they could go and borrow as much money as they liked, they did. What happened with that $800 billion that they borrowed was they lent it to people who wanted to buy houses. That sent house prices up to 12 to 13 times earnings from what was initially, in 1985, four to five times earnings. When you put house prices up to 12 to 13 times earnings, or double the price of a house relative to income, you will invariably end up with two parents in a family going back to work. That's exactly what has happened over the last 30 or 40 years. We have had two parents having to go back to work. When two parents have to go back to work, that means we have to put our children into child care. I want to distinguish 'child care'. I'm talking about institutionalised child care. I'm not talking about kindergartens, five-day fortnights or anything like that when kids get to four or five. I've got no problem with kids going off to kindergarten for five or six hours a day for a few days a week. My own dad was the president of the kindergarten P&F for a number of years. He used to play Santa Claus. I well remember that as a childhood memory. But I believe there is no doubt that one of the declines in our educational standards—even in the wellbeing of our children—is because they're not establishing strong bonds with their parents. I can tell you, having three children of my own, parenting is a full-time job. By the time you pick the kids up after school, run them around to their various sporting activities, get them home, get them in the bath and on the toilet, do their teeth, feed them, get them to do their homework and then read to them—that takes a lot of time and effort. The importance of the stay-at-home family means that the parent is very, very important. I don't care if it's the mother or the father; I, myself, volunteered to stay at home and did for a number of years. But those capital controls, getting back to the finance side here—banks need to have capital controls. They should not be allowed to lend without any regulation to anyone they want at any time. I just spoke to a mining company this morning that wants to value-add its product here in Australia. They can't get finance from National Australia Bank, because it's too hard. The Big Four, our major retail banks, are very lazy. They would much rather lend against housing than business. That's another thing that got lifted—there were no restrictions or directions that said, 'For every dollar you lend against a house, you've got to lend a dollar against a business.' Our loan book today has gone from, say, 40-60, housing to business, to something like 70-30, housing to business. So a lot more money is lent against housing than actual business itself. The last thing I want to touch on with this financial deregulation of the eighties, and something I've had a lot of experience with in my financial career, is the use of derivatives. If anyone gets the time, you should go back and listen to last week's The Country Hour. A guy was on The Country Hour on the ABC talking about the derivatives market. In particular, he was referring to the cotton industry. The total value of the cotton crop across the world is about $42 billion. As this guy went on to say, the value of derivatives on the cotton market is much, much more than that. And it's not just the cotton market; its most other agricultural products and metals. The value of derivatives outnumbers the value of the physical market by a factor of up to 10 to one. The reason why that matters is that, when you have such a large derivative market—I'll be more specific here. When the deregulation occurred, what it said was: if you were going to take out a hedge, you no longer have to hedge it against the physical; you can basically take out uncovered hedges—you can call them naked shorts or whatever you like. What that meant was that you could now create a paper market in parallel with the actual physical market. Indeed, the biggest market in the world is the US Treasury bond market. But, when you create these paper markets, you put the power of pricing in the hands of the banks and the paper shufflers and you take the power of pricing away from the producers. That's not fair. If anyone understands the way markets should work—this is why don't believe in free markets. I don't believe in free markets for the same reasons I don't believe in fairies at the bottom of the rose garden—it doesn't exist. What I believe in is the risk-reward paradigm. That is actually in accordance with the coalition's values of reward for effort, because it's the people who get out of bed and put their nose to the grindstone that should be rewarded. So what we really need is a Senate inquiry into the financial deregulation of the 1980s, in particular with regard to unhedged derivatives, with regard to what banks can and can't do and with regard to the way we go out and use foreign debt to basically inflate house prices whilst ignoring our underlying productivity issues. The financial deregulation of the eighties was accompanied by the Button plan, which sent our manufacturing offshore. It was accompanied by the Dawkins plan in 1990, which sent our children to university so they could graduate broke and brainwashed. It was accompanied later by compulsory superannuation, which centralised $3 trillion of wealth into the hands of fund managers. Yet again, these people that skim off $30 billion a year aren't actually risking their own capital. So, if we want to actually deal with the housing crisis in this country, if we want to deal with getting our children a loving home life and a good education, we need to deal with the financial misregulation that goes on in this country. Truth and Justice Commission Bill 2024 30

Truth and Justice Commission Bill 2024

12:34 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia As some of you may be aware in this place, the Greens have a bill currently before the standing committee on Indigenous issues called the Truth and Justice Commission Bill 2024. The aim of this legislation is to create a commission that will take an honest look into this country's past and then take a look into the future. It's about facing the truth so that real progress can be made. Sometimes that truth is painful to tell but also painful to hear. When we have faced the truth, when this country has started to understand its own past, what will we need to do with what we have learned and where we will go from there? An important step is also the next chapter of treaty. We'll probably need more than one treaty, and the work is already in progress in some states and territories. We will need formal agreements between the First Nations people of this continent and the states and also with the Commonwealth of Australia. The road to that destination starts with truth-telling, and there will be a long, winding path that requires determination and political change alongside political will. Let's be honest with ourselves and recognise the difficulties. Let's look at the experiences of first peoples or indigenous peoples from across the world. Policymakers, academics and people who care about these issues sometimes look to countries like New Zealand and Canada in considering their own approach to treaties with their first peoples. When we look at the experiences overseas, we see that we'll need to think about how First Nations people and settlers distribute land through federal treaties. Putting the states aside for now, when you look at treaty processes in both New Zealand and Canada, there are three major challenges Australia will have to face in developing a federal treaty. The challenges are about representation, language, and constitutional enshrinement. Firstly, the representation of different Indigenous nations' perspectives—particularly on the distribution of land—is very complicated, especially when Indigenous cultures don't have neat and tidy representative structures that non-Indigenous institutions can easily understand. The process is even more difficult if non-Indigenous institutions don't want to understand or, in fact, try and interpret this through their power. Secondly, settler colonial language is usually privileged in treaties, and Indigenous languages are diminished or misrepresented. Concepts used to describe the distribution of land, including sovereignty, are English cultural conceptualisations, and Indigenous cultural conceptualisations are often left out of the picture. Once again, the problem is worse if non-Indigenous institutions see an advantage in ignoring the different ways of thinking, using their power to challenge our authenticity and, ultimately, our sovereignty. Thirdly, constitutionally enshrining treaties can be complex. There are overseas cases, particularly from New Zealand, where constitutional enshrinement has actually hindered arbitration of land claims, because both indigenous and settler perspectives may change in the future. On the other hand, the lack of constitutional enshrinement can enable greater politicisation of land claims, which we've seen particularly here in Australia over time. It seems that, based on overseas experience, we have to make sure that our treaty negotiations include Indigenous ways of thinking and knowing, not just Indigenous participation in negotiations. It's not fair to have a playing field where one side of the game writes the rules. A treaty can only be negotiated when both parties not only are on equal footing but also have equal power. The government will need to be flexible in a way it has never been before. And I'm not sure, couched in my reality during my time in this place, that this is even possible. We will need to think seriously about how treaty will interact with colonial settler based institutions, particularly the Constitution. Enshrinement may not be the answer, or it might be part of the answer if we can isolate parts of an agreement that will stand the test of time. I'm talking about this now because I want to start a conversation that hasn't really begun at the federal level yet. The most important message is that Australian institutions must be open to the ways of thinking of First Peoples of Australia, and even their languages, if we want to move into a shared future where people know where they stand. They also must do this with the upmost respect—not some hatchet job that's been pulled together, as I said, just with Indigenous participation. We cannot have a watered-down, whitewashed version of the truth. Our precolonial history started, as we say, 65,000 years ago, not in 1788. Some of us already know that story; in fact, we've been educated in our institutions on that story. The story of now belongs to all of us. We have three chapters of history in this nation: the first chapter is the Indigenous chapter; the second chapter is our colonial settler British history that we share; and our chapter of now is our multicultural chapter. We cannot have an agreement made in the way of treaty for the sake of having one. We need to do it, and we need to make sure we do it properly. We need investment from all sides, not just bipartisan agreement. We need all people in Australia to be on this journey with us. If we are not invested in what we call reconciliation in the future, it will be set up to fail. We cannot let that happen. Mob have a saying in this country: 'Do nothing about us without us.' This is true when we talk about truth-telling. It is time for the institutions of Australia to hear not just with their ears but with their hearts the truth of this nation. It is important for all of us to share in that legacy because this is Australia's history, and as we move forward in the work we do collectively it is important for us to share that as proud Australians. It is important for us to recognise, respect and do better in the way we endeavour to be inclusive. It is bound up within our culture of love and care for each other—the reciprocity that First Peoples have as part of the lore of this land. Here, in the Senate, when we talk about the work we do on behalf of all Australians, it doesn't matter which side of the chamber we sit on; we have that in our vision but also our action. It's important that, when we do this, we remember why we are here. We reflect on that moment of being able to stand in this place every morning for an acknowledgement of country before we start the day. We acknowledge that this land belongs to Indigenous peoples, the First Peoples of this nation. It's about starting how you mean to go on, how you mean to continue, not just through the day or through the weeks or the months in this place but the years. With the turnover of faces we will see in both chambers, we need to have a legacy. And that legacy must be bound in our contribution to and our collaboration for justice. That is what laws in this nation represent. Whether you talk about native title, whether you talk about the NDIS, whether you talk about child care, all these things are about a just response from a system we all enact and we all interact with every day. Some of those outcomes are dire for First Nations people, and it's the reason we have a Closing the Gap agenda. But we can't progress in this nation without truth and without treaty. Housing 31 12:44 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Unless this country cracks down on those flouting the rules on foreign investment in Australian homes and land, we will never get out of this housing crisis. Unless we can see the true picture of its extent, we will not know where to crack down on it. We are getting significantly different pictures on the state of foreign ownership from different authorities. However, it's been established that in the 2022-23 financial year there were 5,360 properties bought by foreign investors. This comprised of 2,640 new dwellings, 1,823 established dwellings and 897 purchases of vacant land. This gives rise to serious concerns about house and land banking locking Australians out of the market. I was informed years ago about foreign investors dumping money in the housing market to avoid paying tax in their own countries. As I said, the figures are different. Apparently, the ATO's figures on foreign owned housing are about half of what the New South Wales figures are, so something is not adding up. I talk about a crackdown because it's evident that the Foreign Investment Review Board and the Australian Taxation Office have not allocated the necessary resources to obtain a clear picture and strictly enforce the rules. Australia's housing and rental crisis shows little to no sign of coming to an end. In March this year, the national rental vacancy rate set a new record low of 0.7 per cent. More than 122,000 Australians are experiencing homelessness on any given night. Homelessness services are overwhelmed by demand. Last year, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reported that more than 273,000 Australians were assisted by homelessness services in 2022-23. Another 108,000 people sought help but couldn't be assisted, because of the shortage of accommodation staff and services. Research from Roy Morgan published last month showed that more than 1.6 million Australian mortgage holders, more than 30 per cent of the total, are at risk of mortgage stress. Many first home buyers have been forced to sell up because they can no longer afford their mortgage payments. A lot of these properties are being snapped up by foreign investors. Chinese investors alone have been buying them at a rate of $9 million a day. Australians can't buy investment properties in China, but Chinese people can buy them in Australia. How is that fair? The proportion of the value of Australian residential real estate owned by foreigners is approaching 10 per cent. These are homes that are being denied to Australian owners. Foreign purchases are contributing significantly to the heat and volatility of the housing market. A lot of foreign investment is by international students, and we've got over 700,000 of those in the country. They are funded by wealthy families back home who are allowed to buy foreign investment homes—established housing—but must sell before they leave the country, which isn't chased up or followed up by the proper authorities. They are only meant to be able to buy established properties. There is quite a lot of evidence out there that the FIRB is not effective in enforcing the rules, and many of these properties remain in foreign hands when they shouldn't. Other countries are also experiencing housing crises, but some of them are effectively addressing them with new bans on foreign ownership. New Zealand has done it. Canada has done it. Here in Australia, the opposition and has announced a temporary two-year ban as a policy. It's always gratifying to see the coalition come to the party on One Nation's policies. It's been our policy to permanently ban foreign ownership of residential properties to increase the supply of housing available to Australians. It's our policy to give foreign investors up to two years to sell these properties to Australian buyers. Common sense will tell you that, if you're going to flood the market with foreign investors—we have a housing supply shortage of 650,000 houses in Australia. That's how short we are. We're allowing foreign investors out here to bid on this housing. That then drives up the price so Australians can't afford it. Why are we allowing this to happen? We have rules in place that any foreign investor must go to FIRB to get approval to buy a house. That's not going to happen. If they want to go to an auction, what are they going to tell FIRB? So they go and buy it. It's not followed up. Put the money into the process and make sure they do the job. The last time I heard, FIRB only had six people working in the office, and you've got this number of housing purchases. It is overwhelmingly underpaid and can't do the job. And the states don't want to see it, because the states are actually making that much more money out of stamp duty to the demise of the Australian people. Shame. Romaniw, Mr Stefan OAM, Early Childhood Education 32 12:49 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania On a Thursday in late June, I woke to the sad news that the co-chair of the Australian Federation of Ukrainian Organisations, Stefan Romaniw OAM, had died. This came as a shock to me, as it did to the broader Australian Ukrainian community. As a member of the Australian Ukrainian community by marriage, and as the former chair, then deputy chair and now current chair of the Australia-Ukraine Parliamentary Friendship Group, I'd known Mr Romaniw for over 15 years. He had been a leading light in the campaign to defend Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and his efforts started long before the tragic events of 24 February 2022. He'd worked hard to garner support for Ukraine from Labor and coalition governments and the Australian community. In 2001, Mr Romaniw's service to language learning and to people of culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds earned him a well-deserved Medal of the Order of Australia. On every occasion I met with Mr Romaniw, he was warm and friendly. He always greeted everyone with a big smile, but when you met him you could be in no doubt that behind that smile and his disarming demeanour was a persistent and tenacious advocate for his country and homeland. I feel privileged to have known Stefan, to have worked with him and to call him a friend. I offer my deepest condolences to the Romaniw family and to all in the Australian Ukrainian community who knew, loved and respected him so much. I extend those condolences to the staff and committee of the Australian Federation of Ukrainian Organisations and its affiliates—in particular, to its co-chair, Kateryna Argyrou—and to the Ambassador of Ukraine, His Excellency Mr Vasyl Myroshnychenko. In the spirit of solidarity with Ukraine, I am sure Mr Romaniw would like me to end this speech with these words: slava Ukraini! The second issue I wish to speak on today is in support of the 15 per cent pay rise for approximately 200,000 early childhood educators. As a former early childhood educator myself—probably the only one in the parliament with hands-on experience—I know that educators have been fighting for decades to be properly paid for the skills, qualifications and professionalism that go into their work. I was one of those in that fight, back in the early 1990s. Those of us who have worked in the sector understand that these workers are more than just childminders, and I've been advocating for decades for early childhood educators to receive pay that recognises their skills, qualifications and professionalism. They do more than just feed children, play with them and wipe their noses or change their nappies. They deliver a structured program of learning that sets children up for life with the social, physical, intellectual and emotional skills and capabilities they need. Being an educator is one of the most important jobs in the country, and they need more than just our thanks. A pay rise for educators is not just good for these workers; it also helps to attract more workers to a sector that is crying out for skilled staff. This means more children will get the quality early learning they need, and more parents, especially women, will have the opportunity to engage in the workforce. So, while this is good for workers, it's also good for children, good for parents and good for Australia's economic productivity. Sadly, while Mr Dutton and those opposite agree, through gritted teeth, that paying high wages for educators is a good thing, at the same time they're trying to paint it as inflationary. The fact is: they have never valued or fought for Australian workers, and they have certainly never valued early childhood education either. Those opposite, in government, described government support for early childhood education as 'a money pit', 'communism' and 'the hand of government reaching in and taking away our children's youth'. That goes a long way towards explaining why, under the previous government, childcare fees went up by 41 per cent. It also explains why early childhood educators were the first workers in Australia to lose JobKeeper support during the COVID pandemic. Last year we made child care cheaper, to help ease the cost of living for families. As I have said, I'm delighted that the Albanese Labor government is funding a 15 per cent pay rise for over 200,000 early childhood educators, because that directly benefits one million Australian families. I cannot thank those working in the early childhood education sector enough for what they do. Their being properly valued and fairly paid is well overdue. Only this morning I had a delegation of United Workers Union early childhood educators come to see me and tell me how thankful they are for the pay rise. But my response to them was: 'We are thankful to you. We are thankful to you for continuing to do the job.' As I said, it's been nearly 40 years since I started on this cause, and it has taken 40 years to get any change. Venezuela: Presidential Election, Queensland: Crime 33 12:54 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Notwithstanding our weak Prime Minister and this woeful Labor government, we do live in the greatest country on earth and we are privileged to have a strong democratic system. However, not everywhere is as privileged. Recently we've seen massive electoral fraud come out of last month's Venezuelan presidential election. As a senator for Queensland I have been contacted by many members of the Venezuelan community who are deeply distressed at the steal of that presidential election. It was clear that the opposition candidate, Edmundo Gonzales, had won the election after having gathered more than 83 per cent of the voting tallies, showing that he'd actually won 67 per cent of the vote; and that the dictator Maduro had won just 30 per cent of the vote, contrary to the 51.21 per cent reported by Maduro and his government. Gonzales and his team anticipated an election steal months before the country went to a vote, and it is the brilliant planning and scrutineering by Gonzales and the opposition activists that has brought this electoral corruption to light for all the world to see. Venezuela was one of the richest countries in the world, due to its oil resources, but under the dictatorship of Nicolas Maduro and his predecessor, Hugo Chavez, Venezuela is now one of the poorest countries in the world, with over nine million Venezuelans living in exile. I stand with my coalition colleagues, domestic and international independent observers and all Australians in sharing concerns at these unsettling findings concerning electoral fraud. The coalition stands with the people of Venezuela, who are peacefully exercising their democratic right to vote, which is fundamental to any liberal democracy. Maduro is a corrupt dictator who has stolen the election while his socialist cronies rob the country. We urge the authorities in Venezuela to publish detailed electoral results for all polling stations, in the interests of transparency and accountability. Madam Acting Deputy President, Queensland under Labor is becoming one giant crime scene. From the cape to the border, everyday Queenslanders are experiencing crime, whether it's 55 cars a day being stolen under Labor or what we saw in just the last few days in Drayton, a community on the Darling Downs just up the road from where I live. Two 15-year-olds and a 17-year-old desecrated over 300 graves. It was an estimated half a million dollars worth of damage. It's going to take the local community and the local council months to fix the damage caused by these vandals. Yet, under Labor, how were these vandals treated? There was no court appearance, there was no community service; there was just a caution, a slap on the wrist with a bit of wet lettuce. This is what is happening in Queensland. Everybody is becoming a victim of crime, whether they are alive or dead, because of the softness of the Labor Party on the perpetrators of criminal acts. It is the policy of the Liberal National Party that if you commit an adult crime you will do adult time. In this instance, the community of Drayton and the community of the Darling Downs would want the book thrown at these three vandals. It is so wrong that, under Labor in Queensland, those who vandalise a site as sacred as a cemetery get only a slap on the wrist. This should send a message to all of us that in 73 days time Queensland has the choice of voting for the Labor Party, who will let the criminals roam free, or voting for the Liberal National Party, who will put them in jail and make sure that the victims are put first, not the criminals. (Time expired) Southern Tasmanian Netball Association Junior Leadership Program 34 12:59 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania When we think about leadership, we often picture someone at the top of an organisation giving orders or making important decisions, but leadership is so much more than that. It's about responsibility and making a positive impact, no matter your position. For young women, leadership starts with self-belief. It's about having the confidence to trust your voice, your ideas and your instincts. In a world that sometimes tries to tell us what we can or cannot do, real leadership is knowing that your perspective matters. It's the courage to stand up for what you believe in, even when it's difficult or unpopular. It's about picking yourself up when you face setbacks and continuing to move forward with determination. Every challenge you overcome makes you stronger and more capable. Leaders learn, adapt and grow. That brings me to a remarkable initiative in my home state of Tasmania, one that nurtures the next generation of leaders, the Southern Tasmanian Netball Association Junior Leadership Program. Established in 1998, this program has seen well over 190 young members graduate, many of whom have gone on to take leadership roles within their clubs and the association itself. Earlier this month, at the STNA centre at Creek Road in New Town, I had the privilege of addressing a group of these young leaders, aged up to 16, who are currently participating in the program. The topic of my talk was 'Women in leadership'. It was inspiring to see the level of engagement and passion these young women brought to the discussion. The Junior Leadership Program equips participants with a diverse set of skills that go well beyond the netball courts. These include coaching, umpiring, health and nutrition, sports injury management, and mental health and wellbeing. The program also covers broader topics such as netball and the media, the importance of culture and, of course, women in leadership. This holistic approach ensures that these young leaders are well prepared for the challenges that they may face in their sporting, working and personal lives. During my presentation, I emphasised the importance of resilience, understanding and collaboration—qualities that are essential for any leader, whether in sports, politics or any other field. I also set a fun, time-limited interactive leadership task designed to help the participants to show their ability to adapt and problem-solve and think about their own leadership style in practice and how they effectively work together. One of the most encouraging aspects of the Junior Leadership Program is its focus on practical experience. Participants are given the opportunity to help organise key events for the Southern Tasmanian Netball Association, including the Zambrero Premier League Grand Final Night and the STNA Winter Roster Grand Finals. These experiences are invaluable, providing young leaders with hands-on experience in event management and team coordination, skills that will serve them well in any future endeavours. I would also like to highlight the program's commitment to celebrating the achievements of its participants. On 30 August these young leaders will gather for the Junior Presentation Night, where they will receive their graduation certificates. This is not just a formality; it is a moment of recognition for their hard work, dedication and growth throughout the program. The Southern Tasmanian Netball Association Junior Leadership Program is a shining example of how sport can be a powerful vehicle for leadership development. It is programs like this that help build the foundation for a stronger, more resilient community. I say to these young women: as you think about your own leadership journey, remember that you don't have to wait to be given a title or a formal role; you can lead in your everyday actions, whether it's supporting a friend, standing up for what's right or striving to make your community a better place. Leadership is within you, and it's about making a difference wherever you are. I'm incredibly proud to support this initiative and look forward to seeing the continued success of these young leaders as they take their next steps in life. Grocery Prices 35 13:04 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I want to begin by putting on the record that I've spent many years arguing with Coles and Woolworths around supply chain challenges, fatigue management, waiting times at distribution centres for our truck drivers, and safe and sustainable rates. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then, and I'm happy to say I've worked closely with both Coles and Woolworths to improve supply chain efficiency and safety. For the record, I was the deputy chair of the recent Senate select committee inquiry into supermarket prices. But it is enormously encouraging to know Australian industry is now at the level of maturity where certain participants in the supply chain accept that they are all responsible for achieving a safe, sustainable and viable road transport industry. One of the ways the government is helping Australians who are battling with the cost of day-to-day living expenses is through the quarterly survey of supermarket prices undertaken by CHOICE, which is funded by the federal government. While the team at Woolworths have pointed out some methodological issues with the CHOICE survey that was released in June, they did provide their own useful comparison, and I want to share it with the Senate. That survey revealed that a basket of comparable goods cost $41.19 at Woolworths in New South Wales and $40.52 at Aldi also in New South Wales. These comparisons are important. They're important to help families get value for money when doing the grocery shopping. They're also important in busting the myth about the input cost that Aldi blames for putting pressure on grocery prices. Don't get me wrong—I have had my differences with Woolworths over the years, as I've said, but they do the right thing by their workers, both in their stores and further back in their supply chain. Just over a year ago, branches of the Transport Workers Union throughout mainland Australia were forced to take protest action outside of Aldi stores after waiting 14 weeks for Aldi to respond to claims served on them by the union relating to safe, fair supply chain principles, and I was proud to join a number of those protests. In fact, rather than sign a charter with the TWU on supply chain accountability, like both Coles and Woolworths did, Aldi decided to take the union and their workers to court to try and silence them—not once but twice. Fortunately, they failed both times. Let's be clear about what Aldi were not prepared to sign up for. They refused to agree to being accountable for safe, fair work throughout their supply chains. They refused to agree to transparency in transport contracts so that no transport worker would fall through the cracks. They wouldn't agree to allowing transport workers to have a collective voice, which would allow transport workers to speak out on pay and safety. They did all this to try and suppress the rights and wages of transport workers, while claiming to save Australian consumers money—a miserable 67c for a basket of 14 goods in the June survey. Those opposite and the Greens political party need to bear this in mind when they promote their populist nonsense about divestiture. If current large supermarket chains are prohibited from buying more stores, that leaves foreign supermarket chains as potential buyers; otherwise, the stores will be forced to close. That's what this lot over there and the Greens want to do. This would have a disastrous impact on local jobs and cause massive inconvenience to local shoppers in communities. Guerillas like Aldi and Walmart compete based on exploiting their hardworking retail and transport workers. When wealthy companies profit off the back of razor-thin margins in the transport industry, it puts lives at risk, with drivers and operators being forced to try and meet unrealistic deadlines and to cut corners in safety to stay in business. For years, Aldi not only ignored truck drivers speaking out on safety but repeatedly took action against them for doing so. For many of our truck drivers, Aldi's treatment was literally a matter of life and death. Many of them were under deadly pressures thanks to Aldi. Fortunately, the passage of the Albanese government's Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 put paid to a lot of Aldi's conduct. The passage of that vital legislation and the publication by Woolworths of their June survey should end the notion that it was the cost of labour that was driving up profits in our supermarkets. The passage of this legislation brings with it greater focus on companies that do the wrong thing. There is now a united bargaining committee in place that includes TWU delegates from transport, SDA delegates from warehouse and retail, and TWU and SDA officials representing the entire workforce to negotiate with Aldi. This unprecedented team marks a big step forward in achieving crucial changes at Aldi, and I welcome and look forward to the feedback. Multiculturalism 36 13:09 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria Multiracial—yes, no problem. Multiculture—heck, no. Multiculturalism does not work. It does not work. It is a failed experiment that has only served to dilute what is great about Western culture and to fracture social cohesion. To say this is not to attack migrants; I myself am a migrant. But my family did not migrate to Australia in order to reproduce a foreign culture, as multiculturalism encourages migrants to do. My parents came to Australia because the culture was already closely aligned with the culture of my country of birth. We recognised the uniqueness of the shared cultures, and we knew they would provide us with the freedoms and the opportunities which are not afforded elsewhere. I believe that the Australian culture is superior to all others, obviously. I love Australia. But, sadly, not all migrants share this view. The West made a grave mistake when it embraced moral relativism, which, as a natural consequence, led to cultural relativism. By rejecting objective truth, we lost any basis for observing that some cultures are more preferable to other cultures. Rather than taking pride in our culture, we assured migrants that they could live in Australia without adopting our culture. Far from being enlightened and progressive, this is a grave mistake that destroys our social cohesion and fractures our nation. Rather than being a multiracial society sharing the wonderful culture of freedom, prosperity et cetera, we have become a multicultural society that cannot even agree on a flag, let alone the core values. We now have migrants arrive on our shores who not only do not share our values but in some cases actively oppose those values. All of this can be traced back to the Whitlam Labor government, which adopted multiculturalism as official policy. They accepted people from cultures at odds with ours, and they promised that they would be free to persist with their counterculture once they got here. The eventual result, which is obvious by now, was that parallel societies began to form and, worse, that certain groups began to show contempt for Australian culture and values while demanding respect for their own. Progressives will no doubt label me a xenophobe or maybe even worse, but open your eyes. See what is happening all around Australia, in our suburbs, in our cities—and not just here. See what's happening all across Europe as well. All cultures are not the same. That's a fact. They're not the same. Western culture has been uniquely prosperous, and it is not by accident. The truth that progressives cannot admit is that the West has been built on a Christian foundation. The sooner we insist those coming to Australia are aligned with our values and embrace our culture, the sooner we will have social harmony. The prophet Amos once asked, 'How can two walk together unless they are agreed?' It was obviously a rhetorical question; they cannot. Right now we're a nation pulling in many different directions, and if this continues we'll be torn apart. The sooner we admit to the folly of multiculturalism and insist that those joining us align with our values, the sooner we'll get back to being the lucky country that made us so appealing in first place. Far-left Marxists have infected our institutions and halls of power with their mission to destroy our nation. These people, with their hatred disguised as tolerance and their evil intentions masquerading as social justice, loathe Western civilisation, our traditions, our history and our Christian foundations. These Marxists are intent on undermining family and culture, and multiculturalism has been one of their preferred and most effective weapons. If we really care about Australia, we will do all we can to preserve our culture and to boldly assert once again that Australia is a great place to live. If you are fortunate enough to live here, then you are responsible for embracing and promoting the Australian way of life. If you cannot do that, then perhaps Australia is not the place for you. Pack your bags and leave. Workplace Relations: BHP 36 13:14 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Madam Acting Deputy President Smith, you and I have both been in the Senate now for almost five years. Actually, I think we might have reached our five-year milestone a few days ago. And, for the last five years in this place, you will have heard me on many occasions talk about the issue of BHP and its in-house labour hire provider Operations Services. I have been, as Senator Sterle might say, banging on about this for five years now, because for five years I have been calling out the dodgy practices and relentless attacks on workers by BHP through their Operations Services, and I am here today—no surprises—to do the same thing again. I am banging on about BHP and Operations Services because, again, they are attacking workers. That is because, despite the passage of the government's same job, same pay legislation, and despite the fact that workers at BHP's mine in Queensland were awarded the pay they deserve under these laws, BHP and Operations Services are once again fighting tooth and nail to stop their workers from receiving fair compensation. Now, we on this side believe in a simple, fair rule: if you work the same job, you should get the same pay. Yet at BHP, Australia's largest and most profitable mining company, they seem to think that they are above this law—and it is now law in this country. They have consistently exploited loopholes to underpay workers, relying on dodgy labour hire arrangements to cut costs at the expense of hardworking regional Queenslanders. This isn't just a question of dollars and cents. It's about dignity and respect and fairness for those workers. BHP's strategy of creating its own labour hire firm, naming it Operations Services, and using a couple of workers in Western Australia to sign up to an EBA with Operations Services that would then apply to thousands of workers in regional Queensland was a blatant abuse of power, and it really is high time that we call it out for what it is, plain and simple. For years, BHP have used Operations Services to create a second-class workforce within its own operations, and they did this—by having a couple of workers in another state sign up to this EBA—because they could because they had a government and laws under the coalition that let them do that. Well, that's not what they have anymore. Now they have a federal government who is committed to making sure that people who work the same job get the same pay. Those workers have the same uniforms, perform the same tasks and have the same hours as their direct employee counterparts, yet they receive tens of thousands of dollars each year. Now, when a case like this goes to court, many people will understand that there's an opportunity for these decisions to be appealed. They even go to the High Court sometimes. This case is going to go to the High Court, and what we've decided to do as a government is to intervene in the case. We are intervening in this case—in this same job, same pay case—because we want to support the workers. We are intervening on the side of the workers, against BHP, because we support same job, same pay. There have been many cases across the years similar to this case that have gone all the way through to the High Court. Who can forget WorkPac Pty Ltd v Skene [2018] FCAFC 131, the labour hire case that went all the way to the High Court? Of course, it was up to the government at the time to also intervene in that case. And what did the coalition do? They intervened in the case and took it all the way to the High Court, but they intervened on the side of the employers. They intervened against the workers. They intervened to stop same job, same pay being law in this country. That is the difference that workers in regional Queensland have under this government, a government that is willing to intervene on their behalf to protect same job, same pay. I'm here today, again, five years later, calling out Operations Services and BHP for this dodgy behaviour. But I'm so proud that finally workers have a government that is on their side and literally standing next to them, shoulder to shoulder, in the High Court to protect them. Early Childhood Education 37 13:19 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania It's great that the government recognises the vital importance of early childhood education. Early learning matters; it sets up kids with skills for life. Early childcare education isn't a childminding service. It's an incredible way to get children learning and active and becoming extraordinary human beings. Like Whitney Houston sang, I too believe the children are our future. But, Houston, we have a problem. Let me tell you about Natalie and Tanya. They are two mums on the north-west coast of Tassie who need family day care services and could not find any. They understood the unmet need and started businesses to provide for their children and the community. They are amazing and really good at what they do. The local community benefits, the economy grows and the kids are better off. Both sites are run by amazing women who are fully qualified, early childhood educators. Both sites are in an environment that is completely safe for kids and overwhelmingly supported by the community. These two sites cater for 50 children aged between four months and 12 years from nearly 90 families. Natalie has a waiting list of 287 children and Tanya has so many that she gave up. She closed the waiting list. She didn't want to disappoint anyone. They are so good, you'd think they would be marked for expansion. But you'd be wrong. The government wants to shut them down, because the Tasmanian Education and Care Unit's rules insist on one centre per property only. If two centres share a property, whether it's to keep their rent costs down or to be more efficient in how they provide services, they are breaking the rules and have to close. In theory, the rule exists to protect children. Both Natalie and Tanya have set up their sites to run two fully independent centres. The rules state that the sites must be split into two separate legal properties or close one of the centres. But it just can't be done like that. What about cutting their intake in half and complying with the regulations that way? Natalie is adamant that cutting the service in two means that the whole facility is not viable. I spoke to the parents sending their kids in these centres, who brought home what this government enforced closure would mean for the region. One of them told me that if Tanya's centre closed, she would have no choice but to quit her job—a job that puts food on the table and eases the daily struggles. Another told me about the huge surrender to allow somebody to look after their child, and they chose Natalie because of the amazing standard of care she offers. Even if Natalie and Tanya could go back to running just one centre on the sites that they have, which families do they cut? How do they let go half the children in their care knowing they don't have any other options? There are no other options. The waitlists for these centres are incredible. Staff shortages are commonplace. It's the same everywhere—not just in Tassie but across the country. The official waitlist for child care in this country is unpublished. Doing my sums and talking to local Tasmanian providers, there are at least three children to every vacancy that needs to be filled. Kids are missing out on vital early childhood education. Child care is education. It's not a babysitting service, and, while the children are being educated, the parents can go out and earn. It is a win for the kids, the parents, the economy and the future generations of Australians. Yet, in my state, they want to close down these places. There used to be six providers of family day care like Natalie and Tanya's centres. Now there are just the two of them. Others were forced to close rather than run the risk of falling foul of regulation. These rules are made by faceless bureaucrats and sanctioned by ministers, and they can be fixed by ministers. Regulators can only impose the regulations they agree with. If the minister's regulations are dumb, that's just the way it goes. If we don't do something, there will be none left. The federal government has called for innovative models of child care. These are just two examples waiting to be rolled out to rural and remote areas. It's a model where Tasmania has and can continue to show how innovative and entrepreneurial services can work. This means more kids in excellent, beautiful, nurturing environments. I'm asking for the state government to look at the model shown by Natalie and Tanya and encourage more dual educator sites. I'm asking the federal government to recognise this innovative Tasmanian model and not penalise Tasmanians for innovative local solutions. But, most of all, I'm asking to keep Natalie and Tanya's centres going so they can provide a great start for the children and keep the adults in work. Electric Vehicles 38 13:24 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria Electric vehicles equipped with vehicle-to-grid technology represent a revolution in energy management, but we find ourselves held hostage by outdated regulations and an overly cautious approach from the Australian Energy Market Operator, AEMO. The question we must ask ourselves is this: Australians have committed to achieving net zero, but are we allowing old paradigms to hold us back? To reach this goal we must expand our use of renewable energy while simultaneously shoring up the grid's stability. Both of those things aren't always mutually possible. The Realising Electric Vehicle-to-grid Services project, a trial run by Dr Bjorn Sturmberg of the Australian National University in Canberra, stands as a model of what's possible—a glimpse into the future where EVs with vehicle-to-grid, V2G, technology strengthen a resilient and flexible energy grid. During the REVS trial, a fleet of just 16 cars responded to a transmission line failure signal by discharging a small portion of their batteries into the grid within seconds. Now imagine if this weren't just a small trial but the norm across Australia. The potential is simply enormous. The Electric Vehicle Council predicts 1.5 million EVs will be on Australian roads by 2030, and at least 250,000 of these will be vehicle-to-grid enabled. When you extrapolate the fact that, on average, EVs have a battery capacity of approximately 45 kilowatt hours, and the average household uses around 20 kilowatt hours a day, this means every V2G enabled EV has the power to power two household for a whole day or one household for two days—a scenario that would never be called on but is there. The case for every vehicle in Australia to be certified as V2G enabled just gets stronger. So why would Australians buy a wall battery when an EV is just a battery on wheels? However, we need rules and regulations relevant to our green future. AEMO, the grid operator, is addicted to investing hundreds of billions of dollars in transmission lines, which doesn't address the real issue. The issue is shifting a surplus of power from the middle of the day to later in the day, when it's needed most. More transmission won't do that. The problem isn't the quantity of energy produced but the timing of it. Building more transmission infrastructure doesn't solve this issue; it just increases the costs for energy users. The technology for V2G integration has proven itself, which has allowed EVs to both power up and discharge back into the grid. They do more than just move us around from place to place. They can power our homes, support our grid and balance our energy needs. While we wait for standards and codes to be released, this potential remains largely untapped. Imagine a future where vehicles could provide the energy needed for frequency control services, stabilising our grid during critical moments. This is not a fantasy. The REVS trial showed that this is a tangible reality. The vacuum of indecision caused by AEMO's overly cautious approach threatens to let this opportunity slip away. Australians are not waiting. Over 50,000 EVs were sold in the first half of this year alone, an increase of 16.5 per cent from the previous year. This tells me that consumers are ready and the technology is ready, but our regulations are not. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 We will now proceed to two-minute statements. Western Australia 39 13:29 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia On his most recent trip to Western Australia, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese kept highlighting how many times he's been to WA, my home state. He said: 'You need to be here in Western Australia. People who are living in the Sydney-Melbourne-Canberra triangle don't get WA.' If there's one thing I do agree with the Prime Minister on, it is that point. Could it be true? Could the Prime Minister finally be taking Western Australia seriously and not just using us for our votes? On the one hand, the Prime Minister emphasises the importance of being on the ground and hearing the concerns of Western Australian locals, yet on the other hand he has turned his back on WA farmers by ending live sheep exports. And now the Prime Minister has announced he will be returning to Western Australia with his cabinet 'to really listen'. He is returning with a cabinet that only has one minister from Western Australia—WA's lowest representation in 50 years. The Prime Minister wants to bring over his east-coast-heavy cabinet to do more listening. It seems the only thing this government does is listen and then do the exact opposite of what Western Australians are actually asking for. Under the previous Liberal government, not only did we listen but we actually did something. Western Australia got a fair cut of the GST and we had the highest WA cabinet representation since 1908. The coalition gets Western Australia and we have a strong record of that. Western Australians will push back on this government with their vote at the next election, have no doubt about it. Workplace Relations 39 13:31 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania A couple of weeks ago I attended a family day in Burnie to support Saputo Burnie maintenance workers. Twenty-four members of the AMWU and CEPU are currently on strike, seeking pay parity with their colleagues at the Victorian sites of the company. These workers have now been on strike for more than six weeks, seeking a 23.5 per cent parity wage claim with their Victorian colleagues that has been denied by the company. Two years ago Saputo took control of the Kiewa site in Victoria from a joint agreement with Murray Goulburn. Overnight of owning that site totally, they increased the wages of those employees by 25 per cent as what they said was that 'it was only fair'. Yet that policy doesn't apply to Burnie, a more technical factory and a higher skilled workforce. Saputo refused to accept that difference and have instead offered a single-figure pay increase. Both the skill level of the maintenance crew at Burnie and the technical requirements of the site are in fact greater than the Victorian site. The age-old argument that it's cheaper to live in Tasmania is long gone. Last week the workers took their plight to the Tasmanian parliament to send a message to Saputo in the form of a motion, which was fully supported by all sides of parliament, to recognise the skills of their team in Burnie and pay what they pay their Victorian workers. If the wages costs were an issue, then the higher wages in Victoria would have closed those sites long ago. In fact, the Saputo business model is well-proven and supports those higher wage costs very profitably. When I had a look at Saputo's website, it talked about their values. It says: The values of Saputo Inc. are at the heart of the Company's corporate culture. Through our growth, we remain committed to these values as they have contributed to our success. They go on to say: Trust, respect, competence and loyalty of our employees have enabled us to become a recognized global dairy processor. In addition, entrepreneurship is at the root of employee relationships, both internally and with our business partners— (Time expired) Middle East 39 13:33 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales It's been 10 months of Israel's genocide in Gaza. It's been 10 months of unimaginable savagery—of slaughtered children, of families burning in tents, of body parts blown to bits and shoved into plastic bags—live streamed on our phones. Enough of your empty words on Gaza, Labor. This genocide is the greatest shame of our time and Israel has been allowed to slaughter Palestinians day after day after day after day. And allowed by whom? United States? The so-called chief ally of Australia—or maybe more aptly the 'puppet master'—that continues to send 2,000-pound bombs to Israel to drop on tents while paying lip-service to a ceasefire and allowed by this Labor government, which refuses to sanction Israel. Instead, Labor lets Israel run riot, violating international laws, bombing nations across the Middle East. Labor loves to talk about commitment to rules-based international order and humanitarian law. Well where is this commitment when it comes Israel? Where is the condemnation when they bomb Beirut or strike Iran? Why don't the rules apply to Israel? I really have had it up to here with the rubbish and false accusations about the Greens so Labor can cover up their inaction on Israel's genocide in Gaza while smearing those who are speaking up for justice for Palestine. Hiding behind so-called social cohesion to attack and silence anti-genocide protesters is just plain disgraceful. The slaughter could end today if the US and Australia really wanted it to end. They have the power to cut off Israel's support and yet they refuse. So we will never forget and we will never forgive. Raise Our Voice in Parliament 40 13:35 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales The Raise Our Voice in Parliament campaign is a program designed to enable young people from across Australia to have speeches they have prepared read in this building. Young people are encouraged to talk about a single issue they have identified in the community, why it is important and what they would like to see done in the future. This speech was prepared by Oliver Westman. Oliver is a current student at CSU in Port Macquarie, and he is studying a Bachelor of Education. He is originally from the seat of Page on the North Coast. The following are his words: I am privileged to be literate, educated and informed. But I understand this is an immense privilege. I grew up in Grafton on the North Coast of Australia and witnessed disadvantage in areas of life we do not consider as a society. Following my recent attendance of the National Leadership Forum, I saw a significant gap in our parliament. Legislation, information and other formal documents released by our parliament are extraordinarily long, full of complicated jargon and therefore, fail to be accessible to disadvantaged, underprivileged and uneducated people in our communities. Now, I understand parliamentary documents are required to be this way to avoid loopholes and misinterpretation from occurring. I'm not suggesting we fundamentally change this. However, I do suggest we introduce equivalent summary documents that factually and impartially outline the intention and contents of these documents. Half a page, in plain English, translated for all Australians. I know people would be more engaged with our country's affairs if they had the access and ease to do so. I, alongside my colleagues, intend to create a database where parliamentary documents are summarised, simply. A small change for a big percentage. Thank you, Oliver. Landcare Week 40 13:37 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria We've all heard the name 'Landcare'. Over the last 35 years, Landcare groups have done an enormous job in protecting and enhancing our environment. As co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Landcare, I've had the pleasure of engaging with many volunteers across Australia and have seen the positive environmental and agricultural impacts these groups have. From collecting rubbish and planting trees to caring for rivers and supporting the habitat of threatened species, volunteers are actively caring for their local communities every single day. Landcare originated in Victoria in 1986, through the initiative of former Premier the late Joan Kirner and the late Heather Mitchell, the first female president of the Victorian Farmers Federation. Three years later, Landcare was established nationally by Bob Hawke, the former Prime Minister, and his government, who were staunch supporters of the movement. This friendship continues today in this building. Landcare supports over 6,000 groups and more than 140,000 volunteers, all playing their part in sustainable agricultural practices and conservation, with farmers and activists, environmentalists, all working together. In celebration of Landcare Week, Landcare Australia unveiled a new $300,000 community grants initiative. This program is open to all Landcare and community groups across Australia, to deliver projects that will address priority issues such as restoring wildlife habitat and purchasing plants and equipment. I encourage all groups to apply before the 30 September deadline. Let's all celebrate the work Landcare does across Australia and let's thank every single volunteer that is involved. Regardless of where you live, find your local group and join the movement. Current and future generations will be better off, and Mother Nature will certainly thank us in return. Albanese Government 40 13:39 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland For years now, I have been trying to introduce legislation into this parliament that I think is very important to the Australian people. In light of what happened with the Voice, when 60 per cent of Australians threw it out—they didn't want the Voice to Parliament—I introduced a native title bill. That was to see where native title has had a benefit to the Aboriginal people and their prosperity, to see if we have had outcomes from it. But no. That was voted down. I've also tried to bring in legislation about puberty blockers, and, of course, I raised gender mutilating surgery. We need an inquiry into that. And, just today, I brought up the COVID mandates to try stop that, because Australians don't want to be forced to have mandates, and to give parents rights over their children as to whether they have this vaccine or not. But here we have the worst government that I have ever seen, and I was first elected to parliament in 1996. They're not talking and debating, not talking about the issues—what's important to the Australian people. All I get thrown back at me is: 'You're racist', 'conspiracy', 'stunt' or even 'fearmongering'. That really goes down to what the government are. There was no consultation; there was nothing whatsoever. This government is also the one in which nearly 100 bills have been guillotined with support from Senator David Pocock, Jacqui Lambie, Lidia Thorpe and a couple of the other crossbenchers. They actually do support guillotining bills that are important to the Australian people. You are so gutless. You're pusillanimous grubs that you cannot actually just debate the issue on behalf of the Australian people, so that we can have the debate and find answers to it. If that's your answer—that every time I put up something that's in line with what the Australian people want it's a stunt—that tells me you're pathetic at your job and you shouldn't be holding your position as the government of this country. You have no regard for the Australian people. (Time expired) Domestic and Family Violence 41 13:41 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia Family violence, we know, is more prevalent in regional, rural and remote Australia, but it's a problem everywhere and in all communities. In regions like Coffs Harbour family violence has risen 70 per cent, and yet the Albanese government ended a grant to a local family violence service. We'll be seeking answers as to how many other family violence services you have ended funding for and why. The Albanese government promised 500 frontline workers, but its delivery has fallen woefully short. The Labor guarantee was 352 frontline workers on the ground by the end of June, and they've delivered only 156. The Prime Minister said, in November 2022, he was taking immediate action. That simply isn't true. Family violence has risen nearly 17 per cent in Western Australia and 15 per cent in my home state of South Australia. Tasmania has seen double-digit rises, as has the ACT, with Queensland not far behind. The Albanese government's long-awaited cashless debit card report confirms impacts were mostly negative. Many of the areas known to fuel family violence are going in the wrong direction. It confirms what locals already knew: alcohol consumption was up, public intoxication was up and alcohol related violence and gambling were up. A comparison of the draft and the published report shows a distortion of the local voices—so much for transparency. On accountability, the latest Closing the gap report has no family violence data. It's missing data on alcohol consumption increase, gambling spend and increases in emergency department presentations. That would be no data on which to know what to do or where to do it. Family violence is an issue for all Australians, and the evidence should not be misrepresented for any reason, particularly for political purposes. You've failed on all of those things. Your doctoring of the voices of people in the CDC report is disgraceful and dangerous. (Time expired) Live Animal Exports 41 13:43 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia During the winter break, I embarked on a journey of over 7,500 kilometres, visiting 12 regional towns and communities where Western Australians told me that the government's live sheep export phase-out package does not go far enough. Let me tell you about Judith, a generational sheep farmer near the small town of Pumphreys Bridge, 164 kilometres south-east of Perth. I visited her farm, and do you know what she said to me about this transition package? She told me, 'Transition to what?' She can't just start farming cattle; it will cost her $2 million to upgrade the fencing alone. She can't just sell to the abattoirs; they're turning sheep away because they're at capacity. She can't just grow crops; her farm fields are perfect for grazing, not for crop harvesting. The impact doesn't stop at the farm gates. It cascades down to the shearers, truck drivers, crutchers, earmarkers and small businesses. These people rely on the farming communities for their survival. Max from the town of Esperance told me the four-year phase-out should be at least eight years, if not 10, as the inquiry recommended. I heard the same thing in Katanning from Mayor D'Aprile and local farmers like Ian and Justin. They said that the $107 million package is nowhere near enough and that $300 million would be a more realistic figure to help communities transition to new forms of farming and vocational training. To put this into perspective, the wise men and women of the east might understand sheep farming is to Katanning what coalmining is to the Hunter Valley; it is the lifeblood of these communities. There are valid arguments both for and against live exports, but my primary objective now is achieving a fair outcome for WA farmers. I implore the Minister for Agriculture to join me in visiting WA sheep farmers and listening to the voices from the ground. (Time expired) Employment 41 13:45 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the new minister for employment, Senator Watt. If the minister is looking for some savings, I have some ideas on where he could start. Every year this government turns over millions and millions of dollars in public funding to a plethora of private job providers who have a track record of nothing but failure. These private providers are a disaster by every metric, except for profiteering off the pain and suffering of income support recipients. But time and time again, this government has let those providers off the hook. They are off the hook for hounding people for their payslips, they're off the hook for pushing people into pointless time-wasting training sessions, and they're off the hook for abusing and threatening the people that this government forces into their control. But does the government let income support recipients off the hook? Of course not. Private providers can fail upwards time and time and time again, and they never face a consequence, but one missed phone call and this government will kick someone receiving JobSeeker out onto the streets. It's disgraceful. Mutual obligation is a failed system. It is deployed by a failed private sector that still receives millions and millions of dollars of public money every year, so I implore the new minister to be decisive, to stand up to this shameful industry and to abolish mutual obligations once and for all. Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2022 42 13:47 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria Nobody is more vulnerable than a newborn baby yet, in a nation that prides itself on championing a fair go for all, not all newborns are equal. An infant who survives an abortion is a genuine miracle. But instead of being nurtured, doctors and nurses in many states are not required to render care. How inhumane is that? On the lawns of parliament today, there was a powerful display of baby booties that have been lovingly knitted and placed in honour of the thousands of Australian babies born alive after an abortion but left to die. Yes, that does happen. Babies survive their own abortions and are left to die in Australia. I visited the display to talk with supporters and was obviously moved by the sea of booties. It was sobering to think about the babies that they represented. Between 2010 and 2020, 4,929 babies were killed—killed—through late-term abortion in Victoria and Queensland, and some of them were even killed at full term. In Queensland alone, 132 babies survived their own abortions over the last three years but were left to die without any legal right to care because Queensland guidelines explicitly say 'do not give life-sustaining treatment'. These babies are Australians that we will never meet, who will never get to contribute, who were brutally killed in utero because we said they have no human rights. I hope and I pray that the born alive bill, which I co-sponsored with senators Canavan and Antic, will return to the chamber sometime soon, and I urge my fellow senators to support its passage—one can only hope. Let's make Australia a country where every child is given a fair go and let's make Australia a country where we are not okay as a culture with killing our babies. A culture that is okay with this is a culture that is destined to fail; it is a culture on the precipice of coming to an end. Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union 42 13:49 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia In the shadow of the corruption and thuggery that has now been revealed in the CFMEU and in the shadow of the inherent weakness on display in this Labor government in the last two years as it kowtows to its paymasters—and by 'its paymasters', obviously I don't mean the taxpayers of Australia; I mean the union movement—I think it's worthwhile reminding everybody of the elephant in the room about the union movement, which is just how few Australian workers they actually represent. Under 10 per cent of the private sector workforce are members of a union. On the latest figures, it's down to about eight per cent of the private sector workforce and, if you take out some heavily unionised industries, particularly white-collar industries, and go to the blue-collar part of our workforce, closer to five or six per cent of our private sector workforce actually believe that the union movement supports them. And the union movement doesn't. We've seen that revealed in the last few weeks in terms of the corruption and thuggery inherent in the CFMEU, and we'll see it if we just cast our minds back in history and consider the inefficiency which the union drove into the mining sector of Western Australia and which took very protracted disputes to actually clean up, such as the Robe River dispute where, in the final wash-up, it was revealed that two in three jobs were actually not needed. Two in three jobs were basically paying the unions— (Time expired) Volunteers 42 13:51 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania Last week I went with my partner Tim—good old Tim!—to the Launceston Salvation Army and volunteered to do breakfast. I flipped eggs and bacon until 150-odd sandwiches were made, and Timmy served coffee out the front. Breakfast at a cafe is something we all do, and the Salvos give those who are in need in Lonnie and in other towns a cafe that they can walk into and feel accepted. Without the help of volunteers, volunteer organisations and small business support, the homeless and those in immediate need will lose access to the important help that these services provide. Despite one-quarter of Aussies volunteering in Tassie, volunteering is still in decline. This is not just a Tassie issue; it's Australia wide. Volunteers are important. Volunteering is valuable. Without the Salvos serving a regular breakfast, there will be people on the street starving. My family has a long history of doing what they can when they can. We used to go to cemeteries and do clean-ups. We used to take care of the graves and have afternoon tea there while we were at it. We'd also volunteer through other church activities and Parents and Friends and other organisations through the school. I'm passionate about my community in Tassie, but I want you all to be passionate about your patches as well. Without volunteers, community events may close. Connections to community are lost and valuable ties fade into the past. An example of this is Evandale in Tassie. The annual penny-farthing championship is in jeopardy because there are no volunteers to help run it. That would be an shame. The championship is a volunteer-run and volunteer-led event. It has operated for over 40 years, and the volunteers just aren't there anymore. National events and local events are at risk and, more importantly, community connection is at risk. Find your niche. Find your place. Find your passion. But go out and volunteer today. It's important. Treasury Laws Amendment (Build to Rent) Bill 2024 43

Treasury Laws Amendment (Build to Rent) Bill 2024

13:53 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I rise to speak about housing and specifically about the government's build-to-rent bill and a really constructive joint proposal from the Community Housing Industry Association, National Shelter and the Property Council of Australia to improve the bill. As it currently stands, their concern is that the Treasury Laws Amendment (Build to Rent) Bill 2024 will not significantly increase the supply of homes that we so desperately need. Their proposal to lower their MIT withholding rate to 10 per cent, with some strong conditions attached, would deliver 105,000 new rental homes, including 10,500 affordable homes managed by community housing providers and at a minimal cost to the government of $9.3 million over a 10-year period in forgone tax. Given that the government is facing a shortfall of some 300,000 homes in its target of 1.2 million over five years under the Housing Accord, this additional supply would be very welcome. And that's not even looking at the shortage of more than 650,000 social housing properties across the country. This proposal will help put downward pressure on the skyrocketing rental costs we have seen across Australia. It could immediately unlock 1,200 additional affordable rentals. This is critical at a time that we are seeing NRAS properties leave the system. Really importantly, it could also deliver better conditions for renters. This is taxpayer money with conditions attached to it: the certainty of five-year leases for these rentals and the protection of no-cause evictions. I know the Greens don't love this build-to-rent policy, but when you've got community housing providers coming together with residential property developers to propose something workable, something constructive, I think it's worth considering, and I would urge my colleagues in here to take a serious look at it and whether or not it's worth supporting. (Time expired) Education Standards 43 13:55 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria Young Australians deserve the very best education to reach their best potential. Today's disastrous NAPLAN results show there is a national crisis in Australian schools, compounded by Labor's failure to deliver the evidence-based teaching reforms which every child and their family deserve. One in three students are failing NAPLAN, just as they did last year. Thirty-one per cent of all students in years 3, 5, 7 and 9 can't read properly; 30 per cent are not meeting proficiency standards in writing and spelling; nearly 40 per cent do not understand the correct use of grammar; and some 32 per cent are failing maths. Given the average year 10 student is a year behind in their learning compared with 20 years ago, the decline is serious, and these reforms are critical for every Australian classroom. Delivering a back-to-basics education sharply focused on literacy and numeracy underpinned by explicit teaching and a knowledge-rich commonsense curriculum is critical to raising school standards. We know explicit instruction, the teaching of phonics and other proven teaching methods work. To deliver anything less is, frankly, negligence. Getting back to basics also means ridding the classroom of indoctrination and other activist causes. Our nation's hardworking teachers and other educators deserve much greater support, like evidence-based teaching resources such as lesson plans so they can excel in the classroom and save hours of work each week. The Albanese government has failed to deliver the national school reforms it promised, and Australian children and their families are paying the price. Rather than putting students first, education minister Mr Clare has become embroiled in a school funding war, a mess of Labor's own making. I also condemn the Australian Education Union, which recklessly and irresponsibly opposes evidence-based teaching reforms. It is time Mr Clare did his job and delivered these reforms that every child deserves. (Time expired) Workplace Relations: Qantas 44 13:57 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Last week I joined Qantas workers around Australia in cheering the new Qantas chair's decision to revoke nearly $10 million of Alan Joyce's final bonus. I can hear the cheers around the chamber. However, it's almost a year since the High Court ruled that Qantas illegally sacked 1,700 people, and Qantas has still not reached a settlement. It makes you wonder if the criminal culture at Qantas is changing quickly enough. The Transport Workers Union has also announced it's lodging a same job, same pay application for Jetstar cabin crew. Thousands of Jetstar cabin crew were underpaid by more than $10,000 per year because of Alan Joyce's labour hire loophole. Thanks to the closing loopholes bill that the Albanese Labor government passed earlier this year, the union has applied to end that rort. At the hearing on the bill, we heard from Sarah de Wilt, a Qantas flight attendant who didn't realise she was employed by a labour hire company rather than Qantas until four months after she started flying. She said: You are cleaning up the vomit on the floor alongside somebody else. You were doing 19-hour duty and keeping your eyes open and keeping each other awake the same as everyone else, wearing the exact same uniform, recognised in public, walking through the airport and then just to accidentally find out. But let's not forget that the Liberals and Nationals voted against closing the loopholes. They came in here and did Alan Joyce's bidding, and they voted to keep the loophole open—the loophole that sees thousands of Qantas and Jetstar workers ripped off every single day. Worse still, they've vowed to bring it back. Over on this side, the Labor government is behind Qantas and Jetstar workers being paid fairly every step of the way. All the power to you. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 We'll now move to question time. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 44 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Cost of Living 44 14:00 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Last week the Prime Minister posted a photo on social media imitating the iconic So Fresh music CD series with the title 'So helpful cost of living relief', accompanied by the words, 'New album just dropped.' In place of the top songs on the album cover, there were government policies, and, instead of artist pictures, there were picture bubbles featuring the faces of smiling Australians. Thankfully, the platform's automated fact-checking system now displays the warning to point out that many of these policies cited do not actually come into effect fully until much later. Minister, is the Prime Minister's post deliberately misleading Australians, and is this 'so helpful' claim completely tone deaf to those doing it so tough? 14:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator Cadell, I would remind you that there is one side of this parliament who has been very focused on delivering to Australians who are struggling with the cost of living—that is, the Australian Labor Party. It is the Labor government. There has been one side of the parliament who has been focused on obstructing benefits to Australians to try to handle the cost of living—that is, the coalition. That is the reality. When we have brought in measures to try and help Australians with the cost of living, which is hitting Australian families and Australian pensioners—we understand that—we have been met with opposition from those opposite time and again. If there were one area where you would really want to see that, of course, it would be in the area of wages. Those opposite had a deliberate design policy of low wages for 10 years, and, not only that, they voted no fewer than 48 times against new industrial relations laws, claiming that those laws would return Australia to the Dark Ages—I wonder who said that!—that they would close down the economy, that they would leave supermarket shelves bare, because people might have gotten a pay increase. Do you remember that? And they claimed that any increase in the minimum wage would wreck the economy. Senator Cadell, you're a decent man. I'd say to you: maybe you can explain to your colleagues why decent wages are an important part of ensuring Australians can deal with the increased cost of living, and perhaps you should talk to some of your frontbench colleagues who come from this scorched-earth mentality that says that those workers should just make sure their wages stay low because that way the economy works better. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cadell, first supplementary? 14:02 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales We've heard all week about the devastating effects of the current cost-of-living crisis for all Australians. A survey conducted by the Council of Australian Life Insurers found that two-thirds of Australians are concerned that cost-of-living pressures will affect their ability to pay for cover and almost a quarter are considering cancelling their policies because of the cost-of-living pressures. Does the Prime Minister really believe that Australians honestly view the government's efforts to address the cost of living as 'so helpful' and that it should be treated as a joke? 14:03 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia What the Prime Minister believes is that the government should ensure that wages are moving again, and, after a decade under you, they are. What the Prime Minister is focused on is delivering the tax cuts which delivered a tax cut to every Australian. What the Prime Minister and his colleagues have been focused on is how we lower the cost of child care. What our government has been focused on is the ways in which we can assist Australians with the rising cost of living. The difference between those of us on this side and those of us on that side is twofold. First, you opposed so many of the measures which have delivered and are delivering some contribution to cost-of-living pressures for Australians—for example, energy. But, on top of that, you have your senior financial spokespeople talking about the $300 billion-plus 'Labor spending', as they call it— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cadell, second supplementary? 14:04 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales Minister, this isn't the first example of your government misreading the mood on cost-of-living issues and attempting to mislead the public. Isn't the government's excessive boasting, along with its wilful misinterpretation of Reserve Bank statements, all an attempt to be so helpful to Labor's vote rather than to help struggling Australians? 14:05 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia We are very aware of how hard Australians are finding meeting the cost of living; of course we understand that. We are out there in the community. We understand how hard this is for so many people. But you actually do something about that by putting in place policies which seek to increase wages, by delivering more tax cuts to more Australians, by delivering energy price relief, by delivering cheaper medicines and by delivering cheaper child care. None of these are things you would do. So you come in here and cry crocodile tears about the cost of living. You say how dreadful the cost of living is, but your policies would be to oppose the measures we are putting in place to assist people and to cut government spending and cut increases to wages and pensions. (Time expired) Future Made in Australia 45 14:06 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Science, Minister Farrell. I refer to the Albanese Labor government's commitment to deliver a future made in Australia that delivers secure, well-paid jobs in regions and outer suburbs across the country. What has the Albanese government already done to start this important work? 14:06 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Smith for that question. Senator Watt 245759 A fine senator! Senator FARRELL I0N A very fine senator from South Australia who is doing a wonderful job for the people of South Australia. Thank you for a question, finally, this week! The Albanese Labor government has been committed to supporting the Australian manufacturing industry from day one. We established the $392 million Industry Growth Program, with the Minister for Industry and Science—that wonderful fellow, Minister Husic—recently announcing the first grant recipients to support small and medium manufacturing businesses. One of the recipients is Cauldron Molecules; it received $4.3 million to develop a world-first hyperfermentation facility just outside Orange, in regional New South Wales. Their technology aims to bring down the cost of biomanufacturing across a wide range of products: food, feed, fibre and fuel—the four Fs. This government support of Cauldron will help keep other Australian manufacturers at the cutting edge, making a wider range of products at competitive prices. Cauldron have proved their technology works in the lab, and this grant will help show it can work in a 10-kilolitre pilot facility. After that, they plan to scale up to a 100-kilolitre facility that can deliver commercial volumes to their customers. This government's approach is already delivering a growing manufacturing industry, and—listen to this—there are more than 70,000 more workers in secure, well-paid manufacturing jobs since we came to government. Senator Ciccone 281503 Wow—70,000! Senator FARRELL I0N Yes, 70,000. There's no time to waste, and that's why this government is getting on with the job. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, first supplementary? 14:08 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Thank you, Minister, for outlining the ways the Albanese Labor government is strengthening the nation's manufacturing capability and delivering secure, well-paid jobs across the country. A future made in Australia is about turning great Australian ideas into growing local businesses. What is the government doing to help foster more great ideas that can create the iconic Australian businesses of the future? 14:09 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I thank Senator Smith for that very incisive question. The Minister for Industry and Science announced this week our new national science and research priorities, which place science at the forefront of our industrial transformation, connecting science, research and manufacturing to secure our future in our country that makes things here. One of the key ways that the government fosters this connection is through the Cooperative Research Centres Program. One example is Australian Vintage Ltd, which received a $3 million grant in January 2024 to support research and innovation in no- and low-alcohol wines, which have the potential to be a huge growth area for the Australian wine industry, particularly in that great state of South Australia. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Smith, second supplementary? 14:10 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Thank you, Minister, for outlining the ways the Albanese Labor government is growing innovative and world-leading Australian businesses. Why is this government so determined to rebuild Australian manufacturing? How does this compare to the Liberals and Nationals, who oversaw a decade of inaction towards Australian manufacturing? 14:10 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia I, once again, thank Senator Smith for her question. Sadly, when the Liberals and Nationals have been given the chance to support workers, they have repeatedly chosen to play politics. Again we're seeing the unholy alliance of the coalition and the Greens. The coalition have teamed up with the Greens to block affordable homes for Australians, and now they're teaming up to block high-paying jobs for Australians. Whether it's capping gas prices or delivering better wages and lower taxes for manufacturing workers, every time we hear the same response from the Liberals and the Nationals: no, no, no. And now, when it comes to supporting a future made in Australia— Senator McKenzie 207825 Why are you so defensive? Senator FARRELL I0N I'm not defensive, Senator McKenzie. I'm out there; I'm forward leading. Once again, the Liberals and the Nationals are turning their backs on Australian workers. Health Care: Intravenous Fluid Products Shortage 46 14:11 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Gallagher. Minister, it has been reported that a national shortage of saline intravenous fluids has now reached disaster levels. These fluids are absolutely critical to the emergency health care provided to patients in Australian hospitals. This is an issue of national importance. When did the government first become aware of concerns for Australia's supply of IV saline? 14:12 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I was just seeing if we had had any update from the health minister's office. I'm not aware of the date. I am aware that the government is working, as it would normally do— Senator McKenzie 207825 Doesn't he read the papers? Senator GALLAGHER ING Senator McKenzie asked, 'When did the government become aware?' and I'm saying that the minister for health— The 10000 Senator McKenzie, it's not your question. Senator GALLAGHER ING I don't think it's unreasonable to say that I don't have the exact date— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie! I have already called you to order. This is not your question. As I said to you yesterday, either sit in here in silence or leave the chamber—that's your choice. Please continue, Minister. Senator GALLAGHER ING Thank you, President. I was just checking to see if we had an exact date, which was the actual question that I was asked. I will come back if I can provide that to you, but I am aware that the minister for health is across this and being briefed closely by his department on how to manage the shortage of IV fluids, and that is work that is being done across states and territories to manage the supply of IV fluids within their jurisdictions. The Commonwealth and the jurisdictions and other professional bodies have initiated a national IV fluid working group, which consists of state and territory representatives, private hospitals and the AMA, to work collaboratively on IV fluid supply issues and to co-ordinate the national response. There have been a number of outcomes to that meeting, which I am happy to go through, but we cannot compel sponsors to increase manufacturing for supply of medicines in Australia. However, the TGA monitors and mitigates medicine supply issues and has approved several alternative suppliers from overseas, under section 19A of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989, to supplement the local production and supply of other registered products. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, first supplementary? 14:14 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Well, it is my understanding that the government should have been aware since May that there was an impending shortage of IV fluid in Australia. Can the minister outline what actual actions the government has taken and what actions were taken at the time it became aware of the IV fluid shortage to guarantee supply of these essential fluids to ensure Australia's healthcare system remained functional? 14:14 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I am very happy to do that. I understand that across Australia the shortage of saline products has been ongoing since early 2023 but has recently worsened. This is in part due to the major sponsor, Baxter, experiencing delays in procurement of overseas registered saline since May/June 2024. A delayed shipment for another supplier has also contributed to the worsening shortage and, in addition, sponsors have reported a further increase in demand in recent months as jurisdictions began to experience low stock levels. There have been a number of steps that have been taken, including the ones that I just outlined in answer to your previous question, which was around the role of the TGA has taken to approve additional suppliers; asking IV fluid suppliers if they need assistance in addressing delays in shipping and unloading containers at docks; asking Baxter and other sponsors of Australian registered IV fluid if any regulatory actions could assist with increasing supply; increasing national coordination of monitoring of supply; publishing a web statement and information about the shortages and overseas registered alternatives. I have some more which— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, a second supplementary? 14:15 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Doctors in every hospital across the country have reported being told to ration their supplies of IV fluids, restricting the amount that is used for their patients. Will your government commit to a coordinated and urgent national response, not just monitoring, to this crisis? Are you delegating leadership on this issue to the TGA or a monitoring committee that was set up last Friday? 14:16 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I have answered this question. There is a national response being led with the Commonwealth, jurisdictions and the professional bodies to coordinate the shortage of IV fluid supplies. It is not unusual, where there are shortages, that health professionals are asked to manage the supply while more supply comes on board. As you would expect, that is actually part of a response to a supply shortage. There are a number of steps that have been taken, but you would expect the TGA to be one of those that would be taking steps, of course, so I don't think you can diminish the role of the TGA. There are a number of steps being taken, including nationally consistent clinical guidance, to support appropriate prioritisation measures to manage demand. As you would expect, and as these things are managed in the health system all the time, these are being led, there is a nationally consistent response and it is appropriate, and you shouldn't be driving fear and a scare campaign. (Time expired) Education 47 14:17 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Minister Watt. This year's NAPLAN results are the consequence of over a decade of chronic underfunding of the public education system by both Labor and Liberal governments, and Australia now has the infamy of having one of the most inequitable education systems in the OECD. Australia's NAPLAN results show us that all Australia's kids need a fully funded education, something that is currently not being offered by this Labor government despite their statements to the contrary. It is now over a decade since the Gonski review told us we have an equity problem in our schools, and this government went to the election promising that they would fully fund our public schools. Why then is this Labor government now seeking to lock public schools into another decade of underfunding? 14:18 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Allman-Payne. Well, the short answer is we are not planning to lock public schools or schools in general into another decade of underfunding, quite the contrary. What we are actually putting forward is the Better and Fairer Schools Agreement with the states, which would contribute $16 billion from the federal government in additional funding for public schools. As I reminded your colleague yesterday, the only way public schools in Australia are going to get more funding is through a Labor government. It will not happen through a Greens government. It is certainly not going to happen through a coalition government, because they will actually get less funding. What they will get from the Greens are more complaints, more memes, more rallies, more whinging but they won't get a single extra dollar. The only way they will get an extra dollar is from the Albanese Labor government, and that it is that we be doing through our Better and Fairer Schools Agreement. Now, I think all Australians would be concerned to see some of the NAPLAN results that we have seen coming through. What these results show is that literacy and numeracy standards have remained steady, with around two-thirds of students considered to be strong or exceeding in most domains and year levels. Like last year, this year's results show that nearly one in 10 school students need additional support to meet minimum standards in literacy and numeracy, but that's not the case across the board. Almost one in three students from poor backgrounds need additional support. One in three First Nations students, one in four students from remote locations and one in two students from very remote locations require additional support. What that shows is that the education of your parents, where you live and your background have a massive impact on your likelihood to start behind or fall behind at school. I think it is really unfortunate that we had a decade of coalition government that did nothing about it. It's particularly shameful that the Nationals did nothing about it, because they say that they support rural and regional Australia, which we know has greater disadvantage from an education point of view, and they did nothing about it at all. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Allman-Payne, first supplementary? 14:20 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland The NAPLAN results show a stark difference between students in private and public schools; however, the main takeaway, as Minister Clare has noted, is that family income is actually now the biggest determinant of how a child performs in school. With public schools responsible for educating the vast majority of students who experience socioeconomic and educational disadvantage, how can the government justify continuing to grow the proportion of federal money spent on private schools while decreasing the proportion on public schools? (Time expired) 14:21 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Allman-Payne. I actually just made the very point that you are making in my previous answer, when I pointed out that educational disadvantage does exist even more greatly in particular parts of the community, whether it be students from poor backgrounds, First Nations students or remote location students, for example. That is exactly why we need to see more funding provided to our schools, in particular our public schools. That's exactly why the Albanese government is doing that through our Better and Fairer Schools Agreement. I would imagine, Senator Allman-Payne and all of your colleagues—given how much you say you care about funding for public schools—that you would support our Better and Fairer Schools Agreement, which is providing $16 billion in additional funding for public schools. Or will this be another example where we see the Greens get up and lecture us about how we should do more on this or that and then not support what we're doing? On housing, you say we should do more; you vote against it. On education, you say we should do more; you're probably going to vote against it. You are total hypocrites, and we're not going to take your advice. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Allman-Payne, second supplementary? 14:22 Senator 298839 Queensland ALLMAN-PAYNE () (): Teachers in Australia are overworked, are underpaid and are tied up with administrative responsibilities that keep them away from teaching, yet Minister Clare has suggested further short courses for teachers, and the School Reform Agreement proposed by Labor would require teachers to do more surveillance, more monitoring and more testing. Why won't Labor just fully fund public schools and help stop the exodus of burnt-out and undervalued teachers? 14:22 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thanks, Senator Allman-Payne. Again, we're not doing what you're suggesting. We're actually doing exactly the opposite by putting up $16 billion worth of extra funding under our Better and Fairer Schools Agreement. Senator Allman-Payne, I think last time you asked me a question like this and you took the side of teachers, I reminded you that almost my entire family are teachers and I'm well aware of the pressure that they face. I know Senator Allman-Payne is as well. I'm well aware of the pressures that they face, and that's exactly why they deserve our support. That is why they're getting the support of the Albanese government through more funding. The funding that we're providing through our Better and Fairer Schools Agreement will go towards exactly the types of things that you're talking about to ensure that teachers are paid the way they should be and are provided with the resources that they should be, and that we have additional support provided for students who do suffer from particular educational disadvantage. As I say, it's about time that you supported something positive that a Labor government is doing in areas you say you care about, rather than continuing to whinge and achieving nothing at all. Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games 49 14:24 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Sport, Senator Gallagher. Australians have been glued to their TVs, sometimes in the early hours, watching our athletes compete on the world stage in Paris to achieve a record-setting medal haul at the Olympics. From the pool to the track, the rapids to the velodrome, our athletes did us so proud, finishing fourth on the medal tally. Can the minister please report to the Senate on the success of the Australian Olympics campaign and how the Australian government is supporting our athletes? 14:24 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Green, who is a mad sports fan, for the question and for the opportunity to reflect on the success of the Australian Olympic team. Australia sent 460 athletes to Paris for the 2024 Olympics, and it is an honour to be able to celebrate their success here in the Senate today. Across 33 sports, our athletes gave their all for their sport and their country and, back home, we gave our sleepless nights and early mornings in front of the TV cheering them on. As the PM said when he greeted our athletes this morning, 'Every single one of these athletes has done us proud.' Not everyone had a medal around their neck, but every single one of them was worth their weight in gold; every single one of them has done our country proud. Jess Fox and Eddie Ockenden represented Australia with pride at the opening ceremony as flag bearers. Jess secured her place as the undisputed queen of the rapids, winning two gold medals and being elected to the International Olympic Committee's Athletes Commission and the Brisbane 2032 board. Noemie added to the Fox family medal hall with gold in the canoe slalom. Our Dolphins absolutely dazzled in the pool, with lots of silver, gold and bronze, with incredible team spirit in the relays and fearlessness from Moesha Johnson, who swam 10 kilometres up and down the river. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING I would have thought that this would have received more bipartisan support, frankly. Anna Meares was amazing as our chef de mission. I am sure she would not play favourites, but I have no doubt that she would have been proud of our cyclists and gold in the men's team pursuit. Anna's defence of our breakdancer, Raygun, showed the world Australia's unique brand of loyalty—and Australia's dance floors will never be the same again. Australia now has a couple of weeks to catch up on sleep and get ready for the Paralympics. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Green, first supplementary. 14:26 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Thank you, Minister. Undeniably, our women athletes were the story of the Paris Games: the fantastic Fox sisters on the rapids, our incredible women swimmers, Nina Kennedy in the pole vault, Saya Sakakibara carving up the BMX and Cairns-born Arisa Trew in the skate park. What impact have these women had on the future of women's sports in Australia? 14:27 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Of Australia's 18 gold medals, 13 of them were won by women. The women at this Olympics were incredible. Of our team, 55 per cent were women—a huge improvement on the zero women that were taken to the 1924 Paris Olympics. Nina Kennedy became the first Australian woman to win Olympic gold in a field event, Saya Sakakibara dominated on BMX and Arisa Trew, a Cairns local, ruled from the skateboard. I can't wait to see these two Queenslanders at Brisbane 2032. Seven of the gold medals were won in the pool and six of these medals were won by women. Emma McKeon has now overtaken Ian Thorpe with the most gold medals of an Australian athlete in Olympics history. We are making record investments in women's sport, but the impact that each of the 256 women athletes have had on the future of women's sport is worth more than any financial investment. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Green, a second supplementary. 14:28 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland Thank you, Minister. Our athletes have done us proud and they are an inspiration to the next generation. In the lead-up to Brisbane 2032, how is the government supporting our athletes? Why is it important that we continue to support grassroots sport as well as high-performance facilities that our athletes need to continue achieving at the level that they have in the Paris Olympics? 14:28 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Green for the supplementary. All of those athletes that attended and represented the country on Australia's behalf at the Olympics started their sport at a young age—and we often saw photos of them on the TV during coverage of their event. That is why it is important, as Senator Green said, that we make sure that we are continuing to support grassroots sport, because this is where young kids get involved and supported on their way to becoming elite athletes or just enjoying participation in the sport of their choice. In this budget, there was a record investment in sport, with almost $500 million over the next two years as we prepare for LA 2028, the largest Olympic and Paralympic sport investment ever. We have also made a record investment into the AIS here in Canberra, the biggest since the early 80s—$249 million to make sure that that facility can do the job needs to do. On top of that is the $200 million Play our Way fund for women and girls in— (Time expired). Indigenous Education 50 14:30 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator McCarthy. The 2024 NAPLAN results are out and call into question the entire education process for Aboriginal Australians in the Northern Territory. These children, to whom our nation owes a duty of care, recorded worse NAPLAN scores in year 9 than in year 3. Minister, please explain why Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory go backwards the longer they stay in school? 14:30 Senator MCCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Thank you, Senator, for your question, and thank you for joining me this week when I reached out across the aisle to all parliamentarians from every party to try and close the gap in many of these areas, including education and educational attainment. Clearly, that's one of the things that we've tried to do, in terms of the Northern Territory. For example, just recently Minister Jason Clare came to the Northern Territory to work with the NTG on an agreement to boost education funding for all public schools across the Northern Territory—and I know that he's also trying to reach out to all the states across the country. We certainly are very disappointed in terms of the NAPLAN results. One of the things I know is that, in regard to Alice Springs, for example, getting the kids to school is our biggest challenge. We've seen how we've had many difficulties with this in Central Australia in particular—but they are mirrored across many of our regions, even in your state of Queensland—where we need to work harder in terms of getting First Nations people even to school, let alone trying to pass the simple examination at such a young age, with NAPLAN. I commend the education minister for the work that he's doing in the space, Senator Roberts. I know we have a long way to go, but we are certainly trying to do that in terms of our work in the Northern Territory. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 14:32 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The percentage of Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory who NAPLAN classified as needing further assistance was 90 per cent—90 per cent. In Queensland it's only 56 per cent, and Queensland is a standout failure in this round of NAPLAN. Minister, can you assure the Senate that every cent of federal government money dedicated to the education of our Aboriginal community is spent appropriately? 14:32 Senator MCCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Thank you for the question, Senator. I can certainly assure the Senate that I will be working very hard, across party lines, in the role that I now have as Minister for Indigenous Australians. I do want to see a great improvement in the lives of First Nations people but in particular of our children. I certainly will do that, Senator Roberts, and I'm more than happy to keep working with you in terms of the issues that are going on in Queensland. Can I just point out again, though, with regard to the funding that we are providing, that, as I said, two weeks ago Minister Clare signed an historic school funding agreement. Under the agreement the Australian government will invest an additional estimated $736.7 million from 2025 to 2029 in Northern Territory public schools. I'm certainly happy to look at further information in regard to Queensland. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 14:33 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The Greens are assisting this government in suppressing any inquiry into federal government assistance given to the Aboriginal community. We heard Senator Cox's comments in the chamber yesterday on many topics, including native title. Minister, if you continue to block an inquiry into and audit of the use of funds given to the Aboriginal community, how can you assure the Senate that there's no corruption, waste and cronyism occurring? The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU Can I just ask for consideration of whether that's an appropriate supplementary to a question about NAPLAN results in the Northern Territory? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong, I remind the chamber that Senator Roberts's second question did go to funding, so it does flow from the first supplementary. Minister. 14:35 Senator MCCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Thank you, Senator Roberts. Can I firstly say, in regard to comments around Senator Cox, that Senator Cox is very dedicated to working to improve the lives of First Nations people so I would caution any slur against her work in that space. What I would say, though, Senator Roberts, is that the government has invested more than $110 million in initiatives to support First Nations children, students and organisations. We are committed to strengthening the formal partnership arrangements, in line with the Closing the Gap priority reforms. Senator Roberts, you met with the co-chair of the joint council—and that was Pat Turner—in reaffirming that commitment, and I look forward to working with you and others on that. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts. Senator Roberts 266524 The question was one of irrelevance before Senator McCarthy sat down. I asked: how can you assure the Senate— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, firstly, that's a debating point and, secondly, the minister has finished her answer. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 51 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Timor-Leste 51 14:36 The PRESIDENT 112096 I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the gallery of a delegation from the Women's Parliamentary Group of Timor-Leste, led by Ms Sancha Tilman. I note also the presence of the ambassador of Timor-Leste. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and, in particular, to the Senate. Honourable senators: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 51 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Native Title 51 14:36 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Last week the High Court spent several days hearing a claim made by the Gumatj people in relation to the Gove Peninsula in Arnhem Land. This is a case about the just terms compensation under the Constitution. The Gumatj people are claiming $700 million in relation to one small part of the Northern Territory. If they are successful and the ruling is applied in other places, the Commonwealth may have to pay billions or even tens of billions in native title compensation. How much, if anything, has the Commonwealth set aside to pay for this contingency? 14:37 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia If I may, President, I will first say to the delegates from Timor-Leste: [language not transcribed]. You are very welcome here. In relation to the question from Senator Cash, obviously this matter is before the High Court. Her question goes to a matter that not only is before our most senior jurisdiction but is, of course, a hypothetical. I'm sure she would be unsurprised— Senator Cash I0M $700 million is not a hypothetical. Senator WONG 00AOU Senator, you and I both know— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, you've asked your question. Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU You and I both know that it's not the practice in this place for us to prejudge what might occur in matters before the court. You and I both know as well that this is a matter that any government would have to deal with. Any government would have to deal with a judgement of the High Court. So my answer to you is that I certainly won't be speculating in the way you seek to— Senator Cash I0M There is no contingency. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister, do you wish to continue? Senator WONG 00AOU I certainly won't be speculating as— Senator Cash I0M Just wing it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, I have called you to order a number of times, and I would request that you— Senator Cash I0M The chamber's almost silent. The PRESIDENT 112096 I can hear what you're saying very clearly. It is disorderly. I appreciate that you're not using a very loud voice but, equally, Senator Wong is not using a loud voice, so that means the whole tone of the chamber needs to come down, including interjections. Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU I simply say that I would assume that, as the shadow Attorney-General, she might actually respect the judicial process. I know that this might be an alien concept to you, Senator, but we have a separation of powers, and we have a judicial process, and, as the person who aspires to be the nation's first law officer, I would have thought you might show the judicial process a little more respect. We know what you are doing here. My advice to you, Senator—why don't you show the High Court some respect? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, a first supplementary? 14:40 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Minister, has the Commonwealth done any modelling on the budgetary and economic impacts of an unexpected $700 million compensation bill, and, if so, what are the impacts? 14:40 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I refer to my first answer. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, a second supplementary? 14:40 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Could you please inform the Senate what contingency plans are in place if the Commonwealth is suddenly liable to pay hundreds of millions—if not potentially billions—in compensation, given it's the taxpayer who'll be picking up the tab? Honourable senators interjecting— Senator Gallagher ING A lot of 'what if's'. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Gallagher. Minister Wong. 14:41 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I refer to my first answer. Live Animal Exports: Sheep 52 14:41 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in the Senate, Minister McCarthy. Over the winter break, I visited regional sheep farms and spoke to sheep farmers who have grave concerns about the live sheep export phase-out package. One of those sheep farmers was Judith, from Wandering shire, who stressed to me the lack of support from the government to outline exactly what comes after the end of live sheep export. These are towns of generational sheep farmers that rely solely on this industry, and now they are being asked to transition out of it with no detail on what's to come next. Judith asked me, 'Transition to what?' We have transition packages for coal mining communities, where it's detailed exactly what they are transitioning to, but that is not the case in this package. So, on behalf of Judith and all WA sheep farmers and communities, I ask the minister: transition to what? 14:42 Senator MCCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I thank Senator Payman for her question. Certainly, ending live sheep export by sea marks a considerable step forward for animal welfare, and capitalises on onshore opportunities in sheepmeat processing. Senator Payman— Honourable senators interjecting— Senator MCCARTHY 122087 Obviously the other side are not interested to know. They obviously don't care about the farmers in Western Australia. We are supporting— Senator Davey 281697 Oh, you know that's not true. Senator Cash I0M Why do you hate the farmers? The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Order! Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I remind the opposition there is plenty of opportunity for you to ask similar questions. This question has been asked by Senator Payman. Senator McKenzie 207825 Maybe Minister Collins will have the guts. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie particularly. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Brockman. Senator Ayres 16913 We want the silence of the lambs over there! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ayres. Order! Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order across the chamber. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I should not have had to stand up. I called order at least seven times. I remind the opposition there is plenty of opportunity for you to ask similar questions. This question is being asked by a senator who has limited opportunity to ask questions during the week, and I ask every senator in here to listen in respectful silence. Please continue, Senator McCarthy. Senator MCCARTHY 122087 Thank you, President. Senator Payman, we've obviously now legislated that trade will end on 1 May 2028. The $107 million transition support package, which you are asking about—and I know you're interested to know—will provide the opportunity for individuals, communities and businesses to be resilient, well-positioned and ready when the trade ends. We're certainly working with the WA government to rollout that support, and the transition plan includes implementation based on independent advice; the provision of certainty, time and support for the transition; ongoing management of, and measures to, enhance sheep welfare; and transition oversight and continued engagement with domestic stakeholders and trading partners. With this certainty and a four-year lead time, affected producers can make decisions appropriate to their circumstances. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payman, a first supplementary? 14:45 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia Will the agriculture minister commit to putting more money on the table and extending the transition time from four years to 10 years, as recommended by the independent inquiry, to help our farmers transition to new industry? 14:45 Senator MCCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory The $107 million investment is a substantial investment in terms of the transition. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator MCCARTHY 122087 In fact, Senator Payman—and if those opposite want to hear—that is the most that we've been able to put given the decline from others across the chamber in terms of support for the industry. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payman, a second supplementary? 14:45 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia But that roughly equates to $25 million a year. In comparison, upgrading the fencing for a farm costs about $2 million. In the grand scheme of things, more needs to be done. My second supplementary question— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, you are out of line. You completely drowned out the senator who has got the legitimate right to ask the question. You completely drowned her out. Please reset the clock. Senator Payman, please begin your question again. Senator PAYMAN 300707 Thank you. Will the minister for agriculture meet with WA sheep farmers when cabinet visits WA in September? 14:46 Senator MCCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Thank you for your question. Clearly, the minister, like me, has just started in her portfolio. I have every confidence that she is reaching out right across the country in her portfolio area, and will no doubt do the same in Western Australia. Cost of Living 53 14:47 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia My question today is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Can the minister please tell the Senate how the Albanese Labor government is working to ease cost-of-living pressures through strong and sustainable wage growth, rolling out a tax cut for every taxpayer, and energy bill relief for every household? I would also be interested to hear about the almost one million jobs created over the last two years, which is a record number of jobs created in a parliamentary term. 14:47 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank Senator Pratt for her question. She, alongside other members of the government, is working every day to deliver for Australians in the face of a cost-of-living crisis. Under this government, compared to what we inherited from those opposite, inflation has halved and wage growth has doubled. But, of course, there is much more work to do. We have to continue to tackle inflation, we have to continue to provide cost-of-living relief, we have to continue to roll out the tax cuts for every taxpayer and, of course, we have to ensure decent wages for Australian workers. A decent wage system is central to our work to ease the cost of living. Two point six million low-paid workers are getting their third consecutive pay rise, and the minimum wage is up $143 per week. There is really only one group in Australia that is opposed to that, and that is those sitting opposite. The only people who actually don't want the wage increases that workers are getting as a result of the government's reforms are those opposite. In addition, we will fund a 15 per cent wage increase for early childhood education and care workers. As the senator said also, nearly a million new jobs have been created, and Australians are earning more and keeping more of what they earn. This is a good thing because we all know that Australians are doing it tough. This government is focused on how we deliver relief without adding to inflation. This includes by making child care cheaper. This includes providing $300 of energy bill relief. This includes a freeze on the cost of PBS medicines. This includes expanding bulk-billing. This includes the increase in Commonwealth rent assistance. This includes increases to paid parental leave, HECS relief for everyone with student debt, fee-free TAFE and strengthening the Food and Grocery Code of Conduct to drive down grocery prices. What do those opposite do? Well, they've voted against so many of these that Australians know they have no credibility— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pratt, first supplementary? 14:49 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer have spoken about responsible economic management both now and with an eye to the future—in particular, putting forward Labor's plan for a Future Made in Australia. Can the minister please outline how the Albanese government is working to grow our economy and create good jobs, all the while setting up a prosperous future? 14:50 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia ():  If I can just finish off on cost-of-living relief—let's remember, every time those opposite come back in here to talk about the cost of living, that this is the lot that voted against cheaper medicines, this is the lot that voted against getting wages moving, this is the lot that voted against energy price relief and this is the lot that voted against housing help. So, whenever they come in here and talk about cost-of-living relief, we should all remember that the primary drivers of assistance to Australians—higher wages, and lower costs in a whole range of sectors— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WONG 00AOU more to do—but, remember, what is not helpful is your opposition to it. What is not helpful is you saying, 'No, we don't want Australians to get energy price relief. We don't want Australians to get decent wages. We don't want Australians to get cheaper child care. We don't want Australians to get more bulk billing or cheaper medicines.' You have no credibility when it comes to the cost of living. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pratt, second supplementary? 14:51 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Minister, why is decent pay such an important part of the Albanese Labor government's efforts to help ease cost-of-living pressures, and how does this approach differ to what has failed in the past? 14:51 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The Labor Party, and the Albanese Labor government, are the party of decent wages. The coalition is the party of low wages—the party that believes low wages are good for the economy, remember: 'a deliberate design feature' of the Australian economy. If ever there was anything that shows the difference between the parties, it's that those of us on this side want decent wages for working people, decent wages for working Australians, and understand that cost-of-living relief must include increases in wages—that you opposed. Those opposite want low wages as 'a deliberate design feature' of the Australian economy— Senator WONG 00AOU Senator Cash wants to yell at me across the chamber. We all know whose side she's really on. We all know she'd bring back Work Choices if she really could. Senator Cash would absolutely bring back Work Choices if she could. You have never stood for decent wages. Antisemitism 54 14:52 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. In November 2023 the Iranian ambassador posted antisemitic comments on social media which, in media reports, were condemned by an unnamed DFAT spokesperson. What action did the government take in November 2023 to ensure a foreign official would not continue to spread antisemitic hatred in Australia? 14:53 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia In relation to the date in question, as opposed to the more recent one, I will get further information about the nature of representations which were made at the time. But I would say to you, Senator, I've made very clear public comments about the most recent comments by the Iranian ambassador. I said that this language was repugnant and hateful, and it has no place in our country. I said that publicly, and so did the Prime Minister. It was a terrible example of unacceptable language, and the ambassador has been left in no doubt about our position, and this matter has been handled appropriately by the department. I would say to you, Senator, because I've seen some of your colleagues' and your public remarks, that we retain diplomatic relations with countries not because of their interests but because of ours. We retain diplomatic relations so that we can advocate for Australia's interests and for Australia's citizens, some of whom at times are in trouble or incarcerated in the countries in question. That is why we have diplomatic relations with countries, notwithstanding that we have very different views on many issues. I again say those remarks were repugnant, and I want to express again that I understand how distressing they were for members of Australia's Jewish community. I hope they know that those of us in the government and in this parliament stand against that sort of antisemitism. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Chandler, first supplementary? 14:55 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania In February this year DFAT was alerted to complaints about the Iranian ambassador contacting Australian citizens online in a manner which made those Australians feel unsafe and feel that they were being monitored by the embassy. What action did the government take in February this year in response to those concerns? 14:55 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia There has been a range of actions taken, including by the Department of Home Affairs from memory, outlining the remedies and protections available under Australia's foreign interference regime that are available to Australians. My recollection is there has been engagement with the community on that. I think you have asked me this question before. I will get further information for you, if you wish, about those past activities, Senator Chandler. I again restate in here: we are very clear about our multicultural democracy. We are very clear with all concerned that we will defend that. Part of that is people are free to express their political views peacefully. Part of that is people are free; Australians should be safe from intimidation and coercion. They should be allowed to operate and exercise their voice in this country without fear of intimidation from any party. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Chandler, a second supplementary? 14:56 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania More than 10 months after the government was first alerted to antisemitic hatred being spread on social media by the Iranian ambassador, why is the ambassador still, this month, inciting hatred and calling for genocide without greater consequence than being asked to meet with a DFAT official? What is the government doing to ensure this dangerous and divisive behaviour being undertaken in Australia ceases? 14:57 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia As I said to you, Senator, I think it is very clear, from the public comments made by the Prime Minister of Australia and the foreign minister and others, that our views about the ambassador's comments are that they were repugnant. This has been appropriately managed by senior people within the department and by the representations I made. As I said in my primary answer, we maintain diplomatic relations for our interests not because we agree with the views of the regimes that we deal with. I would remind the senator that Australia has had diplomatic relations with Iran since 1968. I join with you and others in our public condemnation of the ambassador's remarks and in the articulation of our support for Australia's Jewish community in the face of them. Closing the Gap 55 14:58 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Senator McCarthy. The government has said that it is committed to working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, state and territory governments and the Coalition of Peaks to close the gap on a range of outcomes including health, education, justice and jobs. Can the new minister please explain how the government's approach will help to close the gap in employment outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Australians? 14:58 Senator MCCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I thank Senator Ghosh for the question. I look forward to getting over to Western Australia in the near future. Certainly as the new Minister for Indigenous Australians, I'm deeply committed to work in partnership with First Nations communities and organisations and state and territory governments to improve outcomes for First Nations people. At the 2022 election we promised to get rid of the failed Community Development Program, or CDP. It failed individuals and communities and left people stuck in cycles of poverty. I had my first meeting as minister with our First Nations Reference Group for the Remote Jobs and Economic Development Program, continuing the important work of my predecessor, Linda Burney. The group has incredible knowledge and experience in remote employment and economic development. And it's providing important advice to the government on the implementation program which will help close the gap in employment outcomes and boost economic opportunities in remote areas. It will be tough. We are doing this, though, in partnership with First Nations people. We know that, by working together, we will get better outcomes. The remote jobs program will create 3,000 jobs in remote communities. It is the first stage in meeting our commitment to replace the CDP with real jobs, proper wages and decent conditions, including superannuation, annual leave and sick leave. The new remote jobs program will mean Indigenous Australians can have access to the benefits and dignity of work no matter where they live. This will be life-changing for many people in remote communities. We believe that those in remote communities deserve, like all Australians, to access the benefits and dignity of work. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ghosh, first supplementary? 15:00 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia Can you please detail how the new jobs program will work and how the program is being designed in partnership with First Nations Australians? 15:01 Senator MCCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory The remote jobs program will initially create 3,000 jobs with proper wages and decent conditions. It is the first stage in the transition to replace the CDP. The program is about self-determination through economic and community development, jobs that local communities want and need to grow remote economies. The new remote jobs program will build up local skills for the local care economy, services and maintenance. We know that the old CDP program was a failure, and it simply didn't deliver for remote Australia. We've been trialling and testing new approaches to job creation in remote communities to help inform how we best replace CDP. We're working with Indigenous communities to design and implement the programs communities want. The Productivity Commission highlighted the importance of listening, and that's what we're doing. But we're also putting communities in the driver seat to create local jobs and businesses. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ghosh, second supplementary? 15:02 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia Having meaningful and secure jobs is foundational for economic development and enabling First Nations peoples to build better futures for themselves, their families and their communities. Minister, can you please expand on what else the government is doing to continue improving employment outcomes for First Nations Australians? 15:02 Senator MCCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Yes, the Albanese Labor government is committed to working with First Nations people to deliver improvements and employment outcomes for First Nations people so Indigenous Australians can have access to the benefits and dignity of work no matter where they live to create a better future for themselves, their families and the next generation. We're boosting employment opportunities for First Nations Australians. More than 300 people have enrolled in the First Nations Health Worker Traineeship Program as part of our commitment to finding 500 First Nations health workers. Over 14,000 First Nations students have enrolled in fee-free TAFE courses. We have progressed work to expand the Indigenous rangers by up to 1,000 jobs as part of our plan to double the number of rangers by 2030. And we're getting on with delivering our Remote Jobs and Economic Development Program to help close the gap in employment outcomes and boost economic opportunities. Senator Wong 00AOU President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 56 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 56 15:03 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions asked by coalition senators. When I contract constituents in my home state of South Australia via phone canvassing or in meetings, the issues raised with me at No. 1, No. 2, No. 3 are the cost-of-living crisis—concerns about inflation, the impact on household budgets of things like power prices, the concerns from small business about the impact of power prices and the rising costs of insurance, and the impact on industry, particularly those energy intensive industries, from the raising cost of prices. In my home state of South Australia, despite all of the rhetoric from this government about their transition to cheaper renewables, South Australia pays the highest price for electricity in Australia at 45.5c per kilowatt hour, which is amongst the most expensive in the world. With these pressures on businesses who employ Australians and these pressures on households, people need a government, a prime minister, a leader, who takes the issues seriously and who they can trust. The response was vicious to say the least when this Prime Minister tweeted an ill-thought-through copy of a pop album cover to try and promote what he believes is good news from the government, and people say, 'You are a joke.' They also wonder who they can trust when they see the Prime Minister standing in front of a press conference saying that the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia didn't say the things that she very clearly did say about the inflationary impacts of government spending. When the Prime Minister contradicts not only the words but the policies of the independent Reserve Bank of Australia and its governor, he calls into question some of the underpinnings of Australia's economic system and the integrity of one of our key public officials. It is no wonder that in the press, in news articles in days following, we saw comments like, 'Denial and blame shifting was the name of Albanese's game.' It is only because of the role of the parliament in holding the Prime Minister to account that he has now backtracked on those claims. Australians, whether they are moms and dads at home or people running a small business employing other Australians or large firms seeking to manufacture things here in Australia, they cannot trust Prime Minister Albanese and his policies or his words. We see that, particularly in the area of the cost of living and the cost of electricity in the energy policy. I have risen in this place previously to explain why the words in and policies of both Mr Bowen and Prime Minister Albanese are at odds with global experts like the International Energy Agency and the OECD as to the impact of seeking to achieve net zero by 2050 based on a renewables-dominated energy system. Despite the words mouthed by Mr Bowen and Mr Albanese, evidence from overseas both in engineering and economic analysis borne out by the lived experience of other nations shows that the pathway this government has Australia on is making a bad situation worse. The OECD analysis highlights that where we are at the moment with rising power prices is just the start of a trajectory which will be unaffordable for advanced economies if the transition is based on renewables only, which is the current plan of the government. Independent experts here in Australia have highlighted that the true cost of the Albanese approach will be in the trillions of dollars rather than the billions of dollars which the coalition is proposing with the change to our energy systems to include baseload power from clean, modern nuclear reactors. The lived experiences of nations overseas including, for example, the province of Ontario, is that, with the majority of their power nuclear, they are paying 13c per kilowatt hour compared to South Australia's 45c. 15:09 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia [inaudible] reflection of South Australians we are. What is the collective noun for a South Australian? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 An 'excellence'. Senator GROGAN 296331 Senator Fawcett, I appreciate your commentary about the things you hear from South Australians. I also hear from South Australians that the cost of living is a significant issue, and I think we all know that. We're seeing very tough conditions out there. But our primary concern in the government is tackling inflation, because that has an impact across the board. We are looking to deliver strong wages and sustainable wage growth for workers, and we're doing that in a range of ways systemically over the last two years, working towards improving the wages, improving the job prospects and helping people move ahead. The gender pay gap is something we've been really focused on, and we've made some great headway in that area. Only last week, we announced a 15 per cent increase in the pay of our early childhood educators. They are a critical bunch of people who do a spectacular job. For years and years, they have been pushing for a pay rise, but nothing has been forthcoming. So we're delighted to see that come forward at this point in time, because if we are going to deal with our economy going forwards, we need to be able to support women going back to the workforce. Women still take up the vast majority of responsibilities in terms of staying home with small children. These measures are making a difference. These measures are absolutely going to make a difference to a person's place in the economy and to how people survive. But there is a whole range of other people that we need to be looking to support, and this government—not you guys, not ever you guys—have advocated for the low-paid workers to the Fair Work Commission. We've managed to achieve some increases in those pay rates—52 per cent in 2022, 8.6 per cent in 2033 and 3.75 per cent in 2024. When we're talking about cost-of-living pressures and about people being able to keep a roof over their head and put food on their table, then one of the critical aspects of that is the wage that they are able to earn. As for those opposite, it was 48 times that you voted against industrial relations reform. You have never cared about people on low and middle incomes. The top end? Absolutely. They are right up your alley, but they are not the people who are struggling at this point in time. The people who are really struggling are those people who rely on the minimum wage. It's those people who are working in lower paid jobs. That's where we have been focusing to try and ensure that those people can indeed keep a roof over their head and food on the table and have prospects and opportunities to earn more money, to keep more of what they earn and to see a future where they can see jobs not just for themselves—good, well-paid jobs—but for their children and their grandchildren. Our future that we have plotted out for Australia gives that—growth in jobs and growth in industries. A Future Made in Australia would secure for us a very positive future for the people who are working today, the people who will be working tomorrow and the children of those future generations. It's looking forward, protecting the whole community and moving all of the levers, everything from our fee-free TAFE to lowering medicines and ensuring that Medicare is there for everyone and is all about the health care that you need, not about how much money you have in your pocket. It's looking at the entire economy. Shifting our society to a more future focused, supportive environment is what is going to make a difference. I think that when we talk about the issues on the ground for people, we need to be helping them see the future. We need to be supporting them in the things that they desperately need to make ends meet and to see the future and to see the hope and the prosperity for the direction that the Albanese Labor government has put in place. 15:14 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Senator Grogan, I can't help you with a collective noun for South Australians. I can think of a few for Labor governments, but I can't mention them in this place. This was a very telling question time. We saw a complete failure once again from this government to take seriously what Senator Fawcett did so clearly enunciate as the issue—the only issue that we hear about day in and day out—which is the cost-of-living crisis. What did we see from those opposite in terms of their own questions—their Dorothy Dixers? We saw them talk about a 'Future Made in Australia', a slogan with absolutely nothing behind it. We saw them talk about the Olympics. It reminds you a bit of bread and circuses, doesn't it? Bread and circuses—that's what this government does. It doesn't do actual policy. It doesn't do any of the heavy lifting required in the economy to take pressure off struggling Australian families. It does bread and circuses. When asked about the cost of living, they rolled out the same trite answer they have been rolling out for, I think, over a year now. If we went back to question time a year ago, we'd hear about cheaper child care and lower costs of medicines. The Australian people don't buy it. They don't buy that this government has done a thing to try to improve their standard of living, to try and take the pressure off them in this cost-of-living crisis, because you know what? With a few hundred dollars in terms of energy bill relief, people's energy bills have gone up by thousands of dollars—thousands of dollars. I have talked to individual small businesses whose energy bills have gone up by $10,000 a quarter. Senator O'Neill 140651 How much help did you give them? How much are you going to give them? Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Senator O'Neill, how much do you think—through you, Mr Deputy President—your assistance helped a small business whose energy bills have gone up $10,000 in a quarter or a family whose mortgage repayments have gone up since you came to power, Senator O'Neill, by $15,000 a year? Their price of groceries has gone up 12 per cent. Their price of electricity has gone up 22 per cent. We have gone, in my home state of Western Australia, under a state Labor government and a federal Labor government, from having the cheapest electricity pretty much in the world or one of the cheapest electricity prices in the world to one of the most expensive. Extraordinary. As Senator Fawcett so eloquently outlined, the cost of electricity in South Australia has gone up extraordinarily, even though, according to those opposite, under their policy of renewables only, they should have the cheapest electricity in the world. Guess what? It's not. And people are understanding this. The Australian people aren't mugs. They aren't stupid. The Australian people aren't being bought off by the bread-and-circuses act from this government. They know real economic management is about making sure you do everything you can to put downward pressure on interest rates. Inflation, inflation—downward pressure on inflation. Inflation and interest rates are economy destroyers. They are standard-of-living destroyers. That is why under this government, contrary to their rhetoric on wages, we've actually seen real wages falling—under this government—as the cost of living and the prices of groceries, of petrol, of electricity and of mortgage repayments skyrocket. And every Australian family knows that. Every Australian small business knows that. We've got record business closures. We've got record numbers of businesses going into administration. We've got a record number of small businesses whose owners cannot take money out of the business. They're still paying their staff, but they cannot take money out of the business because of the economic management of this Labor government, because of the burden of interest rate rises on their business and the destructive and corrosive effects of inflation. 15:19 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales The cost of living? I really, really would like to think that those opposite who ask questions and make contributions, like we've just heard from Liberal-National Party senators, really did care, because that's the impression that they're trying to create. I think the people all across Australia listening to this broadcast and the people up here in the gallery are onto them. They're onto the lunacy and the pretence that is embedded in what we've seen from those asking questions today. When things go wrong, Australians need a government that's going to care about them. You can have all the words: 'I see your pain,' 'It's terrible you're suffering,' 'I get it.' But that's only part one. Part two is you actually have to do something about that. You can't just wave at it and walk on by; you actually have to respond. That is why the Labor Party is responding in a financially responsible way, but still a significant way, to help millions of Australians while we get through this tough time. Inflation is a very big problem, and it's a problem all around the world, and it's still higher than we'd like, but it's on its way down and it's less than half of what it was when Labor came into government. While we've been trying to manage that in an economically responsible way, the Labor government has delivered the first back-to-back surpluses in almost 20 years. There's always this balance that's really important to see what's happening to the Australian people, to share in that journey of success and challenge and to respond in real ways that are responsible both fiscally and in terms of helping people with what they're challenged by. When it comes to energy: I've got an energy bill that comes in, and I'm feeling it. Everybody is feeling it. But for this lot over here, who are bleating and moaning and saying they understand, the minute they had a chance to do something about it they voted against any relief on energy bills for Australians. There are the words—'We care about it'—but the minute something is on the table to help Australians they vote against it. We've got Senator Hume, who sits in this chamber, out telling everybody: 'Oh, the government's overspending with $3.5 billion. They shouldn't be putting that money in.' That means she doesn't want any help to go to the Australian people. That $3.5 billion we have announced to help Australians right now in this financial year with the cost of energy is something they are bleating and moaning about. They do not want the government to spend that money. Senator Hume is on the record as saying, 'Instead of showing restraint in their fiscal policy.' 'Restraint in their fiscal policy' means, 'Do not give Australians the help that they need.' That is what they really mean when they say that. There are 10 million households around Australia that are getting more than the flapping of gums and expressions of care; they're going to get a $300 rebate on their energy bills. There are a million small businesses that have been waiting a real long time to get any help from the Liberal-National coalition. Even if they are just a sole trader, that's a million Australians in business—and if they've got two, or if they've got three or more, we can multiply that out pretty easily. We are helping small businesses through this challenging time with an energy rebate. But Jane Hume says, 'Don't spend that money.' They say, 'Oh, we care, but do not spend the money that will give any relief.' We're seeing the same thing with rent assistance; they don't want us to spend $1.9 billion. They say, 'Do something, but don't help Australians.' On cheaper medicines, we are spending $469 million to help Australians who are general patients and who have no more than $31.60 to pay. If you're on a concessional payment, we've locked it at $7.70 for five years—so if you need to get medicines you know you can budget for that and manage that. That is responsible government in the Labor tradition. It cares for people, delivers a surplus, puts pressure on inflation and doesn't leave you hanging with a whole lot of words but actually puts money in your pocket to help. 15:24 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania The Islamic Republic of Iran regime and the terrorist groups they arm and fund make absolutely no secret of their desire to eradicate Israel and to spread dangerous and violent antisemitism around the world. That is the very behaviour which we have been warned by our security and intelligence agencies that we must be on alert for. It is absolutely unacceptable to have a foreign official openly espousing such dangerous antisemitic hatred in the Australian community, and it is extremely disturbing that the Iranian ambassador has been doing so since October 2023, and the only response has been to have DFAT officials ask him not to do it. At Senate estimates on 26 October 2023, I first raised the embassy's activity on social media with DFAT and the minister. I asked, 'Is DFAT aware that the Iranian embassy in Australia has been posting alarming anti-Israel and pro-Hamas content to their social media page?' The answer from DFAT was that they haven't been monitoring the Iranian embassy social media, but they said, 'Officials have regular discussions with the Iranian ambassador to make it very clear what our position is in relation to the Gaza conflict, including in relation to what Iran does and how Iran should stay out of it.' In February this year, I again raised the ambassador's disturbing social media activity with the department and with the minister. The department, again, wasn't aware of the social media posts, but on notice responded and said, Australia does not tolerate, under any circumstances, attempts by foreign regimes to disrupt peaceful protests, or to try to push violence or suppress specific views from being expressed. That was February 2024. In 20 June 2024, I again raised the regime's social media activity and promotion of violence with the department. This time, in the context of the embassy's social accounts posting a letter to university students praising anti-Israel protests and labelling students as having formed a branch of the resistance front. I asked if DFAT agreed that the IRI regime is purposefully attempting to provoke pro-Hamas protests in the West to sow discord and potentially create violence in our communities. The response from DFAT officials was 'I don't think that's our assessment to make', and they deflected the questions to Home Affairs. Now, how is it, after raising these issues so many times with the government, that the response is still to have a mid-level official meet with the ambassador? As I've said, the IRI regime has shown time and time again that it has no qualms about provoking and carrying out violence, and they've got away with this and increased their power and influence, because, rather than taking firm action in response to the promotion of violence and terrorism, the West sends the message, often via anonymous briefings to the media, that we can't take action because we're worried about how the IRI regime will react. While it is not in the power of Australia to control the actions of this regime in the Middle East, it is in our power to send a clear message that, if you're a guest in Australia who repeatedly promotes violent antisemitism, then you have no right to be in this country any longer. Question agreed to. Indigenous Education 60 15:27 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answer by the Minister for Indigenous Australians (Senator McCarthy) to a question without notice I asked today relating to NAPLAN testing in the Northern Territory. I thank the minister for her clear answers. In reviewing the results from this year's NAPLAN this morning, one thing stood out: the results showing 90 per cent of Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory were classified as 'requiring further assistance'. That is double the national average. Even more troubling were the results showing Aboriginal students tested more positively in year 3 than they did in year 9. This means the longer an Aboriginal student spends in school in the Northern Territory, the worse their educational outcomes become. Clearly, the education system is failing Aboriginal children. The reason why is not understood, yet this problem has existed for years. The minister can't be held responsible for the result of this NAPLAN. The poor result is a collective failure of the parliament. This year, the federal government will spend $5 billion directly on Aboriginal programs. Inquiry into the continued failure in the provision of services to the Aboriginal community is being blocked through actions of Aboriginal industry lobbyists here in this chamber. Those in this chamber who exploit and perpetuate disadvantage for political gain have voted down repeated attempts from Senators Hanson, Nampijinpa Price and Kerrynne Liddle to understand how so much money could achieve so little benefit. One Nation's reward for caring about Aboriginal welfare was for Senators Cox and Ayres to, last night, call One Nation racist and use other labels. It's not racist to want every Australian child to have access to education no matter the circumstances of their birth. It's not racist to make sure every cent we send to these communities is spent for the benefit of the community. Labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the incompetent, the dishonest and the fearful. Labels are the resort of those lacking data and logical argument. I look forward to working with Senator McCarthy, one day, to achieve better outcomes for Aboriginal communities, and, in this chamber, I look forward to less name calling and more constructive dialogue, meaningful dialogue for the people who we are supposed to represent. Question agreed to. Education 60 15:29 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister representing the Minister for Education, Minister Watt, to questions I asked today relating to public schools. Over a decade ago, we had a review into our primary and secondary education in this country. That review told us that we had an equity problem, and that review provided a road map for how to develop a needs based, sector-blind funding model for our schools. It's now over a decade since that review, and in that time we've seen the funding to our private school system increase at double the rate of funding to our public schools. Over a decade after that review, 98 per cent of our private schools are still overfunded according to the Schooling Resource Standard, and only 1.3 per cent of our public schools are at the minimum standard of funding. That's another generation of kids who've paid the price and another generation of teachers and principals in our public schools who've had to carry the burden of that underresourcing. This week, we've seen the public release of NAPLAN results, and no-one should be surprised at what they tell us. They tell us that we now have an equity problem on steroids. The gap between the kids at the top and the kids at the bottom is getting wider and wider, and the kids who are most impacted are those who are socioeconomically and educationally disadvantaged: rural and regional kids, kids living in remote locations, young people with a disability, First Nations kids, kids who are housing-insecure and whose parents are on income support and kids from families where parents and carers haven't had the benefit of a tertiary education. This is the system that successive Liberal and Labor governments have entrenched in this country. We now have the most inequitable education system in the OECD, and this is after a decade of having a road map on how to fix it. It is understandable that teachers and parents and carers of kids in public schools were hopeful when Labor went to an election saying that they were going to fully fund our public schools. Yet, since they've come to government, it has been disappointment after disappointment. Instead of getting on with the job when they got into government, they had another review. We've had 30 of those, or more, since the first Gonski report. We know what the problem is. If you systematically underfund a sector for over a decade, it's not surprising that results go down or stagnate. If you systematically deprive the kids who need the most support of the biggest increases in funding, it's no surprise that their results don't improve. The minister likes to keep saying that all of this funding needs to be tied to stuff. Well, teachers are drowning in testing and surveillance and reporting and admin, and all of that increased accountability and surveillance and admin hasn't done a jot to improve kids' results over the last decade. So it's hardly surprising that we are sceptical that, without the adequate funding, it's going to change going forward. The Greens went to a federal election saying that the federal government needed to lift the contribution to public education in this country to 25 per cent. It's not a big ask. You give 80 per cent to private schools. Teachers want increases in funding, principals want increases in funding, the unions want an increase in finding, and the minister is holding states to ransom with a dud offer of 22½ per cent. It's not good enough. It needs to be improved, and you need to get it done. Question agreed to. NOTICES 61 NOTICES Presentation 61 Presentation 62 15:35 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales On behalf of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I give notice of my intention to, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, withdraw business of the Senate notice of motion No. 1, for 13 sitting days after today, proposing the disallowance of the Jervis Bay Territory Rural Fires Rules 2024 made under the Jervis Bay Territory Rural Fires Ordinance 2014. Postponement 63 COMMITTEES 63 COMMITTEES Economics References Committee 63 Reference 63 15:36 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Bragg, I move: That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 5 December 2024: Whether the present financial regulatory framework adequately prioritises the goal of home ownership for Australians, with particular reference to: (a) Australian Prudential Regulation Authority prudential standards and Corporations Act 2001 provisions for lending; (b) the nature and type of debt and equity arrangements being used to underpin housing development; (c) the appropriate involvement (if any) of corporates and institutional funds in the provision of housing; (d) the effectiveness of mechanisms to monitor investment in the residential property market; (e) the tax treatment of residential property and impacts on demand and house prices; (f) the adequacy of metrics available to policymakers for monitoring the ratio of new housing supply relative to population growth; (g) examples of effective priority treatment for aspiring Australian homeowners that do not compromise financial stability; and (h) any related matters. Question agreed to. Reference 63 15:37 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Cadell, I move: (1) That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by the last sitting day in February 2025: The role of Australia's 'big box' retailers and large format retailers in price setting, with particular reference to: (a) the market behaviours of such retailers, including price negotiation practices, abuse of market power and engagement with suppliers, in particular horticultural producers; (b) whether big box and large format retailers that sell products that fall under the category of grocery should be included in the grocery code of conduct; (c) acquisition and use of land; and (d) any other related matters. (2) That, for the purpose of the inquiry a 'big box' retailer refers to a retail store that occupies a large physical footprint and offers a variety of products and a broad product mix to its customers. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 63 BUSINESS Rearrangement 63 15:37 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory At the request of Senator Chisholm, I move: That on Thursday, 15 August 2024: (a) the questions on all remaining stages of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 be put at 12.15 pm; (b) paragraph (a) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; and (c) divisions may take place between 1.30 pm and 2 pm until consideration of the bill has concluded. 15:38 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 The coalition, of course, will be opposing this motion. The Senate needs more time to consider and properly scrutinise this bill. Given Senator Cash has advised Minister Watt that we're unable to support this motion because we're in the middle of negotiations with the government to strengthen this legislation and make it fit for purpose, it's unreasonable to demand a guillotine tomorrow considering there's still work to do. We're all negotiating in good faith on how the bill should be changed. 15:38 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator WATT 245759 Senator Duniam is correct, and I think it's a matter of public record that discussions have begun between the government and the opposition about the bill itself. The motion which we're currently debating sets a deadline of 12.15 pm tomorrow to pass the bill itself. I note that Senator Cash has publicly said today that the opposition wants to move this and pass this legislation through the Senate tomorrow, so I invite the opposition to nominate an alternative time tomorrow afternoon by which they would be prepared to pass the bill, in line with what Senate Cash has said. I invite the opposition to move an amendment to our motion to nominate a time tomorrow, in line with what Senator Cash has said publicly. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that government business No. 1, standing in the name of Senator Chisholm and moved by Senator Gallagher, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [15:44]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 20 AYES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Watt, M. P. Wong, P. 38 NOES 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. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hodgins-May, S. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. 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. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 15:44 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is government business No. 1 standing in the name of Senator Chisholm and moved by Senator Gallagher be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [15:44]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 20 AYES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Watt, M. P. Wong, P. 38 NOES 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. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hodgins-May, S. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. 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. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 DOCUMENTS 65 DOCUMENTS Rural And Regional Affairs And Transport References Committee 65 Order for the Production of Documents 65 15:47 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, by no later than midday on Monday, 19 August 2024, the government response to the interim report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on the shutdown of the 3G mobile network. 15:47 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave is granted for one minute. Senator GALLAGHER ING The telcos have today decided to delay the 3G switchover until the end of October. The government agrees this is a positive development to ensure every effort can be made to ensure public safety during this process. Given the public interest in ensuring accurate information is shared, our government has set about preparing a response to the committee at an expedited rate. What interests me is the hypocrisy of the coalition on the expediency of government responses to committee reports. In 1973 the Senate expressed its opinion that reports of committees should be responded to within three months. This resolution has stood for 51 years. It is surprising that those opposite have discovered a sudden interest in the production of government responses given the hundreds left without any response for years by their government, many by those who were ministers in that government and who have now sponsored this motion. 15:48 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I note other co-sponsors of this motion include senators Canavan and Rennick, McKenzie, Cadell, McDonald and Colbeck, as well as Senator Babet. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business of motion No. 567 standing in the name of Senator Roberts and others be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [15:52]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 31 AYES Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. 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. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. 29 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 COMMITTEES 66 COMMITTEES Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee 66 Reference 66 15:54 The PRESIDENT 112096 Yesterday evening, at 6.30 pm, a division was called on the motion moved by Senator Hanson relating to a proposed reference to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee: That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 6 December 2024: The effectiveness of the operation of the native title system, and options to improve: (a) the economic development resulting from native title; and (b) certainty over the claim process. I understand that it now suits the convenience of the Senate for the deferred vote to be held now. The question is that the deferred motion from yesterday evening, standing in the name of Senator Hanson, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:00]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 29 AYES Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bragg, A. J. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Henderson, S. M. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKenzie, B. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. Tyrrell, T. M. 31 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 DOCUMENTS 67 DOCUMENTS Great Barrier Reef 67 Order for the Production of Documents 67 16:02 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 564 for today, standing in my name, relating to an order for the production of documents. Leave granted. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 I move the motion as amended: That there be laid on the table by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than 9 am on Tuesday, 10 September 2024, any documentation dated from 1 October 2023 to 9 August 2024 relating to the Great Barrier Reef and the 46th Session of the United Nations World Heritage Committee (WHC), including any references to in-danger listing, held by: (a) the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT); (b) the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water; and (c) the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Question agreed to. Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water 67 Order for the Production of Documents 67 16:03 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, by no later than midday on Wednesday, 21 August 2024, a copy of the 2024 assurance review into the Macquarie Island modernisation project. Question agreed to. Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 67 Order for the Production of Documents 67 16:03 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator McKenzie, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, by no later than midday on 22 August 2024, the following documents: (a) copies of the Federation Funding Agreement for Land Transport Infrastructure Projects (2024-2029) provided by the Commonwealth to any state or territory governments; and (b) copies of any Federation Funding Agreement for Land Transport Infrastructure Projects (2024-2029) that have been signed by a state or territory government. Question agreed to. Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force 68 Order for the Production of Documents 68 16:04 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I move: That the Senate— (a) notes that order for the production of documents no. 541 relating to the final report of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force twenty-year review has not been complied with; (b) requires the Minister representing the Minister for Defence to comply with the order by no later than 5 pm on 15 August 2024; and (c) requires that, should the order not be fully complied with by this time, the Minister representing the Minister for Defence attend the Senate at the conclusion of question time on 19 August 2024 to provide an explanation, of no more than 5 minutes, of the failure to comply with the order, and that: (i) any senator may move to take note of the explanation, and (ii) any such motion may be debated for no longer than 30 minutes, shall have precedence over all other business until determined, and senators may speak to the motion for not more than 5 minutes each. Question agreed to. MATTERS OF URGENCY 68 MATTERS OF URGENCY Gambling Advertising 68 16:05 The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator David Pocock has submitted a proposal under standing order 75 today which has been circulated, as follows: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Australian Government, with the cooperation of the states and territories, to implement a comprehensive ban on all forms of advertising for online gambling, to be introduced in four phases, over three years, commencing immediately. Is consideration of the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The PRESIDENT 112096 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 16:05 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Australian Government, with the cooperation of the states and territories, to implement a comprehensive ban on all forms of advertising for online gambling, to be introduced in four phases, over three years, commencing immediately. Yesterday the gambling lobby said on radio that their ads were not normalising gambling among children and young people. I think nearly every parent in the country would scoff at that if they had heard it. The evidence shows us that 75 per cent of young people and children now think that gambling is just a normal part of enjoying sport; it's what you do. Think about that for a moment. We're currently the biggest losers in the world. We had the Olympic Games and did really well in the medal tally. It inevitably flips to per capita medals, which we love to do as Australians. The one thing we are winning, year in, year out, is in losses per capita when it comes to gambling. Now we have research showing that this next generation coming through thinks that this is just normal. What can we expect to happen when they hit 18, when they can actually gamble—even though we're hearing that 16- and 17-year-olds are already placing bets. We have to come to the question of what sport is for. Is sport just another business? They can have sponsorships and they can have business models where they flog what we know is a very harmful product. They have young people looking up to and idolising their favourite player and thinking, 'Gambling is just part of this game that I love.' Talk to parents and young people. They'll name all the gambling companies. They'll be able to recite odds. They'll talk about the odds for the upcoming games of their favourite teams. What I'm hearing from people here in the ACT that I represent is that this is not the direction they want to go in. A number of people in this place were at a briefing where a family shared their son's, their brother's, tragic story about him not being able to escape his gambling addiction, not being able to live with himself and, ultimately, taking his own life. It was incredibly sobering. It was an incredibly brave thing for that family to share that story, in the hope that parliamentarians would take the action that is needed—action that was recommended by this parliament to this parliament 14 months ago. All the major parties, the Greens and the Independents said, 'This is the way forward.' There were 31 recommendations, and the one that's been talked about the most is a three-year, phased-in ban on all gambling advertising. And now, 14 months later, we're hearing that the government doesn't have the courage to do that. We're hearing—I think, genuinely very worryingly—the PM and government ministers parrot lines from the gambling industry about all of these things that could happen, some of which we know haven't happened in the international experience. Yet we are still seeing the Labor Party falter and not back the Murphy review—not back what almost 80 per cent of what Australians want. No-one is saying, 'Let's ban gambling.' You can still have a punt. The apps will still be there for people. They're not going to suddenly want to bet with international gambling companies, which is illegal in Australia. What we know is that this will start to turn the ship around on the total inundation—the saturation online and on TV—of gambling ads, which is having an effect on young people. So I urge the parliament: let's put young people first. Let's draw a line in the sand and say, 'We can do this better,' and let's work out how that can happen, because we have the opportunity and we have the support of the people we represent. 16:10 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I welcome the opportunity to speak on Senator Pocock's motion. As senators will recall, in June last year, the coalition introduced a bill to the Senate to ban gambling advertising during live sport, including one hour before and one hour after a game. We did so to respond to strong community concerns which were being raised across this country. I was very proud to introduce the coalition's bill and, as I said in this place just over a year ago, the time to act is now. That is why the coalition is taking strong steps to implement a ban on gambling advertising during live sport. We know there is a problem. We are not going to wait for months, as the government has been signalling. We are not going to sit on our hands. Most of the crossbench, including Senator Pocock, backed our bill. However, Labor and the Greens opposed it—what a surprise—and our bill was defeated by a narrow margin. If the coalition bill to ban gambling advertising during live sport had been supported through parliament by Labor and the Greens, it would've been law by now. The coalition bill also reflected the very strong commitment from Mr Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition, who said in his budget reply speech last year: In our country, footy time is family time, but the bombardment of betting ads takes the joy out of televised sports. Worse, they're changing the culture of our country in a bad way and normalising gambling at a young age. More than a year has passed since the coalition sought to take action on the issue with our proposed legislation. We are still waiting for the government to work out its response to the You win some, you lose more report into online gambling and its impacts—in some cases, dreadful impacts—on those experiencing gambling harm. The government, like on so many other issues, is being typically slow to respond and, frankly, that is not good enough. There has been a lot of media speculation about what is going to be in or out of the government's plans. In typical fashion, we see the government floating ideas, planting stories and then retreating when the heat gets too much. We don't know what the minister has in mind, other than that she is ducking and weaving and speaking non-stop out of both sides of her mouth in a way that, frankly, lets down the Australian people. What we do know for sure is that this government has slapped a gag order on industry stakeholders. That is the way this government does business, 'Let's pull out another non-disclosure agreement.' Frankly, that is not good for our parliament and that is not good for democracy. So the coalition's position remains that we will wait to see what the government actually comes up with in a bill, if we see one at all, rather than jumping at various reports we are seeing in the media. The minister has got to do better than that. The communications minister, Ms Rowland, has got to do better than jumping at shadows, planting stories, tying up stakeholders with non-disclosure agreements and, frankly, kicking this can down the road, which is exactly what is happening. We will consider in good faith any bill that comes forward once we actually see it, if that does happen. Until we see any so-called bill and examine it in careful detail and consult across a range of stakeholders, we are not in a position to support this motion. I do thank Senator Pocock for bringing on this motion and raising this very important issue, which I know is an incredibly important issue for so many Australians. I'm very proud of the work the coalition has done, and I would ask the minister and the Albanese government to get on with it. (Time expired) 16:15 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I also rise to make a brief contribution to Senator Pocock's matter of urgency before the Senate today. A lot of us in this place who have spoken on this very important issue have had family members impacted by problem gambling. It is an issue that does deserve serious action and serious attention. Given the contributions that we've heard so far, it does concern me that there are people in this place who have been in the parliament for many, many years—in fact, for over 10 years—who have only recently decided to jump on the bandwagon and try to do something about this issue. It is also worth placing on the record what the government has committed to and what the government has done whilst it has been in office. At the outset, it's important to acknowledge that the government is concerned about the gambling harms that we see and hear about across Australia. We know that Australians want to see meaningful action to address these harms, and the parliament is united in the need for a comprehensive response to the online gambling inquiry report. Those in this chamber would also be aware of the reporting that the government is consulting right now on a proposal to address the harms caused by online wagering. On the issue of online wagering advertising, the government has made very clear that the status quo is untenable. We have gathered the evidence about harms, we have assessed the impacts of various options and we are now consulting on a proposed model, focused on three outcomes. The proposal as it currently stands is not insignificant, but it does seek to address a number of areas: the exposure of children to gambling ads, the normalisation of wagering on sport, and the targeting and saturation of ads. The need for meaningful action is very clear and, as we've seen, the insights from Roy Morgan Research, recently gathered through interviews with around 16,000 Australians for the Alliance for Gambling Reform, show that the number of people betting on sport has doubled in the past five years. More than one-quarter of all men aged between 18 and 24 and one-third of men aged between 25 and 34 now bet on sport, and 10 per cent of sport betters are classified as problem gamblers. Australians lose more than $25 billion on gambling every single year. That is the highest per capita in the world. That is why we need to get these reforms right to deliver both harm reduction and cultural change. In the two years since being elected, the government has delivered more online wagering harm reduction initiatives than were delivered in a decade under the Liberals. This includes banning the use of credit cards for online gambling; introducing new evidence based taglines in wagering advertising; strengthening classification of gambling-like features in video games, to better protect children; establishing mandatory customer ID verification for online wagering; and launching the national self-exclusion register, BetStop, for problem gamblers, on which more than 27,000 Australians have registered, with 40 per cent of those opting for self-imposed lifetime bans. BetStop is the most effective harm reduction initiative to date in terms of directly helping Australians who are experiencing harm. I encourage anyone who is listening to visit betstop.gov.au. Advertising reform is complex, but we are making progress. As a government, we are taking the time to consult and ensure that the reforms are effective and will not have detrimental unintended consequences. It's also important to consider the multiple channels over which advertising is delivered. It's not just on television and radio but also on digital platforms and social media where advertising can be targeted at vulnerable Australians. We have to take a comprehensive approach, especially since following the last set of gambling ad restrictions, which were introduced in 2018 by the Liberals, there was a 50 per cent increase in the total volume of gambling spots on television and radio, including an 86 per cent increase on regional TV. We've gathered the evidence about harms, and we've assessed the impacts of various options and are now consulting on a proposed model for reform to online wagering advertising. The government has been undertaking broad consultation with harm reduction advocates, broadcasters, providers, digital platforms and sporting codes, and we'll continue to engage with stakeholders in good faith. Importantly, no decision has been made on the reforms to online wagering, and we'll be doing so in due course. (Time expired) 16:20 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia There's a lot of hand-wringing and excuses being heard in this chamber this afternoon. No-one in this place can deny the facts. The experts have all told us that the single most important thing that we can do to stop the scourge of gambling is to stop the advertising of it. It is the single most important and impactful thing that this parliament could do, but rather than doing that, we see this hand-wringing and excuse making. There are not many things I agree on with John Howard, the former Prime Minister, but I do on guns and gambling. If you want to hear more weasel words and excuses from both the government and the opposition about why they can't make the hard call and have the guts to stop advertising, you just have to think about the amount of lobbying that the Labor Party and the Liberal Party have had from the gambling industry over the years, the dinners and donations. The Labor Party is addicted to gambling. The Liberal and Labor parties are addicted to gambling donations. They are addicted to the revenue that is sucked out of the pockets of vulnerable people. We now hear the glib, snarky excuses from people like Mr Bill Shorten this morning. This has to be kept going. This parasite of an industry advertising to our children must be kept in place so that media companies can keep operating. Cry me a river! This is the exact same government which only two months ago threw the free-to-air televisions under the bus with their antisiphoning rules, bowing to the pressure of the big tech companies to allow sport to be locked behind paywalls. They didn't give two hoots about the survival of free TV then! They didn't give two hoots about the survival of regional television for regional Australia then. But, all of a sudden, it's a nice, sneaky, snarky excuse for not doing the right thing. Have some guts! Just like they complained and squealed about tobacco, they are squealing and complaining and excusing about gambling. (Time expired) 16:24 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Last June, the You win some, you lose more report of the parliamentary inquiry into online gambling unanimously recommended banning gambling ads on all platforms. Getting everyone to agree in this place is very rare, I can assure you. I pay tribute to the work of the late Peta Murphy, chair of the inquiry. Peta was an extraordinary leader who worked through her illness because she wanted to make real change and protect our kids. When the report came out, I think there was real hope that her sacrifice wouldn't be for nothing, but sadly the closer we get to an election the less courage is on display in Canberra. Clearly, free-to-air TV is too dependent on gambling ad revenue. If the government had voted for my antisiphoning amendments and ring-fenced sport for free-to-air channels, that would've seriously helped, but, no, you wouldn't do that. But it's probably not just free-to-air TV that would be applying pressure here and knocking on those ministerial doors. The gambling companies forked out 600,000 bucks in political donations last year, including to Minister for Communications Michelle Rowland, who got 19,000 bucks for the last election. They sold our kids out for 620,000 bucks. That's what they're doing today. That's what our kids are worth. Thanks to the former senator and transparency warrior Rex Patrick, we know that the minister met with executives from the gambling companies 66 times in just six months. Of course, I'd bet that the AFL has been applying the pressure. They get 40 million or 50 million bucks a year from these gambling interests. Australians lose more money gambling per capita than do those in any other country in the world—$25 billion, in fact. Since online gambling ads have come on the scene, our kids have become the biggest losers. Now our kids know the footy team odds better than the names of their football heroes. According to the Australian Institute of Family Studies, 19 per cent of young women and 25 per cent of young men started betting for the first time after seeing or hearing an ad on TV. Research also shows that high exposure to gambling ads increases the chances that these kids will develop gambling problems in the future. I say to the government and to the free-to-air channels: this money is absolutely filthy, dirty, disgusting and disgraceful money and you should be ashamed of yourselves. You are absolutely unconscionable today. You've been selling our kids, who are priceless, for just 600,000 bucks. That's what you've done. You'd rather take those donations than worry about the future of our kids. You should not be sitting in this place; you should not be representatives in parliament—I say that right now. You are doing nothing but hurting our Australian kids and their families. First it was the poker machines, and now it's online gambling. It absolutely breaks my heart. We have waited way too long for anything to be done about poker machines, and if we hadn't limited the ads they would still be running. They would be in charge. The government and the minister need to show more courage and put the Australian people and our kids first. (Time expired) 16:27 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania I don't support a blanket ban on anything. A comprehensive ban on advertising for online gambling feels like the beginning of a slippery slope to all gambling being banned. We need legislation to control problems like gambling and we need to have guidelines in place that will protect people, like we do for alcohol and cigarettes, but a blanket ban is not the solution. Once you become an adult, you decide what you will and won't participate in, whether others like it or not. I know the damage gambling can cause, but I still don't support an absolute ban. I have family members and friends who struggle with gambling addiction. Some of them have an element of control over that addiction. Others know they can't control it, so they keep themselves away from their gambling vice. But even with a level of control over their gambling addiction, they are still addicted. I know people who play online pokies on their iPad instead of going down to the RSL, away from the internet. They still keep the dopamine hit when they win, but the games are not drowning their bank account, so the financial burden is controlled. Others will blow any spare cash on the pokies as soon as they get the chance, and there are those who have TAB accounts and won't share how much they have won or lost. They make sure bills are still paid, but whatever is left at the end of the week is fair game. There is also a social aspect to gambling. How many of us know groups of friends who go to the club together for a few drinks and put $20 in the pokies or play Keno. We all know these people. Hey, it might even be you. Do you want choices you make as an adult to be analysed like this? Or would you like to be able to choose how you spend your time and your money? 16:29 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria Gambling is destroying lives, gambling is costing our country billions and gambling is tearing families apart while it feeds off their misery. Why, then, are we back here in the Senate debating the existence of gambling ads in Australia? Why is the Labor government refusing to listen to the majority of Australians who are desperate to see an end to harmful and destructive ads on their televisions? And why is this Labor government so afraid to adopt recommendations from its own inquiry, led by Peta Murphy, which called for gambling ads to be banned across all media and at all times within three years? Instead, more than a year on from this inquiry, gambling ads continue to bombard us via every medium. When our kids sit down to watch a game on a Friday night, they're dealt gambling ad after gambling ad, creating a whole new generation of gamblers in this country. Meanwhile, Minister Bill Shorten treats us like mugs and spends his breath arguing that gambling isn't the same as tobacco—but on what basis? As with the link between smoking and lung cancer, gambling harms are well-known. Apart from the massive financial losses, there are cascading physical and mental health impacts, suicide, inability to work and a myriad of other issues. Just as the tobacco industry profits off people's misery, so does the gambling lobby. It preys on kids and families, costing Australians a whopping $25 billion every year. Just as tobacco kills people, gambling kills people. It kills people and it destroys families. I return to my initial question: why are the Labor government not prepared to adopt their own recommendations and ban gambling ads? Who is the government afraid of? Anything less than a comprehensive plan will be considered a comprehensive failure by the Australian public, who deserve better. 16:31 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I begin by saying I applaud my fellow independent senator David Pocock on his incredible efforts on the issue of gambling ads. It is an issue that heavily impacts my constituents in Western Australia. According to CQUniversity in Sydney, WA has a higher proportion of gamblers than the rest of Australia. Gambling awareness advocate Tim Costello suggested in May that more than one-third of problem gamblers had perpetrated or suffered from domestic violence. The pervasiveness of gambling advertising in society is having a profound effect, especially at sporting events. When I attend Dockers games, not only do I see sporting bet ads at the stadium, but you can even pop down to level 1 and place a bet during the game. And do you know what? When I attend the Wallabies versus Springboks this Saturday, I am certain that I will see sports gambling ads plastered over the advertising boards there too. As a young person I'm very concerned about the impact this messaging is having on the next generation of Australians. A relative of one of my constituents, a teacher, told me about how children as young as 13 were whipping themselves into a frenzy over 'multis' and 'parlays' and other gambling jargon that they were so disturbingly familiar with. This excitement is not harmless fun. Gambling has been gamified to appeal to the younger generation. In 2020, the New South Wales government's GambleAware organisation reported that 30 per cent of kids aged between 12 and 17 had gambled in the preceding year, with around 10 per cent of those being problem gamblers. GambleAware suggested that peer pressure, in addition to the constant advertising online and on TV, meant that a significant cohort of young Australians had developed a perception of gambling and the financial and emotional stresses it entails as normal. This problem haunts children into adulthood, with dire consequences. Clinical psychologist Anastasia Hronis noted in April this year that the rate of suicidal ideation for problem gamblers was as high as 81 per cent, and 30 per cent had attempted suicide. We know that gambling's reach extends beyond just the individual; it infiltrates families and communities, often leading to devastating consequences. And the social cost of gambling in WA is enormous, with families torn apart by addiction, financial ruin and even violence. The government's reforms, which stop short of a total ban, need to go further in supporting vulnerable Australians and they need to ensure that we are addressing the gambling issue as a societal problem. 16:34 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria I rise to support Senator Pocock's proposed ban on online gambling advertising, but I feel we could go further with a responsible, phased elimination of all gambling advertisements across all media channels, echoing the decisive action taken against tobacco advertising in the 1990s. While I don't begrudge Australians a punt, I can't for the life of me see why such a damaging product should be allowed into our living rooms. We must protect public health and ensure the economic and social wellbeing of our nation. As Senator Pocock said, we hold the unenviable title of having the world's highest per capita gambling losses. These losses ripple through our communities, wreaking havoc on families, finances and mental health. These losses, as you will hear from other speakers, have a devastating effect that flows through our communities. The government has a duty to protect Australians, even if it is from themselves. The social cost of gambling—mental health crises, shattered families and the burden on law enforcement—must be curtailed. A three-year phased-in ban on all gambling adverts offers the advertising industry a pathway to transition towards more ethical revenue opportunities. This ban is necessary and urgent, and it is essential for safeguarding the health and cohesion of our communities. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 The question is that the motion moved by Senator David Pocock be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:40]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator McGrath)

 15 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. (Teller) Rennick, G. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Van, D. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 24 NOES Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Kovacic, M. (Teller) McAllister, J. R. McGrath, J. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 73 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Cost of Living 73 16:43 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 A letter has been received from Senator Dean Smith: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: The Reserve Bank of Australia's 'Statement on Monetary Policy' released this month highlighted the Albanese Labor Government's cost-of-living crisis is forcing more Australians to seek support from charities for the first time, including more dual-income households and mortgage holders. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 16:43 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia The government are deaf to the cries for help from Australians suffering from the cost-of-living crisis, and they are blind to the real suffering that is happening across our community. Of course, at the coalface of this cost-of-living crisis in our country are charities, not-for-profit organisations and other community sector organisations. In fact, perhaps the most important underreported feature of the Reserve Bank of Australia's Statement on monetary policy released earlier in August were the RBA's two statements on the cost-of-living pressure—the cost-of-living crisis caused by, fanned by and encouraged by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Dr Jim Chalmers, the Treasurer—and how charities and community sector organisations are suffering. In that Statement on monetary policy—and I encourage Labor senators to pull it out in front of them now—on page 29, and at page 42, you'll see the statement in black and white. This is what the RBA has had to say: Community service organisations report that demand for their services remains at a very high level compared with the years before the pandemic owing to cost-of-living pressures and a shortage of affordable housing. That same report, the Statement on monetary policy, authored by the governor of the RBA, says at page 42 that community service organisations: … are now supporting a broader range of clients, including dual income households and those with mortgages who are often seeking support for the first time. Why are Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Treasurer Dr Jim Chalmers and charities minister Dr Andrew Leigh choosing to make life harder for our charities, not-for-profit organisations and other community groups? In fact, in the news in the last two days, reputable charitable organisations have been ringing the bells, saying they are experiencing levels of demand that they have never seen before. If you were watching ABC News yesterday, you would have heard stories from Foodbank. There is a headline, 'Foodbank Victoria blames cost-of-living crisis for understocked shelves'. The story says: Foodbank Victoria has been forced to launch a two-day emergency food drive across August 10 and 11 to re-stock its "dangerously empty" warehouse shelves. The story goes on to say that Foodbank says this is: … a national problem driven initially by the COVID-19 pandemic and later cost-of-living pressures eating into families' financial buffers. "Week on week, we've seen more people, across the whole country, having to access food relief for the first time. "You see middle-income people, working families, duel-income families just trying to survive and entering these food relief centres for the first time. OzHarvest, another respected, reputable charity, says it has been forced to open a new supermarket in Adelaide's west, offering groceries to people in need as demand for food relief rises. Those of us in this place know the important work Ronni Kahn AO, the OzHarvest founder, has done. She has said: "In my 20 years of running OzHarvest I have never seen the demand as great—the cost of living, the results of post-COVID—it's biting into ordinary working people." But you don't have to believe OzHarvest or even Foodbank. The 10th annual report of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission makes it very clear. The foreword, by commissioner Sue Woodward, says: Our data shows that cost of living issues had an impact on charities in 2022, with increases in expenses and liabilities outpacing increases in revenue and assets … She says expenses increased in the same year, employee expenses are now the highest they have been and while donations did grow they did not grow at the rate they have in previous years. Why are Dr Jim Chalmers, Andrew Leigh and the Prime Minister making it hard for charities and community organisations in our country? 16:48 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I find the language 'people are deaf and blind to what's happening to cost-of-living' both inappropriate and unfortunate. With those opposite, we are faced with people who are both heartless and unapologetic for the fact that they have opposed every substantial initiative to help people with cost-of-living challenges—initiative after initiative. On 1 July 2024 Labor brought tax cuts in. When women and men across this country, mothers and fathers, turned around and received an opportunity, like millions of people, to get tax decreases, what did Sussan Ley say? She said that she wanted to scrap those decreases in taxes. This is the heartless, unapologetic approach from those opposite to the cost-of-living crisis, whilst we've actually made a number of changes in support in a whole series of areas. Around 13.6 million taxpayers will get a tax cut, with an average cut of $1,888 a year, or $36 a week. Sussan Ley says that she wants to scrap it, to get rid of it. They're unapologetic. They are heartless. We know there are challenges now. That's why we've made so many more initiatives, like electricity bill relief. The average family would be $230 worse off in 2023-24 without Labor's Energy Price Relief Plan. Of course, the coalition voted against it. The list goes on. There's fee-free TAFE to give us an opportunity to not only build capacity within the economy but also, most importantly, to give our young and those that want to be retrained an opportunity to turn around and be trained and to build a more productive economy. We've seen over 200,000 fee-free TAFE places in 2023 and an additional 300,000 for 2024. The coalition called that 'wasteful spending'. They're harsh, heartless and unapologetic. Then you look at the more affordable homes and the Housing Australia Future Fund, the HAFF, which will build 300,000 social and affordable homes. The coalition voted against it—heartless and unapologetic. We're creating jobs and getting wages moving again, with the largest increase to the minimum wage in decades. The minimum wage grew by 8.6 per cent, or $1.85 an hour, based on a 38-hour week. This is a rise of $3,655 yearly, and the coalition opposed it—heartless and unapologetic—because that's the approach they take. They say one thing and they do the direct opposite. If what they're saying and what they're putting about the pressures that are on community—and there are pressures on community—is correct, they should be standing with us rather than standing against the community and being so heartless and unapologetic. It's about time that those opposite started getting off their backsides and actually listening to what people want and need and started supporting those initiatives that are giving people more support. We know it's tough out there. We know that we have to make sure that there's more support given out there in the community. As the RBA governor, Michele Bullock, quite rightly said on Thursday in Armidale: … governments have a job to do and I have a job to do. My job and the Reserve Bank's job is to get inflation down. The governments have a different job. Their job is also to get inflation down, and they acknowledge that— 'They acknowledge that,' she said. But, she went on: … it's also to provide services and infrastructure for the Australian people. So, they need to do that at the same time as they need to focus on keeping inflation down. Well, guess what? We're doing both. The heartless and unapologetic approach from those opposite is to oppose initiative after initiative that helps Middle Australia. Under those opposite, the middle class in Australia shrank. Wages went down; real wages declined. Now, for three successive quarters, real wages have increased in this country. We've been making it quite clear that our objective is to make sure that Australians have more in their pockets, to make sure that they have more opportunity whether it be in fee-free TAFE, whether it be getting a decent wage or whether it be making sure that there are increases in a number of the arrangements that we've entered into, such as the important areas of Medicare— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Thank you, Senator Sheldon. Senator McKim. 16:54 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Here we go again. For the third day in a row this week, the Liberals have come in here complaining about government spending. We all know what that means the Liberals really want. What they really want is austerity. What the Liberals really want is to cut spending on things like health, education and essential public services—the things that so many millions of Australians rely on to even claw their way towards some kind of dignified life. Money that actually helps people live with dignity is anathema to the Liberal Party. I'll tell you what: if the Liberal Party is serious about wanting to find some savings in the budget, the Greens have got some suggestions for them. Let's start with AUKUS. What a reckless $368 billion! That commitment to AUKUS is quite possibly the biggest waste of money in the history of this colony that we call Australia. Those self-proclaimed responsible spenders in the Liberal Party signed a cheque for over a third of a trillion dollars to the merchants of death in the military-industrial complex, and then they have the gall to come in here and complain about government spending. Let's not forget the Labor Party is right there with them, backing this outrageous waste of money while pretending that they can't afford to do more to help people who are doing it tough by, for example, putting dental and mental health into Medicare. It's free money for the merchants of death and it's austerity, under the establishment political parties in this country, for everyone else. We've got some more savings. What about the $14 billion plus in every single year of the current budget for fossil fuel subsidies? These are direct government subsidies encouraging people to burn more fossil fuels in the middle of an environmental and climate crisis that the United Nations warns is rendering the capacity of this planet to sustain human life in question. It is $14.5 billion of Australians money handed over every year to encourage the burning of fossil fuels, with many billions of it going straight into the pockets of the giant fossil fuel corporations who are making obscene profits while cooking the planet. The Greens aren't going to have a bar of it. We will fight against that kind of reckless spending, and I say to the Labor and Liberal parties: if you need any other suggestions about how to cut expenditure in the budget, come and see the Greens. But we will never support cutting expenditure on the help that people really need. 16:57 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales I'd like to thank Senator Dean Smith for raising this matter of public importance. It's something that the coalition has been speaking about for such a long time, because this is what we're hearing every single day when we go out into the community and talk to people around how difficult and challenging the current environment is. It is an absolute cost-of-living crisis. It is a housing crisis and it is a rental crisis. At every point, people are suffering and struggling. What we're concerned about is why this is not being dealt with in the way that it should be. This is a critical matter of importance, and we need our Prime Minister and our Treasurer to act. But it's not happening, and life is continuing to get harder and harder for all Australians. That's being reflected in the pressure on Australian charities, where working families are struggling to make ends meet, where working families have to make decisions about whether they can afford to buy the food that they need, which bill they're going to pay this week or what they're going to cut back on, or whether they can stretch something out for another couple of weeks. It's basic stuff too, like kids' haircuts. They have to say, 'That can wait an extra month or two,' or, 'That can wait an extra few weeks.' They are having to take normal everyday activities out of the family's life because they have to be able to afford their food, their electricity, their fuel, their rent or their mortgage, and that is a very sad state of affairs in a country like Australia. The reality is that life under Labor is hard, and that is because of the actions, or lack of action, from this government. The current situation stands in absolutely stark contrast to what the Prime Minister promised before the last election, which was that everybody would be better off under this government. It's very, very clearly not the case. Not only is it not the case but sadly it couldn't be further from the truth. These aren't talking points; these are facts. Australians are paying 20 per cent more in income tax. Employees' real wages have collapsed by about nine per cent. Living standards have dropped by about eight per cent. Household savings have collapsed by about 10 percentage points. A homeowner with a $750,000 mortgage, which is roughly the average, is $35,000 a year worse off. That's an extraordinary amount of money to have to come up with. With food, health and education up by 11 per cent each, housing and rent up 15 per cent, finance and insurance up 17 per cent, electricity up 22 per cent and gas up 25 per cent, this is just absolutely relentless. The impacts are being seen not only through the charity sector; the impacts are being seen through counselling services like the Debt Helpline. I'd like to read you something from an article I wrote a couple of weeks ago: According to Helpline counsellor Mike Dunkley, the recent explosion in demand stems from the spiralling costs of housing. Over 60 per cent of calls are made by young people aged between 18 and 39— I'll repeat that: over 60 per cent of calls are made by young people aged between 18 and 39— with the majority of those being young women struggling to pay rent. No wonder young Australians have lost faith and trust in the political process and those charged with governing. There's one further piece in this housing crisis, where we need our construction businesses and we need our tradies. Under this government, small and family businesses are being crushed by the weight of our flailing economy. ASIC reported more than 7,700 foreclosures from July 2023 to March 2024, with construction companies leading the way with more than 2,000 of these business failures. Construction companies need to lead the way out of our housing crisis, not lead the way into bankruptcy. This is a really, really dire state of affairs. Yesterday in the other place, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister why he promises one thing and then does the other. We didn't get a real answer from the Prime Minister that answers and addresses the real, lived experiences of Australians and how much they are struggling. 17:02 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales I thank my colleague Senator Smith for raising this matter of public importance. The RBA's Statement on monetary policy released last week should be a sobering wake-up call to us all, because what the RBA said—in short, and in polite central-bank-ese—was that the fight against inflation in Australia is not going well. They no longer expect us to be inside the target range, which is two to three per cent, until late 2025. The RBA doesn't expect us to hit the midpoint of that band, around 2½ per cent, until 2026. Headline inflation is expected to increase, as the various one-off cost-of-living measures introduced by the government expire or lapse or wash through the system. The Reserve Bank also makes the point that most advanced economies' central banks have either lowered their policy rates or are expected to do so over coming months. Now, Australia is the outlier here, but not in a good way, not in a positive way, because, whilst inflation in other advanced economies, other OECD economies, is subsiding and whilst other central banks around the world are easing monetary policy—in Canada, the Canadian central bank has cut rates; the British central bank has cut rates; the US Federal Reserve has indicated a rate cut is likely—in Australia, we've been told by the Reserve Bank that inflation is actually expected to increase in coming months. We've already seen inflation increase on a monthly basis and on a quarterly basis in recent economic figures, and the Reserve Bank does not expect to have inflation back to its target range until late 2025, almost 18 months away. What that means is that the prospect of interest rate relief—and high interest rates are hurting many Australian householders—is ever more remote. Australians have now experienced 12 rate rises—four percentage points or 400 basis points—in total under this government. If you have a mortgage of $750,000, that means you're paying, in interest alone, $30,000 more per year or $2½ thousand a month. But that's not the only challenge you're facing. You're facing high inflation. You've seen the cost of everyday essentials go up since Labor came to office. You've seen food prices increase by 11 per cent. You've seen house and rental prices increase by 15 per cent. You've seen electricity prices increase by 22 per cent. You've seen gas prices increase by 25 per cent. So you're dealing with higher interest rates and you're dealing with a higher cost of living. But you're also paying a larger tax bill. Personal income tax collections have increased by 27 per cent since Labor came to office, and even Labor's much vaunted revised income tax cuts are forecast to generate additional revenue of $28 billion over the next 10 years, as taxes increase. Australia now has the most expensive passport, at $398. We've got alcohol excise at $104 per litre for spirits. So people are paying a whole lot more in tax. What is making the Reserve Bank's job harder is that a lot of that extra tax—take the windfall from bracket creep and the windfall from higher commodity prices—is being spent by this government. We've seen this government increase its spending by $315 billion since coming to office—that is, $4 out of every $5 of additional revenue has been spent. We've now got the highest level of spending as a share of the economy since 1986, if we neglect the COVID period, at 26.4 per cent, and we see in the most recent budget and in next year's budget that real spending is forecast to increase by 4½ per cent this year and by 3.6 per cent next year. That is a massive fiscal stimulus. It's little wonder that the Reserve Bank is finding their job harder and is having to warn us that inflation is likely to remain higher for longer and that interest rates are likely to have to remain higher for longer. That's because when the government is putting so much additional stimulus into the economy, when it's putting an increased amount of money chasing a finite supply of goods and labour, then the natural result is inflation. So, at the moment, the Reserve Bank is having to do all the heavy lifting to control inflationary pressures in the economy. The RBA's Statement on monetary policy last week should have been a sobering wake-up call for this government that the fight against inflation is not going well and that their attempts to alleviate the symptoms without addressing the cause of high inflation are failing. I urge this government to heed the message and adjust their policies. 17:07 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria Obviously, I rise here today in support of Senator Smith's matter of public importance. There is probably no matter more important to the Australian people right now than the cost of living. The fact that so many Australians right now are relying on charity to meet their day-to-day needs is an indictment on this Albanese Labor government. Believe it or not, I'm old enough to remember when we used to call ourselves 'the lucky country'. Are we still the lucky country today? These days, under this Prime Minister, under this government, you're lucky if you can find a house, and you're extremely lucky if you can afford to even turn on the heating in your house. But let's be clear: this cost-of-living crisis hasn't appeared out of nowhere. It hasn't snuck up on us like a thief in the night. This cost-of-living crisis has been brought on by excessive government spending during a time of low employment and rising interest rates. To put it simply, the government has increased its spending while, at the same time, the Reserve Bank has been trying to pump the breaks on inflation. The result is that our once prosperous nation continues to bear the burden of high interest rates and skyrocketing prices as well. If the Albanese government would simply decide to live within its means, like every Australian household is expected to do, then this cost-of-living crisis would more quickly ease. Long-suffering voters are nowhere near as stupid as this Albanese government potentially assumes them to be, and they will punish this government for financially abusing them, just as soon as this Prime Minister is brave enough to call an election. I look forward to that election. Vote 1, UAP. 17:09 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales The overall fiscal stance is what is at fault here, and the fact that there is a massive cost-of-living crisis is of no great surprise to me, because, over the last 18 months or so, when we've had the Reserve Bank come to Senate estimates, I have asked the governor, whether it was Philip Lowe or Michele Bullock: is the government running a fiscal stance which is contractionary, neutral or expansionary? Never once has the Governor of the Reserve Bank said, 'The Commonwealth government is running a contractionary budget stance.' They were very polite, but they were less polite last week in their meeting minutes when the Reserve Bank made it clear that the government is going on the wrong direction and forcing the Reserve Bank to seriously consider raising interest rates at a time when our global peers are cutting them. So this question of homegrown inflation is not in doubt. This is not something that's just being said by politicians in the building; this is the position of the independent Reserve Bank and the Governor of the Reserve Bank as appointed by this Treasurer. I am in no doubt that the Reserve Bank is desperately wanting the government to recalibrate its fiscal stance. But, if you look at the budget papers, where we're going is deficit, deficit, deficit over the next three years, after we get through this fiscal year. We are going in the wrong direction, and all you've got to do is look at the on-budget and off-budget items to see the picture. Even though there are off-budget items—a slush fund or a multibillion-dollar fund like the reconstruction scheme or the housing scheme—these things spend real money. They spend billions of dollars, and that is adding to the inflation problem. My view is that, while we have these massive schemes, the inflation problem will only get worse. Of course, the housing question is desperately sad for so many Australians. We see in the data that rents have gone up significantly over the last couple of years, but so have housing and construction costs. We know about the 30 per cent tax the CFMEU levies on every Australian wanting to build a new house as part of a larger construction. That CFMEU tax is avoidable. We only have that tax because Labor is totally beholden to this union. It has been allowed to run the country's construction sector. That has massively inflated construction costs, which has meant the Australian dream is further from reach than it should be. As a result of Labor's intransigence on housing, their high inflation and their commitment to the CFMEU, plus their failure on housing policy more broadly, we have now had to establish a separate inquiry to look at the question of lending. The government never talk about the problems facing individuals, because they are so blinded by their obsession with what's good for institutions. The government is more interested in what's good for Vanguard, BlackRock and Cbus than in what's good for the average worker. That is where we are in this country right now. The lending inquiry will look at how we can restore the ability of an average worker on an average wage to get a mortgage, because, if you can't get a mortgage, you can't get a first house. Australia is becoming a country where you have to be a rich person to get a loan. That is a very sick position for a country like Australia with an egalitarian ethos where the middle classes and the average worker could access a mortgage and a house. It is hugely regrettable that we've now had to take this step of establishing a special inquiry to look at the question of lending and how we can allow the average worker to get into a mortgage, because, if we close the door on the financing of housing for individuals, we are closing the door on the Australian dream. Labor might be happy with the idea of giving Cbus, AustralianSuper, BlackRock and Vanguard tax cuts so they can do build-to-rent housing and with Australian people become serfs to these major institutions, but that is not the Australian dream. We want to see housing become affordable once again in Australia. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 The time for the discussion has expired. DOCUMENTS 78 DOCUMENTS Consideration 78 COMMITTEES 78 COMMITTEES Economics Legislation Committee 78 Report 78 17:14 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria On behalf of the Economics Legislation Committee I present the report of the committee on the provisions of the Taxation (Multinational—Global and Domestic Minimum Tax) Bill 2024 and related bills, together with accompanying documents. Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee 78 Delegated Legislation Monitor 78 17:14 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria On behalf of the Chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, Senator O'Neill, I present Delegated legislation monitor8 of 2024., together with ministerial correspondence received by the committee. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted. Scrutiny of Bills Committee 78 Scrutiny Digest 78 17:15 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales On behalf of Senator Dean Smith, I present Scrutiny digest No. 9 of 2024 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, together with ministerial correspondence received by the committee. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted. DELEGATION REPORTS 78 DELEGATION REPORTS Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Vietnam 78 17:15 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria On behalf of Senator Sterle, I present the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation and References Committees visit to Vietnam. I seek leave to move a motion in relation to the report. Leave granted. Senator CICCONE 281503 I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted. DOCUMENTS 79 DOCUMENTS Order for the Production of Documents 79 DELEGATION REPORTS 79 DELEGATION REPORTS Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Vietnam 79 17:16 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to speak to the report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation and References Committees visit to Vietnam in April last year. The purpose of the committee's visit was to assist our inquiry into the adequacy of Australia's biosecurity measures and response preparedness. Our particular focus was on food safety biosecurity systems in Australia's key export markets. I was joined by Senator Colbeck, Senator Whish-Wilson and our great mate, the late Senator Linda White. We were all generously supported by the former secretary of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, Gerry McInally. I would like to place on the record the entire delegation's thanks to the team at the Australian Embassy in Vietnam that supported us throughout our time there. In particular, I would like to acknowledge Tony Harman, James Deane, Nguyen Thank An and Mguyen Khanh Minh. Their support of our delegation and their depth of knowledge of the issues we were investigating was, to say the least, magnificent. Tony deserves a big medal for his patience, practical knowledge and diligence while on the road with us. The delegation also appreciated the support and wise counsel we received from Australian Ambassador Andrew Goledzinowski. During our time in Vietnam, the committee members appreciated meeting with and learning from Australian business operators based in Vietnam and representatives from the aquaculture, agriculture and supermarket sectors. Like many Australians, I used to labour under the misinformation about the cleanliness and quality of the seafood processing industry in Vietnam. Our meetings with the operators and a visit to a processing centre were real eye-openers for me and, of course, the rest of the delegation. The cleanliness and efficiency of Vietnamese seafood processing is truly outstanding. The processing facilities at HaiViet Corporation are world class. Their comprehensive processing steps that ensure monitoring and testing to guarantee compliance with Australian biosecurity requirements are both reassuring and impressive. Hai Viet specialises in the production of squid, cuttlefish, octopus, fish and shellfish, along with a separate prawn-processing division. Australia is the sixth-largest market for Vietnamese seafood. The value of seafood imports from Vietnam to Australia has grown from US$197 million in 2018 to a staggering US$365 million in 2022—and it's growing. This growth in trade follows the signing of the CPTPP agreement. That agreement has proved vital in expanding trade between our two nations and deepening our economic relationship. In addition to gaining a greater understanding of the Vietnamese seafood industry, the committee members also appreciated the opportunity to learn more about fresh food and supermarket operations, shipbuilding, the fashion industry and new and emerging industries like insect production, along with Vietnam's thriving agriculture and aquaculture research and development organisations. We also appreciated the opportunity to meet with government officials and parliamentary groups. The delegation originally planned to include a visit to Indonesia as part of our inquiry; however, we were forced to cancel those plans at the last minute, unfortunately, due to an outbreak of COVID. I didn't get it—I'll just let you know that—but everyone else did. In closing, I again thank all of the Australian and Vietnamese officials that supported us during our visit. But I really want to put out a special thanks to my colleagues—as I said earlier, Senators Colbeck and Wish-Wilson, along with our late friend Senator Linda White. Linda brought her usual diligence, knowledge and flair to all meetings. She was brilliant to work with throughout her time in the Senate, and we all miss her. The way we all worked together overseas was a real example of 'team Australia'. There was no red. There was no blue. We were all Aussies. It's important to place on the record that we did work as a team, and it was a pleasure, I say to my colleagues, to work with each and every one of you. It's also important to note that not all the work of the Senate reflects the ugliness of the performances from some during question time. COMMITTEES 80 COMMITTEES Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee 80 Delegated Legislation Monitor 80 17:22 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I present the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation's Delegated Legislation Monitor8 of 2024 and I move: That the Senate take note of the report. Monitor 8 reports on the committee's consideration of 183 legislative instruments registered between 24 May and 25 June 2024. I would particularly like to draw the chamber's attention to two instruments the committee is now able to conclude its examination of, following engagement with the relevant ministers and the associated undertakings that have been implemented. The committee considers that the timely implementation of undertakings are essential to address its scrutiny concerns and will continue to regularly monitor the implementation of undertakings made to the committee. The first of these instruments is the Jervis Bay Territory Rural Fires Rules 2024, which are made to provide fire management services to the Jervis Bay Territory. The committee has engaged in ongoing correspondence regarding this instrument with the Minister for Regional Development, Local Government and Territories since Delegated legislation monitor 5 of 2024. The committee's scrutiny concerns regarding this instrument related to the breadth of discretionary powers, including the power to impose conditions on members of the Jarvis Bay Territory fire brigade and whether a person is fit and proper to be a member; free access to service standards referenced in the instrument; and privacy matters. Following engagement with the committee, the minister made an undertaking to register a replacement explanatory statement with additional information to address the scrutiny concerns raised by the committee. This includes the inclusion of an example illustrating conditions that may be imposed on the discretionary decision to list a person as a member; specification of a source to freely access applicable service standards referenced throughout the instrument; and the applicability of the privacy safeguards, including the Privacy Act. The committee is pleased to conclude its examination of this instrument and welcomes the additional information included in the replacement explanatory statement. I note that the committee expects its guidelines will be taken into account in the preparation of all explanatory statements to delegated legislation in order to minimise engagement with the committee. We nonetheless thank the minister for her timely and informative engagement, as well as for the prompt implementation of the undertaking to amend the explanatory statement. The committee has resolved to withdraw the notice of motion to disallow the instrument. I would also like to draw the chamber's attention to the committee's concluding comments in relation to the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visas) Regulations 2024 which clarifies the circumstances in which a bridging visa may be granted. The committee has been engaging with the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs since Delegated legislation monitor 6 of 2024 about a range of scrutiny concerns, including the availability of independent merit review decisions. On 15 July, the minister made an undertaking to amend the explanatory statement to specify that independent merits review is available for a decision made under the instrument in relation to granting a bridging visa that is subject to conditions. On 30 July, a revised explanatory statement was registered on the Federal Register of Legislation. The committee thanks the minister for his prompt implementation of this undertaking and is pleased to be able to conclude its examination of this instrument. I commend the examples set by Minister McBain and Minister Giles in this monitor by implementing the undertakings made to the committee within just two weeks. In chapter 4 of this monitor, the committee has instituted a new practice to list all undertakings which remain outstanding for more than 90 days. The committee routinely asks responsible ministers or agencies to make an undertaking to address the committee's scrutiny concerns in relation to a particular legislative instrument. Most commonly, this includes asking the minister or agency to amend the instrument or its explanatory statement. The acceptance of such undertakings by the minister or agencies has the benefit of securing a satisfactory outcome in relation to the committee's scrutiny concerns without interrupting the administration of government by disallowing the instrument in question. The committee therefore expects undertakings to be implemented in a timely manner and to receive regular updates on the progress of implementation. The committee will be seeking an update from the relevant minister or agency on the progress of implementation for each of the 32 undertakings listed as 'outstanding' for more than 90 days in this monitor. This practice will continue in subsequent monitors to ensure that the committee receives regular progress updates until each undertaking has been implemented. I also advise senators that a full list of all undertakings made to this committee can be found on the committee's website. With these comments, I commend Delegated legislation monitor 8 of 2024 to the Senate. Question agreed to. Adopting Artificial Intelligence (AI) Select Committee, Education and Employment Legislation Committee, Education and Employment References Committee, Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee 81 Membership 81 17:27 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 The President has received letters requesting changes in the membership of various committees. 17:27 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland by leave—I move: That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows: Adopting Artificial Intelligence — Select Committee — Appointed—Participating member: Senator Payman Education and Employment Legislation and References Committees — Appointed—Participating member: Senator Payman Environment and Communications Legislation Committee — Appointed—Participating member: Senator Payman Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee Appointed—Participating member: Senator Payman Question agreed to. BILLS 81 BILLS Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023 81

Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023

First Reading 81 17:28 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland 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 81 17:29 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland 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 Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023 represents the final legislative reform required to fulfil the Albanese Government's commitment to implement the recommendations of the Respect@Work Report. The landmark Respect@Work Report made 55 recommendations to federal, state and territory governments, the private sector and the community more broadly, all driven by the same impetus: to put an end to sexual harassment and make Australian workplaces safe for all. The fifth national survey on sexual harassment in Australian workplaces found that 33% of people who had been in the workforce in the preceding five years had experienced workplace sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is a serious and pervasive issue, which demands a fundamental re-think in how our laws are shaped to prevent, protect and support individuals who experience sexual harassment. Research shows us that for victim-survivors, the risk of an adverse order for costs is a significant barrier to accessing justice in federal unlawful discrimination court proceedings.[ ] Victim-survivors should not be deterred from commencing or running legal proceedings by the risk of an adverse cost order. Costs protections The Bill would insert a modified 'equal access' costs protection provision into the Australian Human Rights Commission Act. This would achieve the policy objective of recommendation 25 of the Respect@Work Report. This new model would apply to all complaints taken to court under Commonwealth anti-discrimination law, reflecting the public interest in holding people to account for discrimination and harassment. The new model would also apply to representative actions. The Respect@Work Report considered that cost reform was required to overcome the deterrent effect that an adverse costs order poses to applicants seeking to commence unlawful discrimination proceedings, and to provide sufficient certainty to parties as to how costs would be awarded. The prospect of an adverse cost order can also magnify existing financial and power disparities between an individual applicant and certain respondents, such as large corporations or well-resourced individuals. While the Government previously sought to introduce a 'soft cost neutrality' model, consistent with the Australian Human Rights Commission's position in its 2021 Free and Equal Position Paper, victim-survivor advocates, community legal centres, members of the legal profession and unions raised concerns with this approach. After careful consideration and close and comprehensive consultation with a range of organisations and individuals, the Government considers that a modified equal access model would best achieve the policy objectives of recommendation 25 of the Respect@Work Report. This Bill would ensure that where an applicant is successful in proceedings on one or more grounds, the respondent would pay the applicant's costs. This would operate to protect applicants from an adverse costs order where they are successful in a case. However, if the applicant's unreasonable act or omission caused the applicant to incur costs, the court would not be required to order the respondent to pay those costs. This Bill would prevent a court from ordering an applicant to pay the respondent's costs except in certain circumstances. These circumstances include where the applicant has commenced the proceedings vexatiously or without reasonable cause, or the applicant's unreasonable act or omission caused the other party to incur costs. In addition to this, the court would be able to order that the applicant pay the respondent's costs where the respondent has been successful in the proceedings (meaning all claims against them have been dismissed), the respondent does not have a significant power advantage over the applicant and the respondent does not have significant financial or other resources relative to the applicant. Significantly, this modified equal access model addresses the power imbalances and resource disparities present in most unlawful discrimination proceedings. At the same time, the modifications to the equal access model recognise that not all respondents in unlawful discrimination proceedings are well-resourced or at a power advantage over the applicant, such as some individuals or small businesses. Conclusion The Respect@Work Report represents a major shift in how public policy and the legislative framework support people who experience sexual harassment and discrimination. The modified equal access cost provision in this Bill reflects a considered and balanced approach, which best achieves the policy objectives of recommendation 25 of the Respect@Work Report. This Bill would strengthen Australia's anti-discrimination framework and help achieve its core objective of eliminating all forms of discrimination. I will conclude by thanking the many individuals and organisations, including unions, business groups and legal experts that have engaged with the Attorney-General's Department in the development of this important reform. Debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 82 COMMITTEES Electoral Matters Joint Committee, Human Rights Joint Committee 82 Membership 82 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS 82 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS Migration Amendment (Visa Application Charges) Regulations 2024 82 Disallowance 82 17:30 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move: That the Migration Amendment (Visa Application Charges) Regulations 2024, made under the Migration Act 1958, be disallowed [F2024L00790]. The Labor government is basically using multicultural diaspora communities in this country as cash cows. It is squeezing money from families trying to build a life here and from students trying to get an education, only to turn around and slap them in the face. If you reduce the people who come to Australia and build their lives and communities here to a dollar figure, they become expendable and then they become dehumanised and then it's a pathway towards breakdown in social cohesion. But that's what Labor is doing—gouging hundreds of millions of dollars more from people seeking a better life in Australia than from multinational fossil fuel corporations that export our wealth and drive climate chaos. Last year the Labor government took some $3.3 billion in visa fees, and they're predicting, in the budget papers, that that will ramp up to $4.4 billion by 2027-28. That is $4.4 billion from people seeking to come here to be part of a family or to perform work. That is $4.4 billion from multicultural communities. And how much are they taking through the major bank levy? $1.6 billion. How much is Labor taking through the luxury car tax? $1.3 billion. How much through the petroleum resource rent tax? $1.1 billion. Vastly more is being gouged out of multicultural Australia through these visa fee increases than through those three tax streams combined. People trying to get their parents a visa to Australia can pay over $40,000 in fees to bring mum and dad over, to complete the family. Some of the waiting lists and times are disgraceful. It can take 10, 20 or sometimes 30 years to bring your parents to the country. It's a tragic reality for many families that their parents die on the waiting list before they can be brought to this country—and they've paid tens and tens of thousands of dollars for it. That's Labor's approach to visas and immigration. It is a disgraceful, disrespectful policy. In that regard, Labor is continuing with almost exactly the policy settings given to them by the coalition. I don't want to let the coalition off the hook. The coalition created this horrible, dehumanising mess with the price gouging of multicultural communities. But the real tragedy here is Labor has come in and doubled down on it. The reason we're bringing forward this disallowance motion is Labor has ramped up so many visa fees. The worst of it is the extraordinary fee increases they're proposing for students; my colleague Senator Faruqi will deal with that in detail, as she has publicly. She has proudly made the case against those appalling attacks from the Albanese government. Let me repeat: if you are trying to get an aged-parent visa—that is the visa you specifically get when your mum and dad are in their last years and you're trying to look after them and they may not have support in the country they're currently living in; the bulk of their family may be here. For brothers and sisters who come together to bring their parents to the country for their last few years, it costs tens of thousands of dollars and they face waiting times that, we're told in answers to questions on notice, are in the order of 29 years. That's not a humane system. That's not a human system. That's a brutal price gouge from multicultural Australia. You would have thought the extremely high fees that this government is gouging from migrant communities would help with the processing, the numbers and the times, but you'd be wrong. Since 2020-21, the number of staff has barely moved and people are being charged more. There are no additional staff and the timeframes are extending. It's like a double whammy, a double insult, to multicultural Australia. The government has said that, apart from the massive increases in student fees, 'Don't worry, the rest of these changes only match CPI.' We've run the calculator over these numbers, and that's plainly untrue. This Labor government is putting above-CPI increases on visa charges like for the orphan relative visa—to bring out an orphaned child. With these changes, the cost of that visa has gone well above the CPI increase. What government wants to profit from orphaned children? Answer: the Albanese government. Even the explanatory memorandum from this department is not true and can't be trusted. I ask again: what government wants to price-gouge off orphaned children? I give you the answer again. The Albanese Labor government is doing that. Is there any wonder we're moving to disallow these regulations? I look forward to seeing how the government justifies this attack on something that's so important to a successful multicultural community—the ability for families to be brought together in this country. It's a genuine pathway for Mum and Dad to come here and complete the family or to bring that child that doesn't have parents anymore into an extended family to get the love and support that they need. Please explain how you justify the price gouging of these families and these communities. Please tell us why this is right, because I can't understand it and I know that the communities I'm out talking to in my home state—in places like Western Sydney—and around this country, can't understand it. They see the delays, the fees, the costs, the disrespect and the way in which they never get an answer from the department. Their application goes in. It could have gone in last century and they still wouldn't be getting answers. Their emails are not returned. Their phone calls aren't answered. There's no-one to talk to. Please explain how that works. I commend the motion to the chamber and I commend the spirit of multiculturalism to the Labor government. It's not just about turning up at a festival and eating some novel food; it's about actually listening to what multicultural communities are saying. Listen to what families are telling you and answer with some decency and humanity. Don't gouge more out of these communities than you do out of resource giants or the luxury car tax. Be a government with a human face. 17:39 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania The government does not support this disallowance motion. The Migration Amendment (Visa Application Charges) Regulations 2024 provide for the regular indexation of visa application fees and for a one-off increase in the fee for student visas from $710 to $1,600. This increase reflects the increasing value of education in Australia and reflects the Albanese government's commitment to restoring integrity in the international education sector. The increase will also help fund a number of important initiatives in education and migration, including measures recommended by the Universities Accord: making HECS fairer and delivering paid prac and fee-free uni-ready courses. Measures in the vocational education and training sector include financial support for apprentices and their employers and the ongoing implementation of the migration strategy. 17:40 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania On behalf of the opposition I want to place on record that we will not be supporting the disallowance motion of Senator Shoebridge this afternoon. As Senator Urquhart has already outlined, the proposed motion would disallow 199 visa fee increases from the regular indexation of visa fees, and all but one have gone up a small amount. But I did want to draw the attention of those in the chamber to the fact that there was a significant fee increase to one visa this year. The government increased the fee for international students from $710,000 to $1,600 on 1 July 2024. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Senator Chandler, I think you might need to reread that number into the record. It's $710— Senator CHANDLER 264449 Yes—$710 was increased to $1,600 on 1 July. Goodness me! This is why I'm not I'm government, because I would have just made visas incredibly expensive! Thank you, Madam Acting Deputy President. As I said, the government increased the fee for international students from $710— Senator Urquhart 231199 That's what I said. Senator CHANDLER 264449 exactly what you said, Senator Urquhart—to $1,600 on 1 July 2024. It's worth noting that the government did not give prior notice of this fee increase and that there hasn't been an explanation for this increase made available to the media. This occurred when the then Minister for Home Affairs, Ms O'Neil; the then Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Mr Giles; as well as the Minister for Education and the Minister for Skills and Training put out a media release on Monday 1 July 2024 announcing the increase. In contrast to this, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, said in his budget reply speech that, when in government, we: … will enhance the integrity of the student visa program by introducing a tiered approach to increasing the student visa application fee and applying it to foreign students who change providers. I think there is a very clear contrast between what the current opposition will do when in government and what is occurring in the government currently. We want to front up and tell the Australian public what we intend to do, and that is, as I said, in stark contrast to the government, who put out a media release on the day that the indexation occurred by a significant amount, from $710 to $1,600, and won't then front the media to explain that increase or go to the public to explain their policy. As I said, on behalf of the opposition, we will not be supporting Senator Shoebridge's disallowance motion here this afternoon. 17:43 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I rise to speak to the disallowance of the Migration Amendment (Visa Application Charges) Regulations 2024, and I associate myself with the comments made by Senator Shoebridge. It's another week in parliament and yet another week of this Labor government exploiting, while at the same time scapegoating, migrants and international students. It's not a surprise that the Liberals are on a joint ticket with them when it comes to squeezing migrants and international students even more. What a cruel measure to be proposing at this time—jacking up visa application fees for international students by 125 per cent. And how are they doing it? They're doing it by sneaking it in in a routine annual amendment that increases all visas fees in line with the CPI. Well, the CPI is 3.8 per cent, so how on earth can they justify slugging international students with a 125 per cent increase? The truth is they can't. There is no justification, no matter what they say. These fee increases are entirely punitive and designed to stop people from coming here. This is not an education measure; this is a migration policy. They're trying to stop them from coming here unless they are willing to pay exorbitant amounts to do so. There is no end to how they will use international students as cash cows to fill government coffers. This is a government that lacks courage to stand up to the coal and gas corporations who are destroying our planet. They can't stand up to the price-gouging supermarkets, the profiteering banks and the greedy property developers, but they're always ready to punch down on migrants and international students—and the figures back this up. Research from the Australia Institute, based on previous visa application charges, found that these charges earned the government nearly $3 billion more than the petroleum resource rent tax. That is disgraceful! It is clear that Labor simply does not care about migrants and international students or their wellbeing. They don't care about the stress and anxiety they are causing to hundreds of thousands of people in this country. They don't care, because, conveniently for Labor, international students and visa applicants can't vote. To Labor, like the coalition, international students and migrants are political footballs to be kicked around when it suits them. Two years ago, Labor and the coalition were desperate for international students to return to help revive the economy after the COVID lockdowns, and, after they had been disgustingly left completely high and dry, without any support, during COVID by the coalition government, they were actually told by the then prime minister Scott Morrison that it was time for them to go home, and now they're the scapegoats for the Albanese government's complete failure to tackle the housing crisis. They think that we can't see what they are up to with their race-baiting and dirty tactics. Well, I'm here to tell you that we can see right through this terrible agenda. The treatment of international students is despicable. And millions of Australians see through you as well; that's why your polls are falling. We see these games that you are playing, using international students and migrants as pawns. We see you doing nothing to fix the housing or rental crises, because you're in bed with property developers, and we see the racist dog-whistling and shameful attempts to blame people of colour for your own policy failures—and we will call it out. We will call it out every single time, because the consequences of this dog-whistling are dire. We saw just over the weekend a disgusting Neo-Nazi rally in Brisbane. No doubt, they were emboldened by the racist antimigrant riots in the UK. We've seen across this country a massive spike, though, in Islamophobia. We're seeing a rise in far-right extremism. So connect the dots. You should be able to see that the dog-whistling inflames racism and that it targets and smears migrants and international students and feeds white supremacy. International students are being attacked from every angle. It was revealed in April that, because of ministerial direction 107, universities were rejecting applications from entire countries—entire countries!—namely, India, Nepal and Pakistan, because of concerns about the impact on the universities' risk rating. But in reality this is just unfair, harmful and discriminatory. That's what it comes down to. The government has also made changes to temporary graduate visas, to age eligibility, to onshore applications and to visa application processes, leading to an environment for prospective and current students that is both uncertain and unwelcoming. Now, on top of all of this, we have a whopping increase in visa processing fees that more than doubles the current costs. These fees apply to students whether they come here for a two-week English cost or a four-year honours degree—or even if their visa applications are rejected. The attacks on international students, though, don't stop there, because now we have the attempted introduction of enrolment caps for international students, from a government desperate to point the finger at anyone to cover up its absolute failure to address the housing and rental crisis. There is absolutely no evidence that links international students with the housing or rental crisis. Students have spoken to me about how that is making them feel, and I have heard that many students are already reconsidering their decision to study in Australia, given the uncertainty and unwelcoming attitude of the current government. The President of the Flinders University Student Association, an international student himself, told the inquiry into the ESOS bill that the government's measures over the past 12 months: … sends a strong message to the world that international students are not welcome here. Moreover, introduction of these caps, especially at public institutions, sends a message that genuine international students in Australia are a mere commodity. … am I a commodity or a fellow human being with dreams and hopes, who just wants a fair go? That's what international students are feeling—completely dehumanised. International students pay astronomical fees, yet face bias and discrimination. The Labor government would be better off focusing on making our higher education system fairer and more equitable, instead of repeatedly targeting international students because of its policy failures. The government is determined to let international students and migrants be the scapegoats in its race to the bottom with the opposition leader on migration, and that is a real shame. It is so hypocritical of the Labor Party to lecture all of us about social cohesion while making life harder and harder for so many migrants, people of colour and their families. You just want to silence us, don't you? You want us to put our heads down and do all the hard work that no-one else wants to do, but you will do nothing for us except squeeze us for more and more. Well, people have really had enough. I know both the Labor Party and the Liberals have already indicated that they won't support this disallowance motion. Sadly, that doesn't come as a surprise to me. But I urge everyone else who thinks migrants and international students deserve better—and they do indeed deserve much better—to vote for this disallowance. Again I say that, sadly, in this chamber I don't hold out much hope. 17:52 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Well, here we go again. I say, 'Here we go again,' because it's critical that we see this particular move by a Labor government in the context of Australia's history: the things that have come before today in terms of the colonialisation of this country, the displacement and racism faced by First Nations people in this country, and the racism that to this very day is experienced by far too many migrants to Australia. I had some conversations just last week, in my home state of Tasmania, with some of the leaders of the many multicultural communities who choose to make their home in Tasmania, and they were very clear to me about the dangers of being someone who is obviously from a different country or a different culture. They spoke about how they have faced increased violence, increased racially motivated attacks and increased racism over recent times, and they were very clear about the reasons that these racist attacks and increases in racism were occurring. They said to me, 'Nick, it's because of the public comments made by people like Senator Pauline Hanson and the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton.' They asked me to come into this place and call that behaviour out, so that's what I'm going to do tonight. I'm going to call that behaviour out. That is not acceptable from Senator Hanson, who built a political career on demonising people from Asia and has now shifted her focus to target Muslim people. It is not acceptable, and the Greens and I are calling it out. My great friend Senator Mehreen Faruqi has done an amazing job in calling it out, but Senator Faruqi shouldn't have to call this out, because it shouldn't be happening. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 Senator McKim, I just want to remind you that imputation would be crossing a bridge that might not be appropriate. Passion in speech is a good thing. I just ask that you take care with your language. You have the call, Senator McKim. Senator McKIM JKM Thank you, Acting Deputy President O'Neill. Who can forget the opposition leader, Mr Dutton, warning about these so-called Sudanese gangs that were allegedly roaming around Melbourne? Mr Dutton was saying, 'People are scared to go out and have dinner in Melbourne because of Sudanese gangs.' Then Victoria Police came out and said, 'Actually, there are no Sudanese gangs in Melbourne,' and what did Mr Dutton do? Did he do what any normal, decent person would do—retract and apologise? No. He doubled down. What Mr Dutton and Senator Hanson need to understand is that their words give permission for people out in the Australian community to engage in racism. Whether that is in words or actions, up to and including violence motivated by racism, none of those things are acceptable. Enabling them or implicitly encouraging them is not acceptable either and must be called out every time that it happens. The truth is that far too many Australians face this kind of racism. They face it far too often and they face it in far too many elements of their lives. It has to end, and a great place to begin ending that structural racism that exists in our society would be if people who get up in this place and either explicitly or implicitly encourage that racism were to stop—just stop. This particular instrument that the Greens are seeking to disallow today increases visa application fees. International student visa application fees are going to increase by 125 per cent, as Senator Faruqi has already informed the chamber. In the context of an election campaign that I fear is going to be based in significant part on the demonising of migrants and multicultural communities in this country, this increase is a very unwise move by a Labor Party that is all about social cohesion when it suits it. They are all about social cohesion, yet they don't want to talk about the fact that they are complicit in a genocide in Gaza. It's all about social cohesion, but they don't seem to worry too much about social cohesion when they are talking about jacking up visa fees in the context of the upcoming election campaign. Make no mistake, it is absolutely obvious to anyone who is paying attention that part of Mr Dutton's strategy in this campaign is going to be to blame migrants for as many of the challenges facing us here in Australia as he can. If you can't get in for a hip operation, blame migrants. If housing prices are too high and there are not enough homes available, blame migrants. If there is a pothole in the road outside your house, blame the migrants driving down the road. That's what we're going to get from Mr Dutton. It is blindingly obvious. He is going to weaponise Australia's multicultural communities. He is going to weaponise migration levels to this country, and he's going to do it because he thinks that's one of his pathways to power. Well, Mr Dutton and anyone else on that side of the chamber who's going to try that on needs to understand that they're going to be fought every step of the way by the Australian Greens because we are going to stand up for multicultural Australia. We are going to stand up for the amazing contribution that migrants have made, continue to make to this day and will continue to make into the future in this country. We are going to stand up, and we are going to fight against the kind of divisive, harmful rhetoric that has already started from the opposition and which no doubt will continue. Of course, the Labor Party are not going to stand and fight proudly against that. In fact, they are going to start appeasing it, and they've done that already by cutting back on migration levels into Australia. That's because they don't want to fight Mr Dutton on that turf. They would prefer not to have a fight, and, in the time honoured way of the Labor Party, they're going to capitulate, roll over and let Mr Dutton tickle their collective bellies, as we've seen happen so many times on so many issues. The country therefore lurches further to the Right. The Greens are here to fight for people. We are here to fight for multiculturalism, and we are here to fight for a fair go for migrants. When you place this in other contexts recently, it is yet another sad day in our country's national story. I went to Manus Island five times, and I know my friend and colleague Senator Hanson-Young visited Nauru. We saw firsthand the human cost of Australia's racist offshore detention system. I call it racist because—how many white people ended up on Manus Island? I didn't visit Nauru, because, on the instructions of the Australian government, the Nauru government refused me a visa. But I went to Manus Island five times, and I can tell you absolutely, without any doubt whatsoever, how many white people there were locked up in Manus Island: none. If a boatload of white South African farmers had happened to arrive in Australia during the time when that shameful policy was in place, I have no doubt the answer would have been the same: none. They would not have ended up on Manus Island, because they were white. It was okay to put the brown-skinned and the black-skinned people on Manus Island, but it would never have been okay to put a white-skinned person on Manus Island. That was a racist policy. We need to call that out. This country has got a shameful history of being a racist country, back from the days when it was open and explicit, with the White Australia Policy, through to today—a shameful history of racism. And you can't do something like this, like what the government is trying to do, without understanding the historical context of this country and doing your best to understand what this does in that context. So we are going to stand up and fight. We are moving to disallow this, and I thank Senator Shoebridge for moving this disallowance. It is time for a reckoning in this country about our history, about the displacement of First Nations people from their country under the lie of terra nullius. It is time for a reckoning about the failure to get up a voice in this country and about Labor's current failure to proceed with Makarrata in the terms that it was conceived of in the Uluru statement. It is time for a reckoning about our racist history as a country. Until we have those reckonings—and that must include a treaty or treaties with First Nations people—we will still have massive unfinished business as a country; we will still have a hole in our collective hearts. 18:04 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise to contribute to this debate and associate myself with the comments made by my Greens colleagues here. You know there's an election coming when the race baiting really starts heating up. You know there's an election coming when the Leader of the Opposition, rather than focusing on what he will do to help relieve the cost-of-living pressures on everyday Australians, goes for the lazy option, the low option and the heartless option of attacking refugees. Mr Dutton's comments this morning, deliberately used to inflame division, hatred and fear, are despicable, are racist and are unbecoming of anyone who wants to become this nation's Prime Minister. But, of course, that's all Mr Peter Dutton has. He doesn't have a plan for reducing the cost of living for Australians. He doesn't have a plan for making sure childcare workers get paid better. He doesn't have a plan for making sure supermarkets stop gouging at the checkout. He doesn't have a plan to stop rents rising. He doesn't have a plan to fund our universities so that our kids can get a decent education without having mountains of debt. He doesn't have a plan for making sure that people can go to the doctor and not have to pay through the nose. He doesn't have a plan for making sure you can go to the dentist and afford it or ensure that your kid can get the help they need if they're struggling with their mental health. No, he doesn't have a plan for any of this. He doesn't actually care. He wants to take the lazy, the nasty and the fearful option, and that is to inflame divisions in this country, to blame migrants, to beat up on refugees and to incite a debate about whether people facing war and persecution should be given sanctuary and safety. Of course, unlike a government that might have a spine to stand up against this, we see the Labor Party going weak at the knees and rolling out soft-ball policy after soft-ball policy that echo some of that dog whistling. That's why we're moving this disallowance today—because of the message it sends. This move to put the hardship and burden on the migrants coming to this country plays into that exhibition of fear and hatred displayed by Mr Dutton. There has not been an opportunity to race-bait that Mr Dutton hasn't taken. He'll never miss an opportunity to whip up fear and hatred. So why does the Labor government keep giving him the opportunity? Mr Dutton is leading the nasty party. That's for sure. And the only book they've got to play in this election is blaming migrants, refugees and people fleeing war and persecution for all of the problems, which of course is ludicrous. It's wrong. Where is the opposition's debate this week in the parliament? We haven't been here for five or six weeks. Rather than having a debate about tackling the cost of living, we have the Leader of the Opposition wanting to whip up racist fearmongering. He's not blowing the dog whistle; he's blowing the foghorn, and there will be more of it as we get closer and closer to this election. The foghorn of racism and fearmongering will get louder, and I implore the Labor Party: don't fall for his nasty tricks. Don't fall for it. Don't get sucked in by the hatred of the nasty party, of the laziness of the race baiters, of the fear mongering, of a party that has never ever under the leadership of Peter Dutton stood up for our proud, multicultural society, our community. He wants us to be divided. Don't fall for the nasty party's nasty tricks. 18:10 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I rise in support of this disallowance motion moved by Senator Shoebridge. Education is the ACT's biggest export. It contributes $1 billion to our local economy annually, and international education was responsible for half of the national GDP growth in Australia last year. More importantly, these students enrich our community immeasurably. Our universities have done the right thing over the years in the ACT; they have built extra student accommodation. As a result of the government changes which are subject to this disallowance, Australia now has the highest student visa fees in the world. I had a lot of feedback from universities, and we have five here in the ACT, about the risks and negative consequences from this fee hike, alongside other policy changes such as ministerial directive 107, which is frankly a disastrous way to deal with net overseas migration. What a sham of a policy. Of course, the proposed ESOS legislation currently seems to be rather friendless. It seems a bit rich to increase almost all visa application fees at time when processing timelines have blown out in such an extraordinary way. Sure, if you're getting a better service, maybe you will pay a bit more. If you're getting it back quicker, most people might be willing to spend a little bit more, but to hike up the fees at the same time you are on this go-slow when it comes to processing means students who are doing all the right things—applying for their course, paying top-dollar to attend an Australian university—are sometimes arriving in week 2, 3, 4 or 5 and some are just giving up, saying, 'This is too hard. I will go somewhere else.' We cannot take international students for granted and assume they will choose Australia for their study. Yes, our universities are some of the best in the world, but students obviously have other options. There are many competitors out there. I looked at some of the visa application fees of some of these other countries. In Canada, a student visa costs the equivalent of a whopping A$165. In France, it is exactly the same. New Zealand is a bit more, the equivalent of A$344; Hong Kong, A$190; and Germany, A$180. The most expensive fees I could find were in the US at about A$770 and in the United Kingdom at A$950. These regulations increase the costs of applying for a student visa in Australia from a vaguely competitive $710 to $1,600—that is, a $1,600 non-refundable fee. It really doesn't make sense to me. The ABS says the value of international students in Australia was $48 billion last year. After a more than decade of underfunding by successive governments, our universities have made a plan. Many of them have decided, 'We're not getting funded for research, so we need to find funding elsewhere.' So they've gone to the international student market and developed courses, and we now have the international student market as it is today. But government policy has forced them to do that—to find money elsewhere, to cross subsidise research and to cross subsidise some courses for domestic students. Now we're turning around—rather than saying: 'We've got a bit of a problem here. We're running into a problem with housing and potentially with social licence. Let's come up with a plan to turn this around.' You'd think that there'd be a sensible conversation about how, over the next five to 10 years, we work with universities when it comes to funding models, to research funding and to on-campus accommodation. Instead, we see this ministerial directive 107, which is basically just putting on the go-slow. Rather than having an upfront conversation with universities, you're just stopping them from getting students, because they can't even get a visa after paying an outrageous fee. We should be recognising and celebrating the huge contribution to our economy and the value that international students bring to our learning environments. Instead, this government is launching a sustained attack on the financial sustainability of our universities and using international students as scapegoats, rather than having the hard conversations around migration. I have people raise these questions with me: As a country, how big do we want to get? What are the trade-offs? How is it impacting housing? What are the trade-offs in terms of ecological health of the landscape for cities to continue to grow? People have, I think, very legitimate concerns, but let's have that conversation as a country and as communities. Let's come up with a plan, rather than this reactive, almost farcical, approach and this focus on net overseas migration and this scapegoating of universities. I don't think it is useful, and it's certainly not anywhere near a long-term sustainable approach that would allow Australian universities to maintain their reputation as world leading and as a place that is welcoming for international students. You can't force, through government policies from both sides, universities to go after the international student market and then suddenly pull the rug out from under them. Surely we can do better, and I support this disallowance of these regulations. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 140651 The question is that the motion moved by Senator Shoebridge be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [18:22]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator O'Neill)

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

Question negatived.

 BILLS 89 BILLS Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 89

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

Second Reading 89 18:24 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland When it comes to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 and the debate it's often said that the standards you walk past are the standards you accept. With the Labor Party and the CFMEU, the Labor Party are bending over and giving the CFMEU a big sloppy kiss, because we know about the relationship between the Labor Party and the CFMEU. They are one and the same and one and the other. Let's talk about the tactics and the behaviour of the CFMEU not just over the last year or last month but even what they have done today. The CFMEU are a corrupt criminal cabal. The CFMEU are a blight on Australian democracy and a blight on all those who believe in the freedom of people to join a union and the right of people to form together and start a union. With the CFMEU it is all about them. It is all about their corrupt conduct. It is all about the sexism within the CFMEU, which is never called out by the Labor Party or the Greens. It is all about the violence within the CFMEU not just to other members but also on worksites across Australia—violence that is never called out by the Labor Party or the Greens. It is all about their connection with bikie gangs, drug taking and drug selling—lawbreaking that is never, never called out by the Labor Party or the Greens. What we see in Australia is a protection racket between the Labor Party, the Greens and the CFMEU. You just have to look at who the president of the Labor Party is. It is Wayne Swan, the world's worst Treasurer. What other role does Wayne Swan have apart from being the world's worst Treasurer and president of the Labor Party? Guess what? He happens to be the chairman of the CFMEU's superfund, Cbus. So you see there is a revolving door between Labor Party politicians and the financial interests of the CFMEU. But then we look at the green light that has been given to the CFMEU by, for example, Sally McManus, from the ACTU, who, a couple of years ago said that people should break the law if they thought the law was wrong. What that said to the CFMEU, who are a lawbreaking organisation who specialise in breaking laws, who specialise in intimidating people and who specialise in thuggery, was that the chief unionist, Sally McManus, said we can break the law. For the CFMEU, breaking the law is just the cost of doing business. It is the cost of doing business and they will bail out their members. They will make sure that the criminals, the thugs and the people who perpetrate violence against innocent people are looked after. But they forget about looking after the real interests of normal union members across this country, because the CFMEU exists for one reason only, and that is to continue to grow its influence within the Labor Party and grow its influence across Australia. We saw John Setka rather charmingly show off his new tattoo during the week. It was not a tattoo like 'I love you mum' or of a dolphin or something nice; it was effectively a threat to everybody. When you at John Setka and look at that tattoo, you see the face of the union movement in Australia at the moment. The Labor Party sometimes must wonder—if they a brain cell between them—why it is that union membership in this country has gone from 40 per cent under the Hawke-Keating government to less than 10 per cent. Fewer than one in 10 Australians in the workforce is a member of the union. I can give you a reason why. It is because of the CFMEU. It is because of their practices. It is because of the corruption within that union. What is interesting about the Labor Party is that, when they won the election in 2007, one of their first acts was to abolish the then Australian Building and Construction Commission. When we won the election in 2013, we were able to reintroduce the Australian Building and Construction Commission and then, when Labor won the election in 2022, they abolished it again. Why does the Labor Party want to keep abolishing the cop who is going through the worksites protecting the small businesses across Australia, protecting normal union members and protecting those who may not be union members? It is because of the financial interests between the Labor Party and the CFMEU. Since Anthony Albanese became the Leader of the Labor Party, $6.2 million has gone from the CFMEU to the Labor Party. The CFMEU is one of the largest donors to the Labor Party. It's effectively the Labor Party's sugar daddy when it comes to helping it run election campaigns, helping it fund election campaigns and getting CFMEU acolytes into parliament. So 6.2 million reasons should show every Australian why the Labor Party is soft on the CFMEU and why the legislation currently before this parliament does not go far enough. The Labor Party and the CFMEU are one and the same, and we have minister after minister who are effectively the ministers for protection rackets and for boondoggles, who will not stand up to the financial interests of the CFMEU because they know it is not in the financial interests of the Labor Party. People across Australia will wonder why everything costs so much at the moment. We are in a cost-of-living crisis. Power prices are up, mortgages are up, rents are up, food is up—everything has gone up since the Labor Party came to power. The main reason is the Labor Party's economic policies—an extra $315 billion being spent. But another reason why everything is going up is the impact of the CFMEU on infrastructure projects across this country. When the CFMEU are involved with an infrastructure project, it costs an extra 30 per cent. This is not 30 per cent that comes from some magic money tree at the bottom of the garden; this is 30 per cent for publicly funded infrastructure projects that comes from the taxpayer because the CFMEU see the taxpayer as a giant money tree from which they can continue to get money, and that forces up the cost of infrastructure projects. It's the same in the private sector, where the CFMEU force up the costs of projects and use their so-called industrial blackmail to exhort from private businesses corrupt payments. They try and exhort from private businesses over-the-top pay rises. They try and exhort from private businesses any sort of sweet money deal. Just look at Queensland. We have the Ekka on this week—the royal exhibition, in Brisbane. It's in August every year. But for the second year in a row the local railway station is unable to open for the Ekka—particularly for People's Day, which is today—because the CFMEU is refusing to allow it to be opened. Welcome to Queensland and welcome to Australia, where a political union, an industrial union, use their might to make life more difficult for people because they just don't care about normal people. They don't care about small-business people. They don't care about normal union members. To them, life is a game and the point of the game of life is to make as much money as possible. The CFMEU is a corrupt organisation, and it is supported by the Labor Party and the Greens. That is why we want the ABCC to come back. We want the Australian Building and Construction Commission to come back to be that cop on the beat. We also think this bill should be sent to a form of public inquiry. We're all here now in this building. It would be very easy for the relevant committee of the Senate to conduct an inquiry into this bill. We could do it on Friday. The alternative, as Senator Michaelia Cash has said, is that there are a number of amendments that have been proposed by the coalition. If the government accepted these amendments, we'd pass the bill tonight. There's no point challenging the Greens, but I challenge the Labor Party: if you are serious about reforming the CFMEU, if you are serious about ensuring that the CFMEU represents the interests of its members and that the CFMEU can become a positive player in Australia's industrial relations scene, accept these 20 or so amendments we are putting forward and we can pass the bill tonight. This should show the Senate at its best, where, when the parties of government can agree there is a situation, we will compromise and you will compromise. Let's just put these amendments to the vote and let's get on with the job. But dear viewer, dear listener, I think we all know that is not going to happen. The Labor Party and the troglodytes and the Greens will certainly not allow that to happen. They will continue to try and run their protection rackets, and the bill that is before the Senate is a bill that will not do the job. So what are these amendments that the opposition is putting forward? They are pretty simple amendments. They are what you would call 'head-nod' amendments. But the Labor Party, the Greens and those other left-wing Independents who pretend to be centrist Independents certainly won't be supporting these. The first amendment will include that the administration of the CFMEU must apply to all branches of the CFMEU for a minimum of three years. That is a pretty good recommendation, you would think, considering how deep the corruption, the misbehaviour, the malfeasance, just the general appalling behaviour, are entrenched within all branches of the CFMEU. So you would think that would be a head nod. The next recommendation is the minister should not have the ability to end the administration early. The minister shouldn't have that power. If the parliament has made the decision that the CFMEU will be placed into administration for a period of three years, let it be for three years. And let it be that the minister, particularly our Labor Party ministers who know that their own organisation has received $6.2 million worth of donations from the CFMEU—I may not be the smartest cookie in the jar but to me that is a slight conflict of interest—cannot end the administration early. But the scheme administration can be varied by the Federal Court on the application of the administrator, so if an administrator has been appointed and says, 'Look, we need to vary it,' then the Federal Court can say 'yay' or 'nay', and the legislation must clearly set out what must be in the scheme administration. This should not be merely at the whim of the minister, because the bill before this parliament allows the minister to effectively become the minister for the CFMEU. It gives the minister all of the power, and we don't think that is appropriate. We think an appropriate balance is for the administrator to have their powers set out, rather than the minister determine what those powers should be. This one will be very controversial: political donations and political campaigns and advertising by the CFMEU should be explicitly banned during the period of administration. Now, the Labor Party in the Greens certainly won't be supporting that one, will they? We all know why—$6.2 million is why. There is no way they are going to say no to that. We all know what you are. The CFMEU just pay you all the time. We know exactly what you are. You are in the pocket of the CFMEU and it is a very deep pocket. It has $6.2 million in it, and this is what this debate comes down to. This debate comes down to an opposition who have put forward amendments, sensible amendments, that will improve this legislation but we know the Labor and the Greens won't do it because they love the money. It is the standard that you walk past that is the standard you accept. This mob, they don't just accept the standard; they bend over and give it a big sloppy kiss every time, because the CFMEU, the Labor Party and the Greens are in bed together and it is a disgrace. 18:39 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania Can I just say, some of the language was amazing. No organisation should expect numerous serious allegations of criminal misconduct against its leadership to simply blow over. If it happened to the leadership of your school council, you would say they were dysfunctional. It happened to the leadership of a business you would say they were corrupt or maybe even dodgy. And if the leadership of a school council or a business faced these allegations, there would be people to answer to, investigations into the allegations and consequences if the allegations were true. You'd expect nothing less. So you can't hold the union that's working on the biggest infrastructure programs in the country to a different standard. The CFMEU are facing serious allegations of criminal behaviour, and they don't want to tell the truth about what's going on. Telling the truth is something that's really important to me. It's a core value that I've carried throughout my life. It's something my mum and dad drilled into me when I was young. They said, 'A lie hurts more than the truth.' I taught my own kids the value of telling the truth even when they know it might get them in trouble. I told my employment service clients to tell the truth, even if it might reflect badly on them. If you've done something wrong, you fess up, tell the truth and face the consequences—not chuck a toddler tantrum when questions are asked. That's why this bill to appoint an administrator is necessary. Not everyone in the CFMEU is a bad egg. Most of the members are ordinary people—tradies who just want to get on with their jobs—but they're being tarred with the same brush as the people who refuse to do the right thing. Allegations and rumours about the CFMEU have been around for years. It's about time the government got their heads out of the sand and took action against cowboys within the union. With these allegations coming to light, it's impossible to ignore the elephant in the room. There's currently no independent watchdog for the construction sector. It's a dance we've seen for years. The coalition set up the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Then Labor came into government and got rid of it. It's back and forth, back and forth. It's like a bad version of a tango, except that, with the tango, the only consequence of getting it wrong is showing you have two left feet. We've just seen the consequences of not having construction cops, with the allegations against the CFMEU. The CFMEU works on the biggest infrastructure projects in the country. If they wanted to, they could bring construction in this country to a standstill, and I think they have at times. When anybody or any organisation holds this level of power, there has to be someone to hold them to account, and, after these serious allegations, Labor can't ignore the need for some kind of watchdog. So here's some free advice, Labor. You should take this opportunity to set up an independent body to monitor the construction sector. If you didn't like the way the ABCC was doing things, then don't do that, but you should work with industry to come up with something you're happy with. That way we'll have something that sticks. That way we'll have consistency. That way, if there are allegations of serious and gross misconduct like those against the CFMEU, the body should stamp it out before it gets to where we are now. It's not a free pass to go soft on the union. An independent watchdog will still need to have teeth to do what's necessary. When someone does the wrong thing, that needs to happen. But let's be honest; it's pretty hard to look at the situation we're in now and argue that we don't need a watchdog. Political grandstanding over the ABCC means that, at the height of these serious allegations, when we need an independent body the most, there's not one there. Every single Aussie has to face consequences if they do the wrong thing. Whether it's your boss, your family or the police, there's someone to answer to. The CFMEU are definitely not above the law, and, if they won't tell the truth and if they won't face the consequences, then appointing an administrator is the right way forward. 18:43 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria It is my pleasure to rise and again raise, along with my coalition Senate colleagues, profound and serious concerns about this rogue union. Of course, what this bill, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024, tells us is that Labor has gone into panic mode after failing to do anything about the bullying, the intimidation, the lawlessness, the standover tactics, the illegal payments, the corruption and all the other heinous conduct courtesy of the CFMEU. And it has to be said again, as Senator Cash said so strongly in her media statement, the Albanese government is not telling the truth when it says that its CFMEU legislation will clean up the scandal plagued construction sector. The government's bill is weak. The government's bill does not do the job. The CFMEU should be deregistered the way the late Bob Hawke had the courage to do when he led the deregistration of the BLF. Only a number of years before he died, he even called out Labor for failing to take the strongest stand against the CFMEU. And what people perhaps don't understand about the CFMEU is that every Labor politician who comes into this place, and particularly those in the Senate, comes as a representative of their union. There are a number of representatives of the CFMEU on the Left. In fact, I am still waiting for answers from the member for Corangamite—on 10 July 2020, I issued a release after it emerged that the CFMEU, which had backed Ms Coker in her campaigns, was demanding that Ms Coker repay hundreds of thousands of dollars in industrial Left union donations. Senator Ciccone 281503 What's that got to do with the bill? Senator HENDERSON ZN4 I will take the interjection. This is not a laughing matter. Whatever deal has been done between the CFMEU and the member for Corangamite—I was at the other end of that campaign, standing at polling booths dealing with the thugs and the bullies and the aggressors from the CFMEU. And for those of us who've had to face this in a marginal seat campaign, it is a disgrace. I will also call out a former member for Corangamite, Darren Cheeseman. He has now been forced to leave the Labor Party because of his conduct, including serious allegations of sexual harassment—we don't know all the details. He was also backed by the CFMEU. What's that got to do with the bill? What's that got to do with the bill, Senator Ciccone? I'll tell you what it has got to do with the bill. The CFMEU has backed certain members that are still in this parliament, through their thuggery, through their lawlessness. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 Senator Henderson, take your seat please! Do I have to remind the chamber that interjections are disorderly? Please have respect for the senator who has the call. There's plenty of time for you to make your contributions during adjournment. Senator HENDERSON ZN4 I continue to remind those opposite what this has got to do with members of parliament. Over a very long period of time, the CFMEU have backed their union representatives who end up in the parliament. As I said in July 2020: 'Revelations in today's media name the CFMMEU's John Setka as one of the union bosses pursuing payment. It is alleged that hundreds of thousands of dollars are involved. It's also reported that the CFMEU provided close to 100 volunteers to Ms Coker, and also to the Labor MP Ms Kearney.' And so, as I do right now and as I did back then, I say this: the member for Corangamite needs to reveal whether these union election donations were properly recorded and declared as required by the Australian Electoral Commission. The member for Corangamite needs to come clean with what happened. She reportedly defected to Victorian Labor's extreme Socialist Left faction. I think she then went to another faction. Who would know? There are just so many shabby factional deals. The people of Corangamite deserve answers. Did she repay this money? Why was this demand made? Was this money properly declared? And why are members, like the member for Corangamite, embroiled in these dirty deals with this union when we have known for years that they have been up to their neck in unlawful behaviour, bullying and intimidation. It is an absolute and utter disgrace, so I say to the member for Corangamite: it is time that your constituents knew what went on. 'What deal was done with John Setka?' I say to the member for Corangamite. Why was she required to repay money, which was reportedly hundreds of thousands of dollars? What money was given in the first place and what was the agreement? Frankly, Australians have had enough. It is no wonder that we have such a disaster in our economy in Victoria under the reckless state Labor government, after years of shonky deals with this union that have driven up construction costs in Victoria by some 30 per cent. I say to the minister responsible, Minister Watt, who is sitting opposite in the chamber: if the Albanese government is serious about taking on the CFMEU then this legislation must have teeth. Get a bit of Bob Hawke. Invoke his spirit, his guts, his courage, because we're not seeing it from this Prime Minister and this government. We are going to be pursuing a number of amendments. The administration must apply to all branches of the CFMEU for a minimum of three years. The minister should not have the ability to end the administration early. The scheme of administration can only be varied by the Federal Court on the application of the administrator. The legislation must clearly set out what must be in the scheme of administration; this should not be determined solely at the whim of the minister. Political donations, political campaigns and advertising by the CFMEU should be explicitly banned during the period of administration. Frankly, if the Prime Minister had any moral courage he would repay the $4 million that he has received in CFMEU donations since he became the Prime Minister. It's $6.2 million in total and four grubby million dollars from this union since Labor was elected. We also want to see greater transparency. The administrator must provide a written report to parliament, every three months after the commencement of the administration, about its activities and progress and appear at Senate estimates. The administrator must also be given the ability to impose longer expulsion or disqualification periods for officers. There must be a new fit-and-proper-person test. There must be the ability for a special purpose auditor to examine the financial dealings of the CFMEU. The special purpose auditor's first report needs to be tabled by the final sitting day of 2024. If these and other amendments are not agreed to by the government, we know that this government is only giving the CFMEU a slap across the back of the hand with a wet lettuce. I also invoke Paul Keating in that reference, because one thing I will say about both Bob Hawke and Paul Keating is that they had the courage of their convictions when it came to driving certain reforms. This would never have been tolerated if Bob Hawke were the Prime Minister, but we have a weak and unprincipled government running this country, led by a weak and unprincipled Prime Minister, the most left-leaning Prime Minister in living memory. Senator Shoebridge 169119 That's actually funny! Senator HENDERSON ZN4 It's about time that this government took its job and its duty to the Australian people seriously. This is, again, a mess of Labor's own making. This came about because the government let the CFMEU and the crooks and the spivs and the bullies and the members of outlaw motorcycle gangs off the hook when it abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission and gave control of the construction sector in Australia to their mates in the CFMEU. As a result of Mr Albanese's decision to abolish the ABCC, we have seen a skyrocketing of criminal activity, threats, corruption, bribery, intimidation, violence, bullying, standover tactics, misappropriation of funds and other accusations of lawlessness by the CFMEU in the construction sector. I hear the chuckle from a member of the Greens. I'm reminded that when we stood with Senator Lambie to take the strongest of stands in defence of women and the way they were treated by the CFMEU, the Greens voted against Senator Lambie's private senator's bill. The Greens did not have the courage of their convictions to stand up to John Setka and the thuggery and particularly, as Senator Lambie was focusing on, the appalling treatment of some women by this union. As I say, we have a number of very serious concerns about this bill. This bill provides far too much discretion to the minister. In fact, under the current provisions of the bill, he could remove the CFMEU out of administration tomorrow, figuratively speaking, if he wished. If this legislation is going to be supported by the coalition, we need to make sure that it has teeth, that it makes a difference, that there is proper accountability and, frankly, that Australians' trust in the government can perhaps be restored to some degree. I don't know really know, because of the way in which Labor members, senators and candidates have covered up this disgraceful conduct over so many years. Time and time again, we raised serious concerns about multiple breaches of the law. There were multiple findings that the law had been breached and very serious penalties issued against the CFMEU and many of its members. It is really quite disgusting that it took the work of a media organisation, the very fine work of Nick McKenzie and other journalists, to wake up this government, because it didn't seem to matter. The rap sheet of offences and intimidation, the bullying, the shocking stuff that was going on in construction sites—none of that seemed to resonate. Of course, even Senator Wong used to work for the CFMEU. I have not heard her get up and call out the CFMEU's conduct that she obviously would have seen when she was working for them. I'm sure it was not all squeaky clean when Senator Wong was working for the CFMEU. She was an industrial officer for the CFMEU. There are times in public life when you've got to do the right thing and stand up to what is right and stand up against what is wrong. This is a huge warning to the government. You start taking corruption, bribery and these shocking incidents of lawlessness seriously. Don't just paper over the cracks, because that's what this bill currently does. You need to give this bill teeth. You need to support all of our amendments, and only then would we agree to pass this bill. 18:59 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I wanted to thank Minister Watt and the government for your constructive and proactive engagement on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024. I also wanted to thank Senator Cash for the good faith engagement around the amendments that the coalition is planning to put forward. This legislation has obviously been done quickly, but it now has been done with some consultation and a genuine willingness to improve this bill, and I think we'll see that through the amendments to be circulated. The overwhelming message I've heard from stakeholders is that we need action now. We can't delay the need for administration. The need for someone to get in there and start to have a good look at what's been happening is urgent. I'd like to repeat what I have noted previously in this chamber. There haven't been, against the ACT branch, the kinds of allegations of organised crime that we've seen elsewhere. I want to recognise the correspondence I've received from various subcontractors about the constructive role that the local ACT branch of the CFMEU has played on really important issues like security of payments. When the government decided to defund the ABCC and then roll its abolition into a much broader omnibus bill, I warned that we'd need to have a stronger regulator, one that could actually withstand the seesaw between Labor and the coalition that we've heard various independents talk about when it comes to the ABCC. Worksites around the country are suffering, and insolvencies in the construction sector are at record highs. We need certainty on a path forward, and we also need a longer term solution that can attract support from across the parliament. I'm hopeful that by passing this legislation we can then turn our eyes to what that looks like. The depth and breadth of the allegations across other branches of the CFMEU mean we need action now. They demand action from the parliament, and this bill will do that. The amendments that have been circulated and the others being drafted will ensure a stronger piece of legislation that is tough but also fair. Those who have done the wrong thing will go; those who haven't won't, and there will be a fair process, with the appropriate powers for the administrator, while allowing legitimate operations in support of members to continue. Again, thank you to both sides for the way you are collaborating on this, and I look forward to seeing what happens in the Senate tomorrow. 19:02 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I'll start by addressing Senator Pocock's point about the ACT CFMEU being somehow a cleanskin. They have been inserting themselves into the procurement processes of the ACT government for years, to the point where the Master Builders have actually had to complain about the level of interference that the ACT CFMEU is undertaking in government procurement. This is an organisation with a track record which would make some criminals blush. They have time and time again been seen to be involved with thuggery, coercion and illegal activity—and with using language that would make most of us blush—in a way that is designed to intimidate on worksites and intimidate people in the building industry. We've heard and seen, through prosecutions in our legal systems, the intense criminality of this organisation, but sadly this is part of a much bigger picture. We have to go back to the start of this Labor government and the tranches of industrial relations legislation that it has brought into this place and that, with the help of the Australian Greens and the crossbenchers, we have seen passed through this place. Those pieces of legislation were called all sorts of Orwellian things like 'closing the loopholes' or 'same job, same pay'—Orwellian phrases. They're Orwellian because they did not mean what they said and they did not do what they said. They were doublethink from this Labor government and the Greens—its aiders and abetters—who basically had a laundry list of union demands and took them through this parliament with no thought to what that would do in the longer term to the Australian economy and Australian businesses. They were quite happy. For years, Minister Watt was quite happy in estimates to, through his years in opposition, defend the CFMEU and its behaviour. Minister Watt was quite happy to do it, and now he's all crocodile tears and outrage that these allegations have come to light. They've been part of the known behaviour of the CFMEU for decades. These allegations haven't suddenly come to light in the last few months. They've been known for years, through repeated prosecution through our court system. The standover tactics, illegal behaviour and thuggery was not only tolerated, but it was part of the union's business model. So what did Labor do when they came into power? They passed this series of industrial relations bills, which should've been called 'Let's do what the unions demand,' because that's the truth. If you want to use clear and upfront language to name a bill, the bill should've been called 'Industrial relations amendment (what the unions want)'. We've seen it, and we're starting to see it, particularly in my home state of WA in the mining industry in the Pilbara. I'll remind everyone again, because this is the elephant in the room when we have these conversations, that only eight per cent of the private sector workforce believes that unions are worth joining—one worker in 12. If you strip out some very heavily unionised parts of the white-collar workforce, that figure drops even lower. Yet we see the union movement using Labor's IR laws to insert themselves into workplaces where there is no union presence, via five-year-old enterprise agreements, and insert themselves into new negotiations so they can, once again, impose their ridiculous demands and their ridiculous approach to labour relations onto our mining powerhouses. Let me take you on a history lesson, because, sadly, I am old enough to remember this. In the mid-eighties, there was a very famous dispute, the Robe River mine dispute, where union practices were basically sending a company to the wall. There were over 200 workplace practices that were, quite frankly, ludicrous, and I'm just going to go through a few of them. On a relatively small mine site, there were 20 shop stewards who didn't have to do their own job. They were just there to represent the union. They had to have an office and a telephone. They were just there to represent the unions. If someone was asked to do five minutes of work after hours, they had to be paid for an eight-hour day. The thing that triggered the Robe River dispute involved a superintendent at the power station, the manager of the power station. When all his staff were off on strike, the power station tripped. It literally was a flick of a switch to get the power station back on. It didn't just power the mine; it actually powered the community. It actually powered the homes of the families who were living in that community near the Robe River mine. It was literally the flick of a breaker switch to get power back on for those families, but the union was out on strike. It said that the superintendent wasn't allowed to do that; it had to be a trade union member who flicked that switch—'We're off on strike again!' Well, they were already out on strike, but the strike action went on, demanding that that power station manager was punished for turning power back on to the community! Think about that for a moment. The sad bit about this story is that the mine management at that time actually rolled over and punished that manager—suspended him from his workplace. Do you know what the union did? They said: 'That punishment's not enough. You have to punish him more.' Charles Copeman, the manager of Robe River Mining, who gets awful criticism from those opposite and their fellow travellers, came in. You know what the first thing he did was? He didn't sack any workers. He sacked five of his senior managers for rolling over to these ridiculous demands based on union thuggery. The final upshot of that three-month dispute was that, after that dispute and the de-unionisation of that workforce, Robe River Mining was taken from being a failing company—a company that was literally going broke, operating at 60 per cent of capacity with declining levels of productivity—to being a profitable company again. It was actually able to provide people with jobs, long term, because guess what? Within the ridiculous systems that the union had set up, there were 20 shop stewards who didn't actually do their job; they were employed to be, say, an electrician, a miner or a machinery operator, but they didn't do their job; they sat in their office as a shop steward. They found that two out of every three positions in that mine were actually unnecessary for its production. They actually produced more ore with two out of those three positions not being there. And—and this is the kicker, because those opposite and the unions say, 'It's all about safety'—accidents on the mine site and disputation actually went down. The mine became safer. The mine became profitable, and there were long-term jobs there for the people who were employed—long-term high-paying jobs, I would add. These were not people who were struggling in terms of their wages. That was the 1980s. We went through a period of reform, and the Australian economy became more efficient. Productivity improved. But now, sadly, with Labor in charge once more, with the most left-wing prime minister since Gough Whitlam, we are now seeing the Labor Party follow the union's playbook every step of the way with no deviation. That was until now, where we again have the minister crying his crocodile tears about the CFMEU and wanting to be seen to be tough on this thuggish organisation—the same organisation that he, for years, in this place and in estimates, not only defended but carried water for. He attacked, to support the CFMEU—he attacked Senator Cash, for years, to support the CFMEU, absolutely knowing the thuggish behaviour. It's on the record of courts. It's been litigated so many times. It's been prosecuted so many times. Nobody can deny for a second that they did not know about the thuggery within the CFMEU. The latest example of that—I honestly thought this might have been fake news when I saw John Setka's new tattoo. The threat inherent in that tattoo—and, for those who haven't seen, John Setka has a tattoo now around his neck that reads 'God forgives the CFMEU doesn't'. There's a threat inherent in that tattoo to every company in the construction industry. I suspect there's a threat inherent to those opposite if they don't toe the line and do the right thing by the union movement, which is who sent them here. Let's remember that: the union movement sent each and every one of them here. The Labor Party is the political wing of the union movement. They do the bidding of the union movement, which represents, at best, one in 12 of the private sector workforce in Australia. And I know why it's only one in 12. Those 11 out of 12 workers who reject the unions know about that thuggery. They know about the standover tactics. They know that a positive relationship with their employer is best done one on one. It's best done at the workplace. They understand that the union movement is out for itself. It's not out for them. It's not out for the workers. And this Labor government is not there to help the workers. It's just there for itself. 19:16 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Well, here we are again, in the Senate: instead of dealing in a sensible, calm, rational way through a government's legislative agenda, we're here having to mop up another mess of the government's own making. As senator after senator has made clear through the debate on this bill, this Labor government is a fully owned subsidiary of the union movement. It is a badge that they wear very proudly in this chamber and outside of this building, each and every day, and we know that the Australian Labor Party is the political arm of the Australian trade union movement, just like in the olden days when the Country Party was the political arm of the farmers in this country. That is a fact. If you look at the most successful minister in the Albanese government over the last two years, it Minister Burke. He's got through this parliament every single thing the Australian trade movement has wanted. He's the most successful minister in this place, because he was elected and appointed with a wish list from not just the CFMEU but the ACTU, and he's delivered in spades for them. Anyone that has served any period of time in the Senate and has sat, especially, on the Senate Standing Committees on Education and Employment, you will have heard ad nauseam, whether the coalition was in government or the Labor Party is in government, a litany, a rap sheet a mile long—anyone who's interested go to the Hansard—of allegation, of court judgements of the behaviour of the CFMEU which makes unconscionable the surprise on the faces of so many in the Labor government on public revelations by the Sydney Morning Herald, the Age and the Nine Network more generally, led by Nick McKenzie.What a surprise! It is like a bad kabuki. Honestly, where have you been? And do you know what's galling? This is a complete comms strategy from the Labor government. If they feign surprise to the public, if they hurry and rush a flawed piece of legislation to look like they're doing something, the Australian public, who are being crushed by a cost-of-living crisis, will somehow forget that Labor owe their preselections to the CFMEU. You are not MPs, senators, ministers or prime ministers without being fully owned subsidiaries of your union movement. Most Australians think the union movement is there to help the Australian worker to get better pay, conditions et cetera, to stand up for the workers in the workplace. But the tragedy of the union movement as it stands now is a lack of productivity and pushing an agenda that Bill Kelty, Bob Hawke and the late Simon Crean fought to overturn in their accord process, because Australians lose their jobs when private business goes bust. That's actually what happens. If you actually care about Australian workers, you want them in well-paid businesses where they can afford to pay their mortgage and rent and raise their families. That's actually what the workers paradise is supposed to be about in this country. The tragedy of the union movement as it stands now in this country seems that the CFMEU is anything but a union that stands up for workers. Just ask Ben Nash, a young worker heading off to a job he loved, in civil construction, in my home state of Victoria. His mother has said: She didn't know that the construction industry her son was entering was infested with underworld figures and cronyism, fuelled by crooked businesses and certain CFMEU officials who have formed an unholy alliance to control who works, and who doesn't … Ben had worked for an Indigenous construction company. But guess what? It wasn't a CFMEU controlled construction company. And so, because young Ben rocked up to work one day, he was bullied, he was harassed and he was locked in a shed on site for hours. It is a tragedy for the party that is supposed to support workers to think it's okay somehow that their own preselection backers have people involved in their organisation that did this to a young Australian to the point where Ben committed suicide. He went home and didn't wake up the next morning. I think the construction industry's fantastic. I'm very lucky that a lot of people close to me are involved in it. And I think we need more young Australians doing apprenticeships and seeing themselves on site building the future of this country but for the fact that an Indigenous company that isn't a CFMEU controlled company therefore entitles the CFMEU officials on site to bully, harass and intimidate to the point where a kid commits suicide. Let me not even go to the rap sheet of what women have been subjected to, not just by John Setka. Everyone wants to point out that Mr Setka is somehow the only bad apple, the only sexist, in the CFMEU. I have sat here as a conservative woman for years and have been lectured to by the Labor Party, by the Greens, but by the Labor Party in particular, about how the standard you walk past is the standard you accept, and every single preselection season you turn a deaf ear to John Setka's sexism and the sexism that's embedded in the CFMEU. Those opposite don't care. It's okay. It means they get to be a senator for another six years. It means they get to be a minister in the next Australian Labor government. Well, you know what? A very smart man a few centuries ago said, 'When good people'—he actually said 'men', but let's say 'people' because it's the 21st century now—'don't stand up, bad stuff happens.' Just saying, 'It's okay. They're all not bad,' then coming in here and voting against our amendments to actually make sure criminals can't be union officials, somehow that's a bad policy? The Australian public would be so devastated to know the party of the workers thinks it's okay for people with a rap sheet a mile long to be their local union officials. So what I would like to see in this parliament is every time a Labor Party minister or senator stands up and talks on industrial relations that they declare their conflict of interest. How about that? Declare which union sent you to this place so that people can judge the standard you choose to walk past, the standard you choose to say is okay. Because the conflict of interest is in your organisation, in your preselections—who gets to sit on your national executive and who doesn't, what policies get passed at your conference and what don't. That's your structure. Who gets to be a minister, an MP? It is not the Prime Minister's role and, let's be honest, it's not even caucus. You get a few phone calls the night before about who would be a good pick and it's all tied back to who your preselectors are. For me as a shadow infrastructure minister, the inherent conflict of interest is also with your state premiers, who have signed up to publicly funded infrastructure projects where egregious behaviour is occurring and no-one is checking—no KPIs, let's just keep the funding going to make sure it's CFMEU-controlled proponents doing a cosy deal with tier-1 construction companies. You want to talk about cronyism? Talk about big government, big unions, big corporations, hand in glove, very cosy. Guess who misses out? Ben Nash missed out. The Australian taxpayer misses out. Because guess what happened in the last budget? There was $10.1 billion shovelled out the door, not for one extra kilometre of road or rail, not an additional school or a hospital but for cost overruns. Five billion dollars went just to my home state of Victoria. Thank you so much, Premier Jacinta Allan, you did a great job for the CFMEU on the big build, overseen by Premier Andrews—$5 billion and not one extra kilometre. But that's okay because we don't need more doctors. We don't need more teachers. We don't need to be able to fund pay increases for aged-care workers and childcare workers; we just need to shovel it into the pockets of bikies and organised crime, and that's okay because you don't bother to tell the Australian public that's what is happening. Everyone has known this has been going on and everybody is paying the price. The forestry division of the CFMEU has wanted out for years. Its members don't want to have these thugs destroying its reputation as a union that actually wants sustainable timber harvesting going on in rural and regional communities and employing people across the regions in what is the ultimate renewable resource, Australian timber. They have wanted out for years. They don't want to hang out with thugs and criminals. But guess what? The Labor Party got in and actually passed legislation to make sure they can't leave, even if they want to. Somehow, for the forestry division, it's like being in a bad marriage. Whitlam brought in no-fault divorce, but not if you are a division of the CFMEU. Foresters, you're going to be wedded to the construction division. Manufacturers, you're going to be wedded to the construction division. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 Thank you, Senator McKenzie. You will be in continuation. ADJOURNMENT 97 ADJOURNMENT Bladel, Ms Frances Mary (Fran) 97 19:30 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I rise today to pay tribute to Fran Bladel. I first met Fran in 1984, over 39 years ago. Fran was an active member of the Australian Labor Party (Tasmanian Branch) for more than 50 years. Fran Bladel was a woman whose name is synonymous with dedication, resilience and leadership in Tasmania's political landscape. Fran was not only just a politician; she was a trailblazer, a mentor and an advocate who left an indelible mark on our party. Fran Bladel's journey into politics was driven by her deep commitment to social justice and equality. She entered the Tasmanian House of Assembly at a time when women were still fighting for their rightful place in the political arena. Fran did not just occupy a seat in parliament; she broke barriers, challenged norms and paved the way for future generations of female leaders. Fran joined the Australian Labor Party in 1972, and in 1986 she was elected to the House of Assembly as the Labor member for Franklin. Her political career spanned 16 years, during which she held several ministerial positions, including Minister for Consumer Affairs, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Premier on the Status of Women. She also served as a secretary to cabinet and as Acting Minister for Education. Fran also served as shadow minister for community services, women and social justice. As a teacher, her passion for education was evident throughout her career. She understood that education is the cornerstone of a fair and just society, and she championed policies that reflected this belief. My state colleague Ella Haddad MP, the state member for Clarke, in her contribution to the condolence motion for Fran in the Tasmanian Parliament, said of Fran's efforts on women's participation in the ALP: In 1977, Fran established and led the work of an ALP committee to review how affirmative action strategies could be adopted within the Labor Party to increase women's participation. In 1978, she co-authored a study which surveyed the electoral consequences of the limited number of female Labor MPs in Australian parliaments. This work was foundational in establishing the affirmative action targets that we adopted later in the Labor Party. The Tasmanian branch … was the first branch to nationally adopt these targets in the 1980s … Over time, it moved to 50 per cent, ahead of all other ALP branches. In 2003 Fran was awarded life membership of the Australian Labor Party and in 2006 she was inducted into the Tasmanian Honour Roll for Women for her service to government, education and the community. Even after her retirement from politics in 2002, Fran remained an active member of the Labor Party, passionately supporting young people and serving as secretary of the Bellerive-Howrah branch for 10 years. Throughout her time in parliament, Fran was unafraid to tackle socially unpopular issues. She chaired inquiries into the sex industry, the control of weapons bill and even explored the use of cannabis for medical purposes and the legal recognition of significant personal relationships long before these topics became mainstream. Fran's influence extended far beyond the walls of parliament. She was a mentor to many young women, encouraging them to pursue careers in politics and public service. Fran knew that representation matters, and she was determined to see more women at the decision-making table. Her mentorship has had a lasting impact, inspiring a new generation of female leaders who carry forward her vision of a more inclusive and equitable society. Fran's legacy is also one of resilience. She faced challenges with grace and tenacity, never wavering in her commitment to the values she held dear. Whether she was advocating for workers' rights, standing up for vulnerable communities or fighting for gender equality, Fran did so with courage that inspired all who knew her. Fran passed away on 5 December 2023 at the age of 90, leaving behind a legacy of commitment to the betterment of others. As I reflect on Fran's contribution I am reminded of the importance of her work. We must carry forward her commitment to justice, equality and fairness. I remember Fran Bladel not just for what she accomplished but for the way she lived her life, with integrity, compassion and an unwavering belief in the power of public service to make a difference. Thank you. Myanmar 98 19:35 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia There are many things about life in Australia that we may take for granted; in particular in our civil society, where we enjoy the benefits of living in one of the most robust democracies in the world. The Economist's Democracy index ranks us 14th globally, including us in a small and privileged list of nations that are classified as full democracies. With the many freedoms and rights we enjoy in Australia comes an important and special responsibility to lead and to promote democracy and open societies, in the world but especially in the Asia-Pacific region. That is why I wish to once again draw the attention of the Australian Senate to the situation that continues to unfold in Myanmar, or, as I prefer to remark, Burma. It has been over two years since the world watched in horror as the elected civilian government in Myanmar was overturned by a military coup. Many will recall the images of a fitness instructor leading a class while tanks rolled through the very large and wide streets of Nay Pyi Taw behind her. It was a moment in time that encapsulated the shocking speed at which Burmese democracy was usurped by autocrats and the military. It was only hours before the newly elected parliament was scheduled to convene that the coup rolled in and veered the nation back towards the authoritarian path that Burmese people had spent decades fighting to dismantle. Since then, a tragic civil war has ensued between the military and a coalition of multi-ethnic democratic forces. The humanitarian cost of this war continues to unfold. It is unimaginably devastating. Over 50,000 Burmese have died—that we know of—and 13,000 of those deaths have been of children. The United Nations special rapporteur on human rights in Myanmar has stated that over 18.6 million people are in need of humanitarian aid and over 1.6 million have been internally displaced; 15.2 million civilians face food insecurity; and 7.8 million children remain out of school. There have also been widespread and credible reports of the military regime instigating war crimes, including the use of prohibited cluster munitions, deliberate massacre of civilians, sexual violence and targeted attacks on religious buildings. Christian communities particularly, but people of all faiths, have been targeted as the regime has sought to divide the country on religious grounds and consolidate its rule behind a chauvinistic ideology. These despicable attacks by the regime have led organisations such as Amnesty International and the Special Advisory Council for Myanmar to urge the United Nations Security Council to refer Myanmar to the International Criminal Court, with cases currently ongoing. Despite this devastation and destruction, there remains hope for the Burmese community both in Myanmar and across the globe—indeed, for the Burmese community in our own country, including the diasporas that I work so closely with in Western Australia. The dream of democratic rule in Myanmar can live on. In fact, an underreported reality is that pro-democracy forces have secured stunning successes on the battlefield recently, despite their disadvantage in terms of equipment and manpower. Thousands of teachers, labourers, doctors, policemen and many other ordinary people have taken up arms to join the resistance against the regime, and they've had successes in areas such as Chin State, the Karenni area and the Kachin State. These civilians turned freedom fighters are showing the world that their willingness to give their lives for a free future for Myanmar lives on, and here in Australia we should do all we can to support them and amplify their successes. Their bravery and determination are an inspiration to all of us and a reminder that the types of freedoms we enjoy in Australia are a treasure that the people around the world are paying for with their own blood, sweat and tears. At this critical juncture there's an important question to be asked, and the government needs to provide an answer. What is the Australian government doing to better support pro-democracy forces in Myanmar? What is the increased level of humanitarian support from the new Australian government? What more is it doing in forums like ASEAN and the United Nations? That's because the Burmese in communities in Australia deserve more and, of course, because the cause of democracy deserves our support. (Time expired) Big Steps Campaign 99 19:40 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia I rise this evening as a proud member of the United Workers Union, the union for early childhood educators and the union for the Big Steps Campaign. And what a result we've seen in this last week when the Albanese Labor government announced that it's going to fund a 15 per cent pay rise for early childhood educators. It's such an amazing result, and so many people have worked so hard to achieve this. But it's not just a body of work that began this year or last year. This is a body of work that has been brewing for a very, very long time. There are generations of unionists, of early childhood educators, of families who have been working towards this for a very, very long time. In fact, you'll find there are people in their 20s now who were actually the children in those childcare centres when this campaign started. But it didn't start out directly on a pay rise pathway. When this campaign kicked off in 2008, the first thing to do was to solve a very clear problem, and that was of quality and standards in early childhood education. That was their first big move, and they fought hard. They set a minimum level of qualifications, and educator-to-child ratios was one of the core elements of that. The child ratios were important to ensure (1) the educators had the time to invest in those children but also so (2) those children had the best possible starts in their lives. That's what these educators focused their lives on. This is what they are so passionate about and what they've worked so hard to do. After quite the fight, they managed to achieve this. In 2012, delivered by the then Labor government, funnily enough, the National Quality Framework was launched. It was a great leap forward. It was not just a big step but a great leap forward for the early childhood education sector. But that wasn't the end of it. No pathway is particularly linear when we're talking about change of this sort, and unfortunately Big Steps was no exception. So 2013 saw the new Liberal government do what Liberal governments do and—surprise, surprise!—seek to make things worse for workers. While it seems unbelievable today, those quality standards that we see now in our early childhood education sector were under threat when Tony Abbott's Liberal government at that point in time tried to scrap them. He tried to scrap those standards, but those dedicated educators, those dedicated union members, those dedicated families wouldn't stand for it. They stood their ground and they won—again. They had their standards. Next, they would start the fight for professional fair pay. In 2016, on Equal Pay Day, the educators took to the streets across Australia for their first ever walk-off. They walked off the job with the full support in many, many places of those families and those communities to help them build that sector into a professional sector that educates our children. In those first five years, those most important imprinting years, this sector is critical and vital to the economy of our country. The future of those children is in the hands of those educators, and they need to be recognised. And they have fought so hard over that long, long period of time. Labor committed to it while in opposition. It committed to support them, understanding the importance of that sector and the importance of making sure that the children of this country are nurtured and educated in the best way possible. That's what we saw last week. We saw them win a 15 per cent pay rise, which is going to make a big difference. It's going to make a big difference to those workers. I have delightfully been able to go out to a couple of centres that I know and talk to people about what it means to them and talk to the families about what it means to them, and we cannot underestimate the importance of building the early childhood education sector to be a professional, well-respected, well-resourced sector for the future. Gender And Sexual Orientation 100 19:45 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania At the Paris Olympics, the world saw what happens when you put the safety of women in the hands of fools who say it's impossible to know what a woman is. One of the world's most powerful organisations allowed eight women to be punched repeatedly in the head by two boxers it had been told were biological males. We witnessed the brazen attempt of the IOC president to claim the moral high ground, even while refusing to guarantee female boxers that they wouldn't have to fight a male. The IOC put women in danger to protect their commitment to an ideology that was inevitably going to lead to this point. Female is a sex, and the differences between the male and female sexes are the reasons why women's sport exists. To claim being female is a marker on a passport or how someone was raised or something that anyone can identify as is to deliberately remove to right for women to have anything single sex. If it can happen to women's boxing, it can happen to any women's sport or space that you, your mother or your daughters rely on. It's not difficult to understand why the IOC allowed this disgraceful and dangerous travesty. At the Tokyo Olympics, they allowed a 43-year-old male to compete in the women's weight lifting at the expense of a young woman from Nauru. That's why they can't permit sex testing. They have already decided that you don't have to be female to compete in the women's category. Rather than admit the Olympics boxing scandal is the result of the deliberate decision they've made to deny women single-sex competition, for the last two weeks the IOC has tried to gaslight, obfuscate and bully their way through the scandal in Paris in exactly the same way that governments and other sporting organisations have done for years. Not long ago, Australia's first female Prime Minister responsible for removing the sex based definition of 'woman' from the sex discrimination act was asked what is a woman. She described this question as 'a gotcha parlour game'. As the Paris Olympics have shown, this is no game. It's the answer which determines whether you allow a male to punch a woman in the face and be rewarded with an Olympic gold medal, whether you allow a male rapist to identify into a woman's prison or whether you will embarrass yourself, like the IOC president has, claiming it's scientifically impossible to tell the difference between males and females. This was Australia's most successful Olympics because of the amazing performances of our female champions. The fact that our female Olympians were the stars of the show, even though we know that their times and records would not be medal winning performances if there were no female category, shows the importance of single-sex sport. That's exactly why swimming and athletics and rugby and cycling looked at the science, consulted female athletes and took steps to protect the female category. At the very same Olympics that those sports were delivering single-sex female sport, the IOC was refusing to do so in boxing. Those of us who have been in the fight to protect women's single-sex sport for years watched as the IOC tried on all the same excuses that organisations and commentators enthralled to gender ideology have used over and over again. Sporting bodies will cover up the fact that there are males in women's sport for as long as they can, and, when it finally becomes impossible to cover it up any longer, they'll go on the attack and call it bigotry or a culture war to say that women's sport should be for females. And they know that, when they run out of excuses, at least they'll have media outlets like the ABC there to mislead the public by labelling women's rights campaigners as 'anti trans'. In 2022, at a meeting with the Australian Olympic Committee, I warned them that Australian sport must reverse its refusal to guarantee single-sex sport for women and girls. I was told that it wasn't a big issue for the Olympic movement and it wouldn't be an issue in Paris. I was told that the inclusion framework the IOC has in place would deal with it. Two years later, the whole world is talking about the IOC's failure to deal with this issue, and, disgracefully, as we stand here today, Australian sporting bodies are still on the same page as the IOC when it comes to refusing to guarantee single-sex sport for women and girls. Senate adjourned at 19 : 50