DOCUMENTS

2024-08-19 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Monday, 19 August 2024

The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Sue Lines ) took the chair at 10:00, made an acknowledgement of country and read prayers.

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 10:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 If there is no objection, the meeting is authorised. Senator Ayres. DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS National Disability Insurance Scheme 1 Order for the Production of Documents 1 10:01 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Thank you, President— Senator Birmingham H6X Playing the role of Don. Senator AYRES 16913 Indeed, Senator Birmingham. The government continues to reiterate its view that it cannot agree with the assertions made in the motion in relation the NDIS. We do, however, acknowledge the interest in the chamber in reforming the NDIS to get it back on track and ensure its sustainability for future generations of Australians. I also acknowledge the recent commitment by the Leader of the Opposition to working together with the government to this end. On 8 February 2024, the government tabled the final report of the Independent Review into the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which was publicly released in December 2023. In producing this report, the independent NDIS review panel travelled to every state and territory, including regional and remote communities. It heard directly from more than 10,000 Australians, worked with disability organisations to reach out and listen to more than a thousand people with disability and their families, recorded more than 2,000 personal stories and received almost 4,000 submissions. The review delivered 26 recommendations and 139 supporting actions to respond to its terms of reference. In delivering its recommendations, the review provided exhaustive analysis and proposals to improve the operation, effectiveness and sustainability of the NDIS. The independent NDIS review panel has said that its reforms can improve the scheme and meet National Cabinet's annual growth target of no more than eight per cent growth by 1 July 2026. Discussions have continued with senators across this chamber, as well as members in the other place, to address questions about the government's NDIS reform agenda that it is pursuing together with the disability community. We look forward to working with senators in this place to get the NDIS back on track and ensure its sustainability for future generations of Australians. In relation to the order being discussed, the government has previously outlined that we have claimed public interest immunity over the requested documents as disclosure would prejudice relations between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. The Minister representing the Treasurer has already tabled key documents for the benefit of the Senate in relation to the aforementioned review. 10:04 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the minister's statement. At the election, the Labor Party promised the Australian community transparency and accountability. To the disabled community of Australia and our families, the Labor Party pledged collaboration, co-design and a return to a national disability insurance scheme that worked to uphold the dignity of disabled Australians and to support their communities and their families. What Labor have delivered since winning that election and coming to government is a seemingly endless series of broken promises and betrayals. They promised transparency and accountability, yet they refuse to reveal the details of a deal that they did behind closed doors to cap and cut our NDIS. They promised co-design. They pledged co-design, consultation and a return to dignity, yet their sole focus right now in relation to the National Disability Insurance Scheme—the goal that they are most seeking to achieve—is to cut $14.4 billion that funds vitally needed supports to disabled people across the country. That is their goal. That is what they are working to achieve in this Senate right now—to cut as much as they can and to remove as many of the protections that disabled people and our families are currently guaranteed under the law. Just this week, we have seen exactly where these types of policy decisions end up. We have seen exactly what will happen if this bill passes. We have been given a rare opportunity, as a community, to see exactly what the end result of a government policy will be before it has passed. One of the most significant removals of rights and protections contained within Labor's NDIS bill is the removal of the principle of reasonable and necessary individualised supports being guaranteed to every participant—that is, the right to make the case for the individualised, specific supports that you need as a disabled person or that your family needs in order to live a good life. The bill removes that and replaces it with a list created by politicians, by ministers and by bureaucrats, and, if what you need is not on that list, you will not get it. This week we have seen the draft of this list published by the government, in which they gave the disability community two weeks to provide feedback and two weeks to provide consultation. I have milk in my fridge with a longer expiration date than the time the government gave the disability community to give feedback on the vital, necessary supports we need to live our lives. Worse than that, they created a category of things they wouldn't support, because they were 'lifestyle choices', and on that list of 'lifestyle choices' they placed period products. A government led by a bloke decided that period products are a 'lifestyle choice'. I want to thank Share the Dignity and the excellent journalists who have called this out. Every person who menstruates who needs specialised period products should be able to get them, and this bill grants the power for any future government to take back off the list what we as the community might force them to put on the list during this process. This bill cannot be allowed to pass. 10:09 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales I feel like I need to correct the record. Last week, on 'NDIS Monday', I made reference to the fact we have been calling out this absolutely ridiculous denial from the government to produce these documents. We've been here, between six and eight months, doing this every Monday. I note, Senator Steele-John, that you put this motion up on 14 September 2023, so in less than a month we will mark our one-year anniversary of 'NDIS Monday'. The government should be very, very comfortable in the knowledge that we will continue well past the one-year anniversary, should we be required to, to try to get access to this framework. Honestly, they really cannot make up their mind. We see the quarterly reviews come out from the NDIS that now say, 'Look at this. Isn't this great? We've managed to slow growth'—that's slowing growth without the introduction of this dog's breakfast of legislation that's currently before this chamber. What's extraordinary is that on one hand we've got Minister Shorten out there saying, 'Any delay to passing this bill is going cost $1 million a day,' and on the other hand he's also out there saying, 'Aren't we good at managing to slow this growth?' We know how they've managed to slow the growth. We only get this through anecdotal evidence, but we know, from some numbers, that what's actually happening is that wait times are blowing out for people who are looking for change-of-circumstances reviews and for new plans to be put in place. So basically what's happening, to slow the growth, is that fewer people are being serviced. They are servicing people well outside of the scheme's guarantee of service. So it's absolutely false for them to claim that they're achieving some victories, movement and success with regard to the reforms of the NDIS, because all they're doing is manipulating data. I note that we have now not only heard from the states and territories, who are asking for this legislation not to be passed until there can be agreement between the states and the Commonwealth, but also seen comments put out, over the weekend and at the end of last week, from Allied Health Professions Australia and Physical Disability Australia—but we've also heard from the Autism Partnership—about the risks that the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 poses. Senator Steele-John referred to the two weeks given to the disability community for response and co-design—ha-ha-ha. But the two weeks that they've had to respond with regard to the proposed reasonable and necessary supports will be accepted by the agency moving forward. I don't know why this government is so opposed to looking at a definition of 'permanent and lifelong', because that was who the scheme was set up for. If we looked at 'permanent and lifelong' we'd see some significant changes through the scheme anyway, and it'd be an opportunity to then force the states back to the table. Whilst we have this legislation in front of us, we have a thing called 'category A supports'. The category A supports require unanimous support and unanimous agreement by the states and territories, with the Commonwealth, as to what they will provide. We don't have that at the moment. We do not have unanimous support. In fact, we don't have any support from the states and territories when it comes to the list of category A supports. That's still a bit of an unknown. But the states and territories are already saying they're in no position to agree to these. If/when this bill passes this chamber, what we do know is that it won't be worth the paper it is written on without the unanimous support of the states. What is that support from the states predicated on? It's the sustainability framework that we have been asking for for now almost a year so we can understand where the figure of 'capped eight per cent growth of the scheme' actually comes from. We don't know. Is this an arbitrary figure that was just pulled out of the air? Was there some actuarial evidence behind it? What was the modelling that was done? What were the assumptions that underpinned that modelling? We know that the assumptions given to the actuary, when it came to the costs of the eight-week delay because we had an inquiry—heaven forbid we had some hearings into this legislation, which was allegedly ready to pass eight weeks ago but now requires 30 amendments from the government itself, so it was no way ready to be passed. But we don't know how much is actually going to be saved, what the growth is going to slow to and how that's going to be achieved. 10:15 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Here we are again, sadly, almost at the 12 month anniversary of this government's lack of transparency to this chamber. If only Minster Shorten and the Labor Party had spent the last 2½ years not performing gymnastics, trying to find new ways to not provide any information to senators in this place. If only they had spent half of that effort for the last 2½ years negotiating with the states and territories in good faith so that, by the time this legislation came to this place, the states and territories would be ready to sign off on this. Instead, Minister Shorten has employed spin companies to spin this, to assist him to—I was going to say 'lie'—not tell the truth to the sector. 'Oh, there's no problem here.' Remember, before the last election, they said: 'There is no problem with the scheme. The opposition don't know what they're talking about.' And I seem to recall as late as last week Minster Shorten saying, 'When I came into this portfolio I had no idea that this scheme was in trouble.' What? He couldn't read the budget papers? He couldn't read the quarterly reports? He couldn't read all the other transparency documents that we, when in government, made available? So here we are again. We've had nearly 12 months of those opposite and Minister Shorten not providing any transparency. They provided the fourth-quarter report after our last hearing with the actuaries so we could not ask questions for information on that piece of legislation. But, to be kind, this report is cooking the books before the legislation comes forward. It is very clear that this Q4 report is not worth the paper it is written on. The government are now saying, 'Yes, well, we're moderating cost down to 10.1 per cent per annum.' Actually, the truth is this: if you take quarter on quarter, they've moderated it down to 18.88 per cent; it is still increasing 18 per cent quarter on quarter, fourth-quarter to fourth-quarter. But how have they cooked the books? How have they cooked this quarterly report? Well, they've done it at least two ways, which is what they're not providing us information on. The first thing is that there are between 50,000 to 60,000 participants who have got plan variations in because—guess what?—the cost of living has gone up; the costs of the services they use have gone up, and they have run out of money or are about to run out of money in their plan. Instead of actually giving them an answer and giving them more money, this government has got 50,000 to 60,000 participants who are desperately waiting for an answer. That shows the scheme has moderated until all of their plans are reassessed. Then, the other way they've cooked this report is that there are tens of thousands of people who are waiting to come into the scheme. The government have admitted there is an enormous backlog that they have not processed for technical reasons. That means those people also don't go onto the books, and the government are not paying for more people's plans. Not only have the government completely stuffed up this process; they have caused untold anguish to 650,000 participants and their families, who are in complete—I was going to say 'dismay', but it goes well beyond that. They are concerned for their life, for how they're going to live, all because of the incompetence—well, it's actually not even incompetence. If you are incompetent and transparent, at least we would understand the figures and we could work with you to actually reform this scheme to make it sustainable. But, by hiding the figures for 2½ years, by conducting a review—the minister has just come in and said, 'We did this review, and it reported in November.' Well, yes, it did, but we still haven't got the government response to that report from November last year. So the sector doesn't even know what the government response is, yet you have this legislation here—and the budget paper said 18 times, 'We're going to fill your $60 billion gap,' but you have not provided one single shred of evidence, including the document in this OPD, on how you are going to do that. Australians with disability deserve so much more. 10:20 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise to make a contribution on this matter, and I can't not take the opportunity to speak about the affordability, or lack thereof, of period products for people on the NDIS and living with a disability. Among the many problems with the NDIS bill is a plan to exclude period products from the list of eligible products that can be purchased with NDIS funds. This is absolutely the wrong policy. The recent Bloody Big Survey done by that fabulous organisation Share the Dignity found that 78 per cent of people with a disability or a chronic condition are already struggling to afford period products. Making those products less affordable by prohibiting people from using their NDIS supports to purchase period products would make that statistic even higher. I would've thought that, if the government had information that 78 per cent of people on the NDIS already can't afford period products, maybe they'd be thinking about making those products more affordable. Instead, we see a proposal to remove period products from that list of things that can be purchased. It absolutely boggles the mind. Menstrual products have been categorised as 'lifestyle related', rather than as an essential assistive product for personal care. I mean, hello! I thought we'd had this debate, when we finally had the GST removed from tampons, pads and other period products. Having periods is not a luxury. These are not luxury items. I thought this chamber had already agreed with that proposition. Menstrual products are not a luxury; they are essential to maintaining health and hygiene. Categorising them as 'lifestyle related' ignores the realities of people with disabilities and it prevents them from accessing the menstrual products that they need for basic hygiene. It also further marginalises those already facing significant barriers to health care. Now, I note that the consultation on this proposed list has been extended, and I welcome that, but it was two weeks and now it's three weeks. That is not a decent period of consultation. As my outstanding colleague said, he's got milk in his fridge that lasts longer than this consultation period. We are urging this government to listen to people's feedback and to ensure that people with a disability can access the essential period products that they need. The Greens believe that everyone should be able to manage their period with dignity, and that means making period products more affordable and more accessible for everyone, not less affordable or less accessible—particularly not for people with disabilities. Menstruating isn't a choice, but those who are experiencing period poverty often have to choose between period products and other essential items, just to get by. The Labor Party told us that there would be no cuts to the NDIS under their government. Disabled people who menstruate need to see them keep that promise, and I am absolutely heartbroken that, here we are, having a debate about cutting even more funding from people with a disability and doing absolutely nothing—in fact, making it harder—for the 78 per cent of people on the NDIS who already can't afford period products. Is this government completely not listening to the concerns of folk on the NDIS? That's what it sounds like. I was going to say, 'Is this government completely deaf to those concerns?' but I caught myself before I said it. I think people with disability on the NDIS will be absolutely outraged that, once again, they're being punched down upon by a government that said it would stick with them. 10:24 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales I was sworn in to this chamber on 13 June 2023. If you're asking, 'Why is she telling us this?' it's because I've been here only 10 weeks longer than Senator Steele-John has been seeking this information, which is of significant concern in my view. This government kept talking about accountability and transparency, as all the other speakers have noted, before they came into office. Why is that important? Why are we all talking about it? It's because this is the basis on which they went to the Australian people and said: 'Pick us. Pick us because we're going to do government differently. Pick us because we're going to be accountable. Pick us because we're going to be transparent. Pick us because we are going to do things the way you want us to do them.' That hasn't happened. It's very sad in particular that not only has it not happened in other elements of government but it most particularly hasn't happened in the NDIS space, where, as Senator Steele-John noted, co-design, consultation and return to dignity are so critical. The amount of emails and phone calls that my office has received in relation to concerns about the lack of transparency and the lack of consultation in relation to the NDIS and legislative changes is really, really troubling. One of the things that I'll talk about is in relation to that vulnerability and why this matters. Think about personal care. It's probably something we don't want to think about on a day-to-day basis—in terms of how someone on the scheme navigates that. If you need assistance going to the bathroom or showering, you want to make sure that the person that is helping you go to the bathroom and helping you shower is someone you trust and someone that you are okay with touching your body. If a provider sends you somebody that you don't like or you are not comfortable with, why on earth should we expect you to be okay with that person not just being in your home but actually helping you shower or go to the bathroom? I think it is totally unreasonable to expect somebody to be okay with that. We need to think about why we are not being louder about this. Why aren't we pointing to this more often and going, 'This is totally and completely unacceptable'? The other thing that worries me about this is: who are the providers that are usually trusted in terms of providing in-home care and having long-term relationships? They're usually localised providers who are in the community and have known the participant for a really long time. They are usually smaller providers—small businesses. They're not large providers that have a large churn of individuals coming through them, for a variety of different reasons. This has a further unintended consequence of taking away the community based localised care, driving people back to larger institutions and impacting small and family businesses. What is concerning me here is that we're focused on elements that actually don't deliver best outcomes. If you're not delivering the best possible outcomes, it goes without saying that a system is not efficient. If it is not efficient, it's going to cost us more. What will happen? There will be a churn. You'll have somebody come out. A service won't be provided. Someone will have to come out again to provide the service, and we'll have a repetition. These are the things that we need to think about and understand why there is concern in the sector. But, I think most importantly, we need to understand why the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and this government have refused for almost a year—for almost as long as I have been in this place—to provide the information that Senator Steele-John has requested. My OPD has only been in place for a little over a month, but I hope that it doesn't take a year to get the information that I have requested as well. 10:29 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia For those listening: first and foremost, the fundamental role of the Senate is to scrutinise the actions of the government and the actions of this parliament. We have seen a government refusing to accept that this place has a role to play for nearly a year. I commend those who have turned up at this place on a Monday, week after week, and said to the government, 'It is unacceptable for you to hold the Senate in contempt,' because that's exactly what you're doing. The request for information in relation to the National Disability Insurance Scheme Financial Sustainability Framework was asked for nearly a year ago. We're not talking about a small number. The minister has come out and said that there are savings of $60 billion. By anyone's terms—even for this government that spends like drunken sailors—$60 billion is a lot of money. Yet we have yet to see any information to understand what underpins that $60 billion. Senator Steele-John is absolutely within his right to ask for this place to have greater oversight of what that actually means. It's not only that. The government has twice had its public interest immunity claim rejected by this place. The government is the government of the day, but it is not above the operations of the parliament. The parliament is supreme. Yet this government seems to think that they can run this place as if they are the supreme being in the Australian Constitution. The Australian parliament is. You have contemptuously refused to accept the decision of this Senate on numerous occasions. Week after week, your minister comes into this place and puts up some pathetic response as to why you're refusing to provide this information. Second to the role of this place in terms of scrutiny, is the obligation of the government. Particularly given it was a government that went to the election professing that transparency was going to be its modus operandi, you have been nothing but opaque. Transparency is not in your DNA. You have acted as a government that believes you don't have to tell anybody anything. This is a classic example of a government refusing to allow sunlight to be shone on the issue that you are trying to shove through this place. Right now, exactly the same thing is happening in relation to the bill that is before us, which we will see come through this week. It's quite a substantial bill. Obviously, it is really important for the people who rely on the NDIS that we have a sustainable framework going forward so that they are able to be supported. It's not just this generation of Australians who will need the NDIS support; it's for future generations. As a government, we have to make sure that the NDIS is strong and sustainable into the future. Of course, we need to make sure that it's efficient and effective—that we're spending taxpayer money efficiently but also making sure that the people who need the support of the NDIS are able to access it. We heard a few weeks ago that apparently at the end of June, if we didn't pass the NDIS bill, somehow the world would come to an end. We subsequently find when we get back here, after that period of time, that the bill was actually not in a fit state for it to be passed. Imagine if we'd passed it in June! What we would be doing right now is we would be sitting in here with a whole heap of amendment bills, trying to fix up the mess that hadn't actually been dealt with. Once again, this is typical 101 Labor Albanese government—don't worry about the details; we'll worry about them later. But the one thing I've learned in this place over my time here is that the devil is always in the detail. If you don't attend to the details and you don't make sure that you have done the consultation and got the voices of the people who your legislation, regulation or policy is going to impact in the room to find out what they are saying about it, you will invariably come up with bad policy, which is obviously what happened in this situation. We had very little consultation. The states and territories didn't turn up to the hearings over the break despite the fact they were asked to do so, and then we find last weekend, all of a sudden, the states and territories aren't so happy with what's being put into this place. What I would say to the government is: be transparent. Use transparency as a mechanism to protect you, because if you don't consult and you're not transparent and you keep being contemptuous to the Senate, this will continue happening, and it must stop. (Time expired) Question agreed to. MOTIONS 6 MOTIONS Equal Pay Day 6 10:34 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I seek leave to move a motion as circulated in the chamber and to make a five-minute statement regarding Equal Pay Day. Leave not granted. Senator WATERS 192970 Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving and debating the motion. It's Equal Pay Day today, and as women around the country might know that's the day when we've just had to work an extra 50 days in order to be paid the same as our male counterparts. To put that another way, we've just worked 50 days for free in this financial year. We've been paid 78 per cent of what our male counterparts have been paid. The current national gender pay gap is about 12 per cent. That's for full-time workers only. That means we're paid, on average, 12c less for every dollar than our male counterparts. If you factor in part-time work and if you also factor in those other non-salaried perks that CEOs and other senior workers get—most of those are blokes as well—then unfortunately we're at a total remuneration gap of 21.7 per cent, which is a gender pay gap. It is a differential that is explained only because we're women and they're men. Now, I do want to note that this is a slightly better situation than last year. I acknowledge that the gender pay gap did shrink ever so slightly from last year, but I'm afraid that will be little comfort to women who are seeing more and more of their inadequate salaries being eaten up by the spiralling cost of housing, of groceries and of other essentials. Today, Equal Pay Day, we thought it appropriate for the chamber to mark the occasion, the 50 extra days that women need to work to earn the equivalent salary to men. Yes, it is 2024. And, no, I can't believe that we are still here having this debate either. Why is it the case? It's because women's work is still undervalued, whether that's paid or unpaid—and of course we bear the lion's share of unpaid work as well. Both of them are undervalued. Professions that are female dominated are, on average, paid less than professions that are male dominated, despite being crucial to the functioning of society. Now, the easiest way to close the gender pay gap is to pay women more, it's to pay us fairly. The Greens are today, as we have for many, many years now, reiterating our calls for the government of the day to legislate above average wage increases over 10 years in female dominated industries. That would see women paid fairly, it would boost women's economic security and, importantly, it would ensure that we can attract and retain staff in those critical sectors. The government has recently announced it would increase early childhood workers' pay, but not by the amount they asked for and not by the amount they deserve to do the invaluable work they do in educating the next generation. It wasn't the amount that they asked for, and so those workers are still chronically underpaid and they're starting to leave the sector as a result. We can't afford that. We need these trained educators to be doing their work, to educate the kids and to make sure that the parents can get back into paid work if that's what they're seeking to do. I note that we've also had a pay rise recently for aged-care workers, but, again, there's a catch: it didn't apply to all aged-care workers in the sector. What a missed opportunity there. What about teachers, nurses, cleaners—all female dominated industries that are critical to society functioning, as we saw during the pandemic. Those workers are leaving those industries as well, because, again, they're overworked and primarily they're underpaid and undervalued. As I said, the national gender pay gap has slightly reduced, but it's cold comfort when the cost of living is absolutely skyrocketing. Frankly, women are wondering why there is any gender pay gap at all in 2024. The gender pay gap bleeds out into retirement, and we've got a superannuation pay gap of some 25 per cent. We know women over 55 are the fastest-growing cohort of people who are homeless, and we know that superannuation retirement gap is part of the problem. This year we saw the Workplace Gender Equality Agency finally able to release employer specific data, thanks to pressure from the Greens and many others for many years. That's great. People can now check on just how bad their employer is and hopefully that will have some positive impact, but it's still not enough. Waiting 50 years to have pay parity is not something that women should have to put up with. We need a government to prioritise paying women fairly in what is already a cost-of-living crisis. 10:40 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Of course women should be paid equally, and I don't think there are any Australians who would disagree. They should also be looked after equally. That's what should be happening in here, but not for the Greens. The Greens stand up for women only when it suits them. The Greens blocked the rights of women in the textile union to hold a secret ballot and are still blocking put an administrator in place to clean up the CFMEU. It's absolutely absurd. I have never seen anything like it. I would love to know why, but it will all come out in the end because the truth always comes out. Seriously, I just don't understand how you could possibly do that to those women. That you would still not give those women who feel that their lives are under threat an opportunity to have a secret ballot blows me away. These are the Greens, who like nothing more than whipping up division on motions on the Hamas-Israel war but did not say a godamn word, not one word, about one million Afghan women pushed over the border into the arms of the Taliban. I have this to say to you: you seem to pick and choose how you want to help women when it suits you. But for those whose lives are under threat, you don't want a bar of it. You voted against it. You did not want to help those women in textiles. You did not want to move them away from the monsters of the leadership of the CFMEU and that just blows me away. So, to come in here, stand up, start running these motions, and have a standing affair on them is just absolute rubbish—fair dinkum. I just want people out there to know: you can't pick and choose; you're either for women or you are not. But you can't decide you're going to help these women and not these ones over here. You are either one in or all in. Other than that, you're just looking like a pack of hypocrites. 10:41 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I too rise to speak on the motion before the chamber on Equal Pay Day. According to the Workplace Gender Equality Agency, Australian women to have to work 50 days into the new financial year for to earn the same on average as Australian men did last year. This statistic shows that, while women have made considerable ground, there is a way to go. For the past 50 days, the Workplace Gender Equality Agency campaign themed It Doesn't Add Up has motivated Australians to understand that pivotal difference between equal pay and the gender pay gap, and supported employers to build their capacity to take actions to reduce the gap in their workplace. This is a good thing. The coalition has always been and remains committed to supporting women's participation in the workforce and it rose to record highs under the previous government. Supporting women's economic security is absolutely essential to raising the status of women in Australia and to giving women the choice to make decisions in their own best interests. Stronger women's economic security provides benefits not just for the individuals involved but also their families, businesses and of course the broader economy. Supporting women's labour force participation, particularly in entrepreneurship, skills and leadership, is profoundly important, and women's economic security will only really be found, not just when equal pay is realised but, more importantly, when there is equal homeownership and better retirement outcomes for women as well. In the last government, in the last two women's budget statements, more than $5.5 billion was dedicated to raising the economic security and, indeed, the safety of Australia's women. There was an additional extension to paid parental leave from 18 to 20 weeks. There were increased childcare subsidies, particularly for those families with two or more children in child care at the same time, because we know that is the tipping point where women make decisions about not returning to the workforce and, rather, stay at home because the cost of child care becomes overwhelming. But more importantly, I think, is to focus on something that is not picked up in this notice of motion. Indeed, it doesn't really seem to feature in this government's thinking when they put together their women's policies—that is, one in three owners of small businesses in Australia now are women. In fact, between 2006 and 2021, the number of female small-business owners increased by 24 per cent. Despite this incredible growth, there are still barriers to women led small businesses and particularly to things like access to finance. But studies in Australia suggest that boosting the number of female business owners to that equal of men could add somewhere in the vicinity of $70 billion to $135 billion to Australia's economy. That's something that we should be celebrating. That's something that we should be harnessing. That's why we pursued things like the Female Founders Initiative, which encouraged women-owned and -led startups; the Entrepreneur's Program to take those startups to the next level, specifically for women; and the Career Revive program that encouraged dozens of regional businesses to take on women that were returning to work after a career break. There was about $60 million for additional places in girls academies for Indigenous students, supporting girls to help them attain year 12—such an important part of closing the gap. There was also support for women in male dominated trades and support for 230 women to pursue higher level STEM qualifications. But I think one of the crowning achievements of the previous government was reaching gender parity on government board appointments. That was a commitment that the coalition made back in 2016, and it was achieved in 2020: 50 per cent of all government board appointments now go to women. For me personally, abolishing the $450 threshold for superannuation payments was one of my proudest achievements in this place. That made sure that around 300,000 low-paid women finally received, for the first time since superannuation was introduced by the Keating government, the superannuation that they deserved. The best indicator of economic security in retirement is owning a home. That should be a focus of this government, and that's why, in the coalition's last budget-in-reply statement, we extended the homeownership program that would allow people to access their superannuation to buy their first home to women finding themselves single for the first time late— (Time expired) 10:47 Senator MCALLISTER 121628 New South Wales This is an important issue that regrettably is attached to a stunt by the Greens political party. The government has very important legislation listed this morning that we need to get to, including a bill to place the CFMEU into administration and legislation to get the NDIS back on track. Moving and debating this motion now without notice, despite the fact that this is an important issue that this government is working on, that members of this government and this chamber have worked on for many years, is seeking to distract us and delay us from getting to these and other important and time-critical manners. This motion has not been put on notice in the ordinary way, and that's the giveaway, isn't it? That is the giveaway, friends, because this motion was not sent to the government by the Greens political party with sufficient notice to consider it before they seek to move it, and that is because it is simply a stunt. It can only lead those of us on the government benches to conclude that the Greens political party are using this as a another tactic, incredibly, to delay debate on the important CFMEU administration legislation which is currently before this Senate. They don't want to support it. They don't want to debate it and they've made that clear. They certainly don't want to be called out for their role in protecting unacceptable behaviour in this union. It leads us to ask why. It leads us to ask the question, because there are other ways to deal with a matter as important as equal pay. This government is serious about dealing with the gender pay gap. We've actually seen progress on reducing this gap since we took office two years ago. Today is Equal Pay Day, and we are now 50 days into the new financial year, which is how many extra days women have to work each year to earn the same average salary as men. The national gender pay gap is 11½ per cent, which means that, on average, for every dollar a men earns, a women earns around 89 cents. The government will not sit by, idly watching, and hope that it continues to close. We're taking action on it. Just last week we announced we'd increased the pay of early childhood educators by 15 per cent, and it follows a similar pay rise for aged-care workers last year. These are sectors where there are a lot of women workers, and boosting their pay helps close the overall gender pay gap. We've secured record pay rises for hundreds and thousands of women on award wages. We have fixed the bargaining system to get wages moving in feminised industries. We've banned pay secrecy and changed workplace laws to put gender equity at the heart of the Fair Work Commission's decision-making. And we are publishing employer gender pay gaps to hold companies to account. We're also addressing the other drivers of the pay gap, like uneven distribution of unpaid care. We're doing things like expanding paid parental leave and changing how it's structured so that men are encouraged to take on their fair share of caring responsibilities and to, frankly, enjoy all of the important benefits that come from a connection between men and their children. We're making childcare cheaper so it is easier for families to benefit and to balance work and care. We actually know that change does not happen overnight, but we are making progress. There is still a lot of work to be done, but I make this point: it is work that is actually being done by a Labor government. It's work that is actually seeing the gender pay gap come down. It is work that means something to Australian women, unlike a motion brought on as a stunt to delay debate on another question. There are several times during the program that the Greens could use to discuss this matter in the normal way, like matters of public importance or a general business debate, but, instead, they would rather pull a stunt to further delay important legislation to deal with issues in the CFMEU. I move: That the question be now put. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 The question as moved by the minister is that the question be put.

The Senate divided. [10:56]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Sterle)

25 AYES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. Paterson, J. W. Polley, H. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. 11 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

10:59 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 The question is that the suspension motion moved by Senate Waters be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [10:59]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Sterle)

11 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 25 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. Paterson, J. W. Polley, H. 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.

Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union, Australian Greens 9 11:01 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I seek leave to move a motion relating to the Australian Greens and the CFMEU, as has been circulated in the chamber. Leave not granted. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X Pursuant to contingent notice standing in my name, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter—namely, a motion to allow a motion relating to the Australian Greens and the CFMEU to be moved and determined immediately. The motion circulated in this chamber seeks to highlight what has been a very conspicuous silence from the Australian Greens in relation to the CFMEU and seeks to draw out the position of the Australian Greens in relation to the CFMEU and particularly in relation to taking donations from the CFMEU. The main story of the whole CFMEU saga of lawlessness, thuggery and corruption has, of course, been the absolute failings within the CFMEU, the damage it's caused to the building and construction industry, and, of course, the shameful neglect of the Labor Party over the years in relation to their engagement with their partner, in the CFMEU. But underneath that main story there has been a subplot, and that subplot is the tale of the magical missing Australian Greens. Maybe the magical missing Australian Greens are on some of their magic mushrooms or the like. But the reality is: the Greens have been suspiciously, conspicuously, totally absent from the debate about the CFMEU, and I move this motion to really present the question of why: Why have the Greens checked themselves out of this debate? What is their real position? Why the silence from the Greens? Why won't they stand up to union thuggery? Why won't they stand up to union corruption? Why won't the Greens stand up to union lawlessness? What is it that the Greens are hiding in their silence? The Greens have long lined up with Labor to oppose tackling corruption and problems in the construction industry. The Greens were there opposing the establishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission. The Greens were there opposing the establishment of the Registered Organisations Commission. The Greens were there opposing and, tragically, defeating the ensuring integrity legislation brought to this parliament. So the Greens have been there at every step of the way, blocking every single effort to try to hold corruption, lawlessness and thuggery in the union movement to account. The Greens have been there every step of the way in that regard. Of course, if they hadn't been and if they had engaged constructively on these issues over the years, then the CFMEU, its members, Australia's building and construction industry and Australia's productivity would not be facing the same sorts of problems today as we are, because of the opposition of Labor and the Greens acting in concert to stymie any and all action. But all of that opposition over the years that we'd been accustomed to—seeing the Greens and Labor sidle up on these matters—has gone from bad to worse through the course of this last year in particular. We saw in relation to the demerger legislation that passed through this parliament, with the government and the opposition working to pass that demerger legislation, that the Greens remained an obstacle to that every single step of the way—never mind those workers who had argued strongly for their rights to be able to get out of the CFMEU and to be able to get away from it. No, the Greens wanted to force them to stay in place, suspiciously blocking and delaying the demerger legislation. Now, in relation to the administration legislation, there is an effort—insufficient though we think it may be, it is at least an effort—to try to clean up the problems in the CFMEU. From an opposition perspective, we've engaged with the government. We've negotiated amendments. Those negotiations are continuing. We want to see this legislation passed. We want to see legislation passed that is strong, gives guarantees that this administration will work, gives guarantees it will clean up the CFMEU and ensures that, when it comes to the duration of administration, the transparency of administration or political donations, these are dealt with before the legislation passes, such that we can all have confidence. The Greens aren't part of those negotiations. Do you know how many Greens senators have spoken on the legislation to date? Absolutely none—not one of them has spoken on the legislation to date. I cannot think of another example where the Greens have been so conspicuously and so suspiciously silent. The Greens' silence leaves us all asking: Why? Do we need to follow the money trail? Where do they stand on political donations? (Time expired) 11:07 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I'll indicate briefly two points. The first is that the government denied leave because we don't believe the Senate's time should continually be taken up by suspensions. We want to get on with debating legislation. I do think it's interesting that the opposition want to talk about this but not actually talk about how we might regulate the CFMEU. I hope for your sake that the delay over the weekend, which has been caused by Senator Cash's stubbornness, has not led to money being transferred that we then find out about. Senator Hume 266499 To you. Senator WONG 00AOU You should withdraw that. That is an outrageous thing to say. I have been on the record for years on this issue. Senator Hume 266499 We're talking about donations. What about donations? Senator WONG 00AOU We have been clear on that too. The second point I would make is that the government is minded to support the motion, and I would propose to Senator Birmingham that we allow one more speaker from the government on the substance. We would allow a speaker from the Greens, and then we would put the motion to have the vote because we don't want legislative time taken up by further debate on this suspension. 11:08 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak to— Senator Shoebridge 169119 What is this? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 I'm in the hands of the chamber. Senator Watt 245759 They had the call. The call has to be rotated. You know that, Senator McKenzie. Senator McKENZIE 207825 I'm the leader of the party. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order! Senator Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU I've put a proposition to the chamber. It didn't include a further speaker from the opposition, for the reasons I've outlined. I'm suggesting a speaker on the substance from the government and the Greens, and then that the motion be put. Senator Birmingham H6X I understand what the Leader of the Government in the Senate is proposing in relation to the suspension motion. I seek to understand what is being proposed if the suspension motion is carried, as the Leader of the Government in the Senate seems to indicate that the government's predisposition is to allow it to pass. What is the government's position in relation to the substantive motion? Obviously, it would then be moved by the opposition. There would be— Senator Birmingham H6X I think, to enable the motion to pass—and have the benefit of the motion passing—that would be welcome. 11:10 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales This motion is an extraordinary misrepresentation of the position adopted by the party. Rather bizarrely, the motion is being moved to prevent the second reading contribution that I'm keen to give on the bill. Rather than me being able to give a second reading contribution on the bill, we're dealing with a suspension motion. The suspension motion will then become a substantive motion. The substantive motion will then take an hour and prevent a substantive contribution to the second reading debate. Is that seriously the coalition's point? Do you want to spend the next hour preventing the second reading contribution that I want to give on the bill by saying, 'We're not giving a second reading contribution on the bill'? Who in your tactics team came up with that grand plan? No wonder there's a sea of media representatives out there— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order! Through the chair, Senator Shoebridge. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 They are watching Senator Birmingham's cunning plan to prevent me speaking on a bill and saying that you want to prevent us speaking on a bill. Look at the sea of cameras waiting to see the cunning Birmingham plan, saying how you're preventing me from speaking on a bill. You want me to speak on a bill, but you don't want me to speak on the bill. And you want to have another debate after this, to prevent me from speaking on the bill. Who is the genius in the coalition party room who came up with this? All credit to you. It's probably the same genius who's giving Senator Watt the idea to respond to a substantive issue with memes. The government's response to a substantive issue, and issues of principle, is a bunch of Labor Party memes. Let's be clear what we're not talking about here. The Greens have said, from day one, in every instance where issues of principle come before this parliament, that we will always oppose violence in the workplace and always support action to address sexism and misogyny—every single time. There are no doubt issues—and we would like to get to this discussion in the second reading debate—incredibly important and very concerning issues about union behaviour. They're absolutely, deeply concerning. But we're not talking about them now; we're talking about the Simon Birmingham double-triple pike with half belly flop into the water that you want to spend the next hour doing. This is zero points for difficulty from the judging panel for your half-triple pike attempt to prevent the matter coming on for debate—zero points for difficulty and, in fact, zero points for style or substance. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order, Senator Shoebridge. Senator McKenzie, on a point of order. Senator McKenzie 207825 I'm the senator that actually wanted to speak about the substantive issues in this motion, which is about the Greens' inability to land their own position, and to have Senator Shoebridge have the opportunity to state— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order! Senator McKenzie, could you please get to the point of order? Was there a point of order? Senator McKenzie 207825 Irrelevance. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Senator Shoebridge, you do have to be relevant to the suspension motion, not the substantive motion, so I would guide you to direct your comments thus. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order, Senator McKenzie! Senator Shoebridge. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 Indeed. On suspension, the question before the house is: what should be more important, this suspension motion or the actual list of business before the house? And what's No. 1 on the list of business before the house? The very bill that the suspension motion is saying we're not speaking to. It couldn't be more important. So I thank you for your direction, Acting Deputy President, and, through that, your endorsement of the position we're taking about the Birmingham double-pike belly flop that is being proposed here. We have said—and I would like to be in a position to say them in more detail—the very real concerns we have about the principles behind this bill. The extraordinary amount of power that has been— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order, Senator McKenzie. Senator Shoebridge? Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 The extraordinary power that's being proposed to be given to a minister of either this government or the next government over a union—and if they can do it over a union, they can do it over an NGO; if they can do it over an NGO, they can do it over any other part of civil society. Do we have issues of principle with that? Absolutely we have issues of principle and concern about that. Absolutely we do. Have we reached out to the government and offered our concerns, offered substantive amendments to have it— Senator McKenzie 207825 What about the thuggery, the sexism, the bullying, the corruption? Silence from the Greens— Senator McKim JKM Weren't you listening? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order, Senator McKenzie. Senator Shoebridge. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 Have we done that? Absolutely. If you want to talk about donations, the Greens have not accepted a cent from the CFMEU since 2013, while millions and millions and millions of dollars have gone to Senator Watt's party. And it is only— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order, Senator Shoebridge. I have Senator Birmingham on his feet. Senator McKenzie, I would like to hear what Senator Birmingham has to say. Senator Birmingham. Senator Birmingham H6X On a point of order, I'd just like to invite Senator Shoebridge to finish that statement with the words, 'And nor will we.' The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order, Senator Birmingham. That's not a point of order, and I think you are aware of that. Senator Shoebridge. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 So he has finished his belly flop now with a dog paddle in the pool. That's what that was—a belly flop followed by a dog paddle in the pool. It's embarrassing to watch. We have not taken a cent from the CFMEU since 2013. Senator Watt's party has taken millions and millions and millions of dollars. We have the most ethical donations— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order, Senator Shoebridge. Your time has expired. Senator Watt, you have the call— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Senator Shoebridge, you will sit down when I say that your time has expired. Senator Watt, you have the call. 11:17 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As Senator Wong has outlined, we will be supporting the suspension motion and the substantive motion itself. As Senator Wong pointed out, we did deny leave to move this motion because we have an interest in getting the legislation passed as quickly as possible to enable me to make a decision on whether to put the CFMEU into administration. We very much encourage both the coalition and the Greens to support the legislation and also to stop putting up delaying tactics, like the one that we're in at the moment, so we can get onto that legislation. Having said all of that, we will be supporting the motion moved by Senator Birmingham because we do think that it is a valid question. We do think it is a valid question: why are the Greens so unwilling to support legislation that would enable the CFMEU to be put into administration? I think the answer lies, probably, in a sound, and that sound is 'cha-ching'. It's the money. It's the money that the Greens so desperately want. We know, Senator Shoebridge, that you more than anyone have been running around parliament telling everyone that you're looking forward to taking money off Labor and into the Greens' pocket. We know that. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order, Senator Watt. Please direct your comments through the chair. I have two Greens senators on their feet, and I'm going to give the call to Senator Waters on a point of order. Senator Waters 192970 The point of order is: misleading the Senate. There are multiple standing orders that the minister just offended, and, as my colleague just contributed, you're the ones that have been taking the money, not us. So how very dare you make those baseless allegations? Retract them now. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order, Senator Waters; I don't think that was a point of order. What was your point of order? Senator Waters 192970 Personal reflections and falsity. Senator McKim JKM The second of those is absolutely a point of order. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order, Senator Watt. I'm about to rule on the point of order. I was listening carefully. I don't think there was a reflection in there. But, Senator Watt, particularly given that you were directing your comments down the other end of the chamber, I would ask that you be careful in your language and direct your comments through the chair. Senator Waters? Senator Waters 192970 I would like the minister to retract the last sentence, which will be on the Hansard, which I heard. Perhaps you didn't hear it—there was a lot of noise—but it was a clear and inaccurate reflection on Senator Shoebridge, and it needs to be retracted. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Thank you, Senator Waters. For the ease of the chamber, Senator Watt, would you like to withdraw? Senator WATT 245759 I withdraw the comment. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Thank you. You have the call. Senator WATT 245759 Senator Shoebridge, in his contribution, claimed that the Greens party always opposes violence—except from the CFMEU. He made the claim that the Greens party always opposes misogyny—except from the CFMEU. There's always that 'but' and that exception. Honourable senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order! Senator WATT 245759 You really don't like the truth, do you? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order, Senator Watt! Senator Waters, on a point of order? Senator Waters 192970 He's alleging that the senator said something that he did not say. I understand the attack points, but you can't mislead the chamber. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Senator Waters, that's not a point of order. This is a very lively debate. Senator Watt, I've already reminded you once to direct your comments through the chair, please continue to do so. Senator Whish-Wilson, on a point of order? Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 The point of order Senator Waters was making was that the senator is misleading the chamber with his comment. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Thank you for that, Senator Whish-Wilson. I have asked Senator Watt to be very mindful and careful of his comments and to direct them through the chair. Senator Waters 192970 It's got to be accurate! Senator Wong 00AOU You really are hypocritical, Larissa. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order! I'm not going to ask Senator Watt to keep speaking until there is silence in the chamber. Honourable senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order! Senator Watt, you have the call. Please direct your comments through the chair. Senator WATT 245759 The preciousness of the Greens—they are the party that makes their name running around bagging other people, usually Labor, but the minute they're held to account for their own actions the bleating, the points of order and the complaints come loud and clear. There's a very easy way for the Greens to demonstrate that they do oppose violence in the workplace: they could vote for our bill. There's a very easy way that they can demonstrate that they oppose misogyny in the workplace: they can vote for our bill. But they don't want to do that, and why is that? They want the money that comes from it. The Greens say they have offered amendments. We have pointed out to them that we have provided workable solutions to each point that they have made, and it's still never enough. Honourable senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order! Senator Watt, please sit down. I can't hear what Senator Watt is saying, and he has a very loud and clear-cutting voice, as many in this chamber would be aware. I would like to hear Senator Watt in silence. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Order, Senator Wong! Senator Watt, you have the call. Senator WATT 245759 I do thank the Greens for drawing lots more attention to this debate about the concern that they're going to take donations from the CFMEU. Thank you for drawing attention to this. Senator Birmingham made the point that in the entire debate about this bill, which is now into its third day I think, we haven't heard a single Greens speaker, up until now, debate this bill. They keep pushing and pushing themselves down the list, desperately hoping that they won't have to reveal their position. It would be nice to hear from the Greens as to why they don't actually support this bill, but, instead, they've spent the best part of three days curling up into a little ball, hoping that this argument can avoid them and hoping that they don't have to take a position. Well, I'm sorry, but you're going to have to take a position. You're going to have to take a position on whether you're prepared to support the government to clean up the CFMEU once and for all, to stamp down and stamp out violence, thuggery, corruption and criminality in the workplace that, unfortunately, have infiltrated a very strong and important union in Australia and that need to be dealt with. You do have to take a stand, and that time will come when we do get to a vote on this bill, as I hope that we will be doing, coalition, sooner rather than later. As I say, the only reason the Greens can possibly be opposing the legislation that we're putting forward is that they are desperate to carve off donations to prop up their campaigns. I'm not going to disclose the negotiations that have been underway with the Greens about this legislation, but I did notice an article in one of today's papers saying that the Greens have admitted that their concern about our legislation is: … the fact the whole union would be put into administration rather than just the branches subject to criminal or corruption claims. That's come from a Greens representative in today's papers. That's the reason they don't want to support it. They don't want the Queensland branch put into administration. Why would that be? Could that be because they have three seats in Brisbane that they want to prop up with CFMEU donations? Could that be why you don't want the Queensland branch put into administration? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 Direct your comments through the chair, Senator Watt. Senator WATT 245759 Is the reason that you don't want the South Australian, Tasmanian, WA or ACT branches put into administration that you'd quite like donations from those states as well? Is it anything to do with that at all? We know that our bill is going to be putting the entire CFMEU construction division into administration as is required to clean up this union, to clean up this branch and to make sure that it actually returns its focus to the best interest of its members, which is what a union should be about. So far, the people who are the least enthusiastic about doing that are the Greens party of Australia. I move: That the motion be put. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 The question before the chair is that the motion be put.

The Senate divided. [11:29]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Chandler)

36 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hume, J. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKenzie, B. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Wong, P. 10 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

11:33 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 264449 The question is that the motion moved by Senator Birmingham to suspend standing orders be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [11:33]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Chandler)

35 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hume, J. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKenzie, B. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Wong, P. 10 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

BUSINESS 15 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 15 11:36 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia Consistent with the will of the chamber—and I thank the government for supporting the suspension—I move: That a motion relating to the Greens and the CFMEU may be moved immediately, have precedence over all other business and be determined without amendment. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 16 MOTIONS Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union, Australian Greens 16 11:36 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I move: That the Senate— (a) notes the conspicuous silence from The Australian Greens in relation to the Government's legislative response to the CFMEU's scandal of corruption, lawlessness and thuggery; (b) notes that the Leader of The Australian Greens, along with Greens MPs and senators, have not ruled out receiving any donations from the CFMEU while it is under administration; (c) agrees that no amount of money is worth supporting corruption, bullying, sexism and thuggery; and (d) calls on the Leader of The Australian Greens to clarify the full extent of the party's relationship with the CFMEU and confirm that the party will not accept any donations from the CFMEU while it is under administration. I don't intend to speak to the motion other than to make two points. One, it's time for the Greens to come clean in the subsequent debate on this legislation about why they stand so vehemently in defence of the corrupt and thuggish CFMEU. Two, it's time for the Greens to give a clear, straight answer ruling out ever taking money from the CFMEU whilst it's in administration. Address those points, Greens, or it is clear that you are squibbing this for your own benefit. In the subsequent debate come clean about why you are the only party in this place standing in defence of the corrupt and thuggish CFMEU and rule out taking a dollar or a person of campaign assistance from the CFMEU whilst they're under administration. Come clean. What is it that you are seeking to do in cuddling up to the CFMEU, Australian Greens? 11:38 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales We wanted to move an amendment to this motion that would have called on the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations to attend the chamber for ten minutes upon conclusion of this motion to explain whether Labor will return any of the millions in donations it has received from the CFMEU. We wanted to move that as an amendment, but there's a deal between the coalition and Labor to provide political cover for Labor, for whatever reason—I don't know. I don't know why you're trying to do that. We wanted to move that amendment and have the minister, the Six Million Dollar Man, come down and explain what Labor are going to do with the millions and millions and millions and millions and millions and millions of dollars that they have received in the last decade from the CFMEU. I will say this—I've said it before and I will say it again: the Greens have not received any political donations from the CFMEU since 2013, and I don't see that changing. It says so much about the so-called modern Labor Party and the coalition that we're debating a bill which is about very real and deep concerns about misogyny and violence, very real and deep concerns about union democracy, and very real and deep concerns about the overreach of a federal government to be able to reach into any organisation they choose—it starts with unions, it goes on to the next—and how we structure safeguards around that. These very deep, real matters of principle have been engaging the Greens, both the party room and the movement across the country. These matters are very real principles of concern so as to ensure construction workers can go to work and come home alive, to ensure that the rights of individuals to have a democratically controlled union are not just overridden first by Minister Watt and then by Senator Cash when she's minister. These are matters of deep and real principles that we've been trying to negotiate with the government on, but, when on the other side of the negotiating table, it's 'Computer says "no"'. That's Minister Watt's negotiation style, 'Computer says "no"'. That's his negotiating style. That's his idea of negotiating, that and then threatening us with Labor memes. That's what we're dealing with. We have matters of genuine principle that we want to see addressed through amendments and in-principle discussions. We've got these concerns we would like to articulate in detail in a second reading debate, but instead we're spending the time having this, what, second debate on the Birmingham double backflip belly-flop motion that we're dealing with. Instead we're doing that. Senator Wong 00AOU Then sit down. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 Then we get those facile interjections from the Leader of the Government in the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 Senator Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU Well, he did just call me 'facile', but I might not be quite as touchy as him. Senator, I would invite you to not debate it, then. Opposition senators: Point of order! Senator Wong 00AOU You could just sit down. If you're worried about debating it—this is a voluntary engagement. You can actually not talk and we could vote. Honourable senators interjecting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 Senator Wong, is there a point of order? Senator Shoebridge, you have the call. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 Thank you. I think this chamber works best with just one president. We wanted to have that addition to this motion, to have Minister Watt come and explain his position, explain what he'd do with the millions and millions and millions, but I'm sure we won't get that in Labor's contribution. We won't get that. We will instead get some Senator Watt meme no doubt. We want to get on with discussing the second reading debate. Instead, we have to meet these spurious arguments being put forward by the coalition and Labor in unison. Senator McKenzie 207825 You can't even talk for more than 10 minutes! Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 In unison. The fact that Labor and the coalition are doing this today in unison, singing off the one song sheet—they're not making it about the substantive issues, but singing off the one song sheet like they do time after time after time in this chamber. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 They've been voting together on this, scheming together on this, working up the motions together on this. Labor and the coalition have been scheming together as they've been quietly negotiating over the weekend and quietly negotiating last week to try to work out what they can do together as the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of Australian politics. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 And we're seeing it again today. We're seeing it right now. There's so little between you that you have to come up with these confected fights to suggest there's something. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 We are trying to deal with the principles of this, and I know that troubles you so much. What I find extraordinary about this motion—I was setting out the issues of principle that have been moving our party room and moving our movement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, resume your seat. Senator McKenzie and other senators, Senator Shoebridge does have the call. He should be heard in silence. Senator Shoebridge, you have the call. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 Thank you, Acting Deputy President Chandler. I have been trying to articulate—and I would like to go into more detail in the second reading—the matters of principle we have. The matters of principle we have include: democratic control of non-government civil society organisations: concerns about the overreach of giving extraordinary powers to just one minister; concerns about removing all natural justice through a scheme that the minister can amend; the inability to work out a way of ensuring, if there is a change of government, that Minister Cash can't have unilateral control over this; dealing with the concerns of misogyny; and dealing with the concerns of violence—matters of real principle. With this motion, we get a little insight into the brain that is the coalition and a little insight into the brain that is the Labor Party. They both genuinely think that, for the Greens, this is somehow about some donations. You genuinely think that. I suppose what I would say to that is: it goes to show what you are. You are showing what you are. These are the kinds of quiet little internal thoughts you should keep quiet, because we now know what it is for the coalition and we now know what it is for the Labor Party: you make the mistake of thinking that we engage in politics in this place in the way that you engage in politics, because for you it is about the money. For the coalition is about the money going to the Labor, and for Labor it is about the money going to them or to some other political party. Well, it has never been about the money for us; it is about matters of principle. You can't comprehend that fact. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 Senator Shoebridge, resume your seat. Senator McKenzie, you are in a stream of consciousness mode at the moment, so I would ask that you pause and let Senator Shoebridge finish his contribution. Senator Shoebridge. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 Thank you, Acting Deputy President. We have a national issue with layers and layers of deep and concerning principles, some in contradiction to each other, some that have been keeping many of us awake at night—about how you navigate a pathway through with these very real— An honourable senator interjecting— Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 some of which we have been trying to negotiate with a Labor minister, who just says 'computer says no' if he actually gets back to us. Then we get a little insight into what you lot think this is about, because you think it is about money. You think it is about donations because that's the way your politics works. That is the way the coalition's politics works. It must be about the money. You cannot get that out of your own brains because that is the only way you engage in politics. It is about self-interest and money for the coalition, and you can't comprehend when another political movement may actually have different principles and considerations. As you bring this motion, we're getting a little insight into your political brain. This motion says so much about the coalition—that you think that's what motivates politics in this place. It is always about some grubby side deal for the money and it tells us so much about you. We then have Labor join and support it, because, for them, it is the same thing. This is not about matters of deep principle, it is not about matters of how we go and stand up for a democratic union movement, and it is not about how we deal with the misogyny, the allegations of criminality and the very real deep concerns about how the union operates. It is not about that, because they have joined the coalition in making it all about money. They have joined you in making it all about money. It is such an insight into the modern Labor Party, that with all these issues floating around, you can't conceive there is another political movement in the country that is not doing it only for the money and is not interested in it only for the money. For the party that has received more than $6 million in donations from the CFMEU, that has made zero commitments to give a cent back in the last decade, zero commitments at all, to join this motion makes us realise that is what is important to them. That is what is motivating them. It's actually the money that is motivating Labor, as so much of their politics is motivated by money—self interest and money. We're trying to have a genuine debate about the principles, and you lot collectively drag it into the gutter and make it about the way your politics works. When you're both in the gutter, the rest of the country is looking at you in the gutter. Is it any wonder that your combined vote keeps shrinking and shrinking because you do this stuff? You turn issues of principle and concern into your collective grubby self-interest and how you can make these kinds of narrow, grubby, political fights, when we want to actually engage with the principles. So do we oppose this motion? Yes, we oppose this motion. Do we want to get on and deal with issues of principle and deal with it on principle? Yes, we want to deal with it on principle. There is an absolutely fatuous argument from Labor about us spending 12 or 13 minutes actually defending our position in an attack motion that you've joined together to do to us in what will be the better part of an hour's time of the Senate. Their fatuous argument is that defending ourselves from the self-interested joint attack from Labor and the coalition is somehow the problem. You couldn't make this stuff up, could you? You couldn't make up that kind of confected outrage. What I'd say to the both of you is: have a good, hard look in the mirror. When you have a look in the mirror, what will be reflected back at you is this motion. It says so much more about you and how you do politics—the standard grubby deals between you and your backroom deals to try and do a job on any political party that dares put principle before dollars. That's what this is about. Murray, give it back. If you have the guts of your convictions, just give it back. 11:52 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I might just make the procedural point that I understand it's not possible for Senator Shoebridge to amend the original motion. Very briefly, in response to Senator Shoebridge, we have heard an extraordinary proposition from him. Not only do the Greens want to be able to take donations from the CFMEU in the future—that, clearly has to be why they're voting against motion—they are now demanding that Labor returns $6 million in donations to John Setka. You actually want not just donations in the future but for him to have even more money to play with to back your campaigns and make donations to you. That is an extraordinary suggestion from the Greens. Senator Shoebridge has advanced several of what he calls matters of principle that he is seeking the government to agree to. The news for Senator Shoebridge is that we have agreed to all of those matters of principle. As late as Thursday or Friday last week, we pointed out to the Greens how we could accommodate the so-called matters of principle for the Greens. The truth of the matter is that there's only one matter of principle involved here for the Greens party, and that is the principle that they should be allowed to take donations from the CFMEU for time immemorial. Have a look at the motion moved by Senator Birmingham that the government will be supporting. It notes things and agrees to things, and it's also denoting stuff. The only part of the motion that actually calls on anyone to do anything is at paragraph (d): … calls on the Leader of The Australian Greens to clarify the full extent of the party's relationship with the CFMEU and confirm that the party will not accept any donations from the CFMEU while it is under administration. By voting against this motion, as it seems the Greens plan to do, they are confirming that they are not prepared to give up donations from the CFMEU. That tells us a whole lot about the Greens. We know that, for the Greens, it's all about politics, games and grandstanding. Today, we've learned it's all about getting money from John Setka and his associates at the CFMEU. That's why the government will be voting in support of this motion, and I move: That the motion be put. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 The question is that the question now be put.

The Senate divided. [11:59]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Walsh)

34 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Brockman, W. E. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hughes, H. A. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKenzie, B. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Wong, P. 10 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

12:01 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 The question before the chamber now is that the substantive motion moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to. I think the ayes have it. Senator Waters 192970 Actually, that was a no from us. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 We didn't hear it. Senator Waters 192970 I'm sorry you couldn't hear because of the noise in the chamber. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 Would you like me to call the vote again? Senator Waters 192970 Yes, please. Thank you. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 252157 The question is that the motion moved by Senator Birmingham be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:03]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Walsh)

Question agreed to.

Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union 20 12:05 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I seek leave to move a motion ordering the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations to attend the chamber for 10 minutes upon conclusion of this debate on this motion, to explain whether Labor will either return to the CFMEU any of the millions of dollars it has received from the CFMEU or make a donation of an equivalent amount to a registered charity—perhaps even a charity supporting women fleeing family, domestic and sexual violence. Leave not granted. Senator WATERS 192970 Pursuant to the contingent notice standing in my name, I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to an order for the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations to attend the chamber for 10 minutes upon conclusion of debate on this motion to explain whether Labor will return any of the millions in donations it has received from the CFMEU. We have not received donations from the CFMEU for over 10 years, and I can't see that changing. I'm confident the party would not accept any should they be offered, yet Labor have taken—we now hear, from the minister—$6 million. So it is baffling that they are trying to make this about the Greens. Senator Wong 00AOU On a point of order: I want to seek clarification. I think we've had two suspensions. We would generally not have a third. I would like to be clear about that. I think Senator Gallagher will say something, but I make that point. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Minister, I understand that, given one of the suspensions was successful, the argument doesn't hold that it's delaying the business of the chamber. The minister has priority. Then I'll go to the other side. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Okay. Senator McKenzie. 12:08 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria Isn't it fascinating? Here we are. We've spent a whole morning on this. I was following Senator Shoebridge in the contributions to the second reading debate. He kept dropping his contribution off. Rather than hearing him put on the record the Greens' perspective on this particular bill, we have now spent all morning with them equivocating, vacillating and quite significantly refusing to put the Greens' political party's perspective on the CFMEU's thuggery, misogyny and corruption allegations on the record or be willing to step up and do something tough about it. What we've actually seen here today is that both parties that have accepted money from the CFMEU in political donations seem to be refusing the coalition's simple solution to this: put it in the bill that political parties of all colours and persuasions, whilst the CFMEU is in administration, should not be accepting donations. It's that simple. And Senator Shoebridge—through you, Chair—if you really wanted to stand on your principles, you would accept that donation amendment from the coalition and support it, because it would then apply the same principles around taking donations and money from the CFMEU whilst in administration to all political parties. 12:09 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Because I don't want to delay the Senate again, I will quickly respond to Senator McKenzie's point. Our advice on putting a clause like that in the bill, and the High Court has considered this in another judgement, is that it would be unconstitutional and it would put at risk the entire administration of the bill. That is why we haven't reached agreement. I think people can read High Court judgements about that if they need further persuasion. We are not going to support the suspension. In typical Senate form, we have been here for two hours and 10 minutes and we have not got to the first item of business on the legislation program today. In closing, I would urge those to keep their remarks, when they concern this, to the second reading debate, which we would hopefully have finished and completed if we had been allowed to get there this morning and not have this time wasting. I move the question be put. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question is that the question be put. Question agreed to. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question in that Senator Waters' motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to.

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

10 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 23 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

BILLS 21 BILLS Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 21

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

Second Reading 21 12:17 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I've been waiting all morning for the opportunity to continue my remarks on the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024. It's a substantive bill that people have been discussing in various terms throughout the morning. What I'd like to do initially is to just highlight the areas that I will be addressing. For many people who've perhaps been either in the gallery or listening online to the last couple of hours, they may well wonder just what on earth this is all about. I will talk a little bit about the context of this morning and the context of this bill that we are currently debating, but I will also talk about why the coalition has concerns about the bill as presented by the government in response to the situation with the CFMEU. I'll talk about why the actions of the CFMEU are bad for my home state of South Australia, for taxpayers, for small-business people and even for workers in the construction industry. The coalition believe that this bill does need to include measures around a minimum term for any administration that is put in place as well as transparency to make sure that this parliament, on behalf of taxpayers and those people who are affected by the actions of militant unions such as this, can be scrutinised. The topic that has absorbed the chamber for all of this morning is this: if we genuinely believe that the actions of a union under its current leadership, even though Mr Setka has left, are illegal and toxic and not in the best interest of Australia then why would parties either not return funding or commit to not taking funding, and that includes both the Greens and the government—I can almost guarantee they've never donated to the coalition—into the future? Why is there an issue? For people who have been following this—this is an issue that has been around for a long time, but the most recent trigger was probably the bullying behaviour we saw from Mr Setka and the CFMEU over football umpiring of all things. People would ask, 'What has football umpiring got to do with the debate we just had here in the chamber?' People may recall that, under the coalition government, we established a watchdog to make sure that the militancy and illegal activities of the CFMEU and other militant unions acting in that construction sector were actually held to account. It was such a bitter relationship between Mr Setka and those in the Australian Building Construction Commission that, when the former head, Mr Stephen McBurney, who was involved with AFL football umpiring, was appointed by the AFL to a leadership role in their football umpiring, Mr Setka said that the unions would target all of the construction programs that were associated with the AFL. On one hand, you could say, 'Well, why should the broader public care?' They should care, at least partly, because football leagues are largely funded by memberships, mums and dads, small sponsors and the taxpayer—look at the debate around the stadium in Tasmania, where the taxpayers are putting up funding—and they should look at the evidence that has come forward over a number of years about the cost premium of 10 to 20 to up to 30 per cent across a range of areas once was the CFMEU decided that they would action on or against those projects. I think it was the public response to something as inane as Mr Setka having a personal dislike of Mr McBurney that flowed out to the Australian public and media which highlighted that this kind of bullying behaviour and the cost it would then impose on community is not good. It also highlighted the unwillingness of the Prime Minister and his senior ministers to send a forceful message to Mr Setka and the CFMEU that said that this behaviour that divides our society is just not appropriate. We've seen this weak leadership on display from everything from the immigration disasters, which my colleague Senator Paterson has prosecuted so successfully and where the Prime Minister has been unwilling to intervene let alone sack a minister who has caused so much disruption in the release of criminals into our society, right through to issues around the Middle East and how our society has been divided because of a lack of moral clarity and leadership about what is acceptable in this country, regardless of your views or what happens overseas. The Prime Minister has been weak on setting clear boundaries and standards as to what is acceptable in this country. Following the football incident, the thing that probably pushed the government into acting were the revelations by the Australian Financial Review and others that underworld figures, including bikie gangs, had infiltrated the CFMEU's ranks and had adopted positions of leadership. This potentially explains the illegal behaviour. Indeed, documents in the Federal Court claim that the CFMEU has breached workplace laws some 2,600 times over 20 years and has accumulated more than $24 million in fines. Some 213 of the court cases resulted in total penalties of that $24 million plus at least $4 million ordered against particular officeholders, employees, delegates and members. You would think that those actions would be enough to dissuade wrongdoing, but what it highlights is that those financial penalties are not enough to dissuade a group like the CFMEU because the total that they can extort from industry far exceeds the fines and because of the power and control that is given to them. The result is like that old saying, 'Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' For an organisation that is set up to be, on paper, for the benefit of its workers, we've seen, like in many totalitarian regimes, that it's actually to benefit the senior leadership and enhance its power base. That's why we see, for example, manufacturing division members of the same union being intimidated, harassed and bullied by the construction division simply because they're in a different part of the union that doesn't bow the knee as much as people in the construction sector do. We heard evidence here from my colleague Senator Scarr about some of the actions that have been taken against people who've turned up to a workplace wearing the wrong T-shirt—one alleging loyalty or fealty to a union other than the CFMEU and Mr Setka—and who were driven to the point of taking their own life. Mr Setka has even been recorded on video intimidating the leaders of other parts of the union, highlighting that he knows where they live and that they can be affected if there is not loyalty to that union. Long story short, the government have come up against what we would call a boundary and have said: 'The Australian public is not going to accept this, because of the bullying and illegal behaviour, particularly involving the underworld. We need to do something about it.' Many of you would know that my former career was as an experimental test pilot, and there's a condition in aircraft design that we try to avoid whereby a pilot can induce an oscillation. Some pilot induced oscillations are caused by what we call boundary avoidance: you suddenly realise that you're flying far too close to an obstacle, or you're approaching the ground more quickly, and you instinctively react; you jerk the controls, you overcorrect and, before you know it, you get into a big porpoising movement that is unsafe. To some extent, that's what we've seen here, with the government rushing to bring in this bill. They've rushed to bring in this legislation without adopting the normal processes of the Senate. One of the objections that the coalition has is that, rather than having a knee-jerk reaction to put forward a bill that may well have unintended consequences; that may not achieve the outcomes that are intended—I'm giving the benefit of doubt that the intention is good—or, in the worst case, if there is a commitment to do something purely to avoid public criticism, that may have a structure that is not going to achieve the outcome intended by the government and put forward to the public, the reason we have the Senate, the house of review, and the committee system is to engage with stakeholders, legal professionals and others and to ask: Will this bill address the problem? Will it have the outcome that we're looking for, or are there unintended consequences that will make matters worse? One of the strengths of the Senate is the committee process, where we can scrutinise legislation, and, where there is a timeframe, that can be done quickly. I have sat on committees before that have had very limited time and that have, within a week, asked for submissions, considered submissions, held hearings and then reported. It adds value to the whole process and it means the laws that are passed by the parliament are actually effective. The sorts of things that we are concerned about are: if we have laws that don't actually hold the CFMEU to account; if we have laws that enable executive government to establish or disestablish the administration at will; if there are no terms for the length of administration—for example, in this case, if there are elements of the CFMEU, in terms of branches, that are not covered—or if the actions of an administrator are not open to scrutiny by the parliament, including by the mechanisms of the Senate, such as Senate estimates, where we get to evaluate whether or not an appointed authority—be it a department, an agency or, in this case, an administrator—is actually implementing what the public and the elected representatives in the Senate expect of them and is being effective in its role, then it's almost worse than appointing them in the first place, because people assume they're doing the right thing, but, without that transparency mechanism, nobody would know. For a government that was elected on a platform of transparency and accountability, it is truly shocking the number of times this government has sought to frustrate measures to put in place transparency and accountability for its actions or the actions of bodies that it wishes to appoint. To the last point, around the funding, if we genuinely believe that these are essentially proceeds of crime, that the money the CFMEU has in its coffers has come about because of actions that have seen it face numerous fines and convictions, then on what basis can any party of government or, indeed, any party of protest—being the Labor Party and the Greens, respectively—actually refuse to commit to taking funding from such a body? So there are a number of areas, and I'm aware that there have been discussions between the coalition and the government where we have closed the gap; the government has ceded in a number of these places. But the whole purpose of the Senate is to have the inquiry so that we can lay out for the public whether legislation will be fit for purpose and we can propose amendments. Rather than doing this in backroom deals, it's done through the process of debate, informed inquiry and amendments moved in this chamber, which, again, is part of transparency and is in the best interests of the Australian people. I cannot support this legislation unamended by the amendments proposed by the coalition. 12:32 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria The questions everyone in this building wants answered are: Has the deal been done? Have Senator Watt and the Prime Minister swallowed their pride and come to the table to agree to the sensible recommendations the coalition has made to approve this deal? We don't know. We don't know whether Senator Watt and the Prime Minister have admitted that they were wrong to put forward the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024, a bill with so many holes in it that it looked like it was drafted by John Setka. We don't know yet whether or not Senator Watt and the government have agreed to fix up the errors of drafting they made in the bill, which left holes so wide you could drive a truck through them. We don't know whether Senator Watt or the Prime Minister have agreed to actually put in place a tough administrator who can do the job of cleaning up the CFMEU. What we do know is that the government have conceded their own bill was so flawed that they are moving amendments themselves to fix up legislation they introduced into the parliament only last week. What we know is that some of the suggestions put forward by Senator Cash and the coalition have been agreed to in principle by the government, but we're waiting to see the drafting to make sure that they give effect to the intention of the coalition in putting forward these amendments. These are very reasonable amendments. These amendments make sure that the bill achieves its intended purpose of fixing up the squalid, corrupt and criminal CFMEU. For example, they include backdating the retrospectivity to a date that actually allows the administrator to get to the problem of this matter. They provide for the administrator to have accountability to parliament on an ongoing and regular basis. They include removing the arbitrary five-year limit on disqualifications from office. They include making sure the administrator has the power to expel officers, delegates and employees who consort with criminal organisations. They include the administration taking at least three years, not a maximum of three years, before the administrator or indeed the minister can vary or revoke the scheme. They include commitments to ensuring political donations and political expenditure from the CFMEU are banned during the period of the administration. They include allowing the administrator to compel assistance from any person who's relevant to assisting the administration of the union. They include a fit and proper person's test. They include allowing the administrator to investigate the past practices of the CFMEU and other important matters. The only reason you'd be opposed to these sensible amendments put forward by the coalition is if you weren't genuine about cleaning up the CFMEU. The government says it has finally seen the light. After years of carrying water for the CFMEU, doing their business in this place, running a protection racket for the CFMEU and allowing them to continue their criminal and corrupt wrongdoing, finally the straw has broken the camel's back. Finally the government realises that, after all, maybe there is something wrong with the CFMEU. But it shouldn't have taken the reporting by Nick McKenzie and his colleagues at the Sydney Morning Herald, the Age, the Financial Review and 60 Minutes to have revealed this. We have all known for years about this conduct of the CFMEU. Indeed, that's why the former coalition government had a royal commission into the union movement. That's why the former government introduced the Australian Building and Construction Commission; that's why the former government introduced the Registered Organisations Commission; that's why the former government tried to legislate an ensuring integrity bill: to hold union officials to the standard the public would expect they meet. And yet, on every one of those questions, at every step of the way, those opposite fought those measures. The Labor Party did the bidding of the CFMEU, their paymaster—to the tune of $6 million under Mr Albanese's leadership—to defend the interests of the CFMEU against the interests of the public. What have the consequences of that been? The CFMEU have got even worse than they were just a few years ago. Organised criminal elements have infiltrated this organisation. Organised crime has gone all the way to the highest levels of the CFMEU. That should come as a surprise to no-one. This is no longer just an industrial matter. This is not a union matter. This is not a question of an ideological issue. This is an issue of law and order, community safety and national security. This government says, in its own defence, that, when it abolished the ABCC and the Registered Organisations Commission, it had to do so because they weren't effective in tackling these issues. If their genuine concern about the operations of the ABCC and the Registered Organisations Commission was that they were not effective in dealing with the problems of the CFMEU, the remedy for that was increased powers, increased resources and more support for the ABCC and the ROC, not to abolish them entirely and put the feckless and hopeless Fair Work Ombudsman and Fair Work Commission on the beat. How many cases have the Fair Work Ombudsman and the Fair Work Commission taken against the CFMEU in the last two years since the ROC and the ABCC were abolished? How many actions have they taken to clean up the CFMEU, to make sure that the law was being upheld? We all know the answer to that question. The number of actions that they have taken is the number of actions that those opposite intended for them to take—which was zero. When I first got in this place, I sat in Senate estimates on the Employment and Education Legislation Committee. I remember Labor senators, during our time in government, coming in, time and time again, to those estimates sessions to relentlessly bully, intimidate and try to scare the public servants appointed to run the ABCC and the ROC. Former senator Doug Cameron was a particularly notorious practitioner of this art. He pursued them at every turn and at every opportunity, and it was very clear what this was designed to do. It was designed to frustrate them and prevent them from doing their jobs. It was designed to scare them and to intimidate them because Doug Cameron was running a protection racket for the CFMEU. He did not want his mates in the CFMEU to be subject to the oversight and the constraints of either the Registered Organisations Commission or the ABCC. He didn't want the endemic cultural problems of bullying and corruption in the building industry to be exposed by these bodies—and expose them they did. According to documents tendered in court by the Fair Work Commission, since 2003 the CFMEU has been the subject of findings of contraventions of federal workplace laws on more than 1,500 occasions, plus there have been 1,100 contraventions by its office holders, employees, delegates and members, resulting in $24 million in fines. There are so many quotes from justices who sat on these cases during that period that go to the recidivism of the CFMEU and the bad conduct of the CFMEU, and none of this was enough to move the Labor Party at the time. For example, Chief Justice Debra Mortimer said the CFMEU: … weighs up the cost of engaging in such action—that is, likely prosecution and imposition of penalties—and nevertheless concludes it is a collateral cost of doing its industrial business. The evidence suggests this ongoing behaviour is tolerated, facilitated and encouraged by all levels of the organisation. There are many others, who've said many other similar things. As fun as this morning's brief interlude of focusing some attention on our friends on the crossbench and the Greens for their complicity in defending the CFMEU was—I still cannot understand why they intend to stand in the way of the passage of this bill when even the Labor Party has given up the ghost and stopped defending the CFMEU—the truth is that, on their own, the Greens and the other member of the crossbench sympathetic to the CFMEU can't do anything to defend the CFMEU's interest. They needed a party in crime to do that. They needed the Labor Party to be willing participants in that. Over the last few years, they've had that. They've had that in the Labor Party's willingness to take $6 million of donations on Mr Albanese's watch from the CFMEU, despite all of the issues raised. They've had that in votes in this place, whether it's on an ensuring integrity bill or the abolition of the ABCC and the Registered Organisations Commission. I won't be so impolite as to name them in this place, but I hope those members of the Senate crossbench, who are not members of the Greens or the Labor Party, reflect on the role that they played in preventing the passage of the ensuring integrity bill and reflect on the role they played in passing the ABCC and ROC abolition. This includes those so-called teals in the other place, who voted to abolish these bodies and who are now out there saying, 'Why isn't the government doing more to tackle corruption and criminality in the building industry?' If only they had listened to the warnings made by the coalition, by the building industry and by many justices of the federal courts and supreme courts around our country, who warned repeatedly about the behaviour of the CFMEU. I myself have read into the Hansard in Senate estimates over the years repeated instances of misogynistic and sexist bullying by CFMEU officials and delegates on building sites toward female construction employees, industry employees and female public servants. That wasn't enough for the defenders of women on the crossbench, the Greens or the Labor Party to stand up. We've all seen the very serious allegations being raised about this union over years and years. The truth is: finally the jig is up. Finally, a threshold has been crossed. Finally, John Setka and his mates have done something that even the Labor Party cannot abide, yet it appears that their colleagues and friends in the Greens are willing to abide by it. This step today is only a first step; let's be really clear. We have very grave concerns about whether an administrator can fix this problem at all and whether in fact the CFMEU is reformable. It appears that the CFMEU's conduct in recent years is core to its business model. It's how it operates. Not all unions operate like this. We're not here today talking about special legislation to put an administrator in for the nurses federation or many other legitimate, respectable unions who represent their members and their interests. We are here talking about the CFMEU because core to their business is intimidation and relying on criminal elements to carry out their business on workplaces to intimidate building companies to go along for the ride and pay money to them. There are very real questions about whether a KC or a public servant appointed by the Fair Work Commission or the government could actually fix this problem of whether the CFMEU is reformable. The government should have, first, deregistered the CFMEU, as we've called on them to do. Second, they should bring back the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Third, they should bring back the Registered Organisations Commission. Fourth, they should support our ensuring integrity bill, which we will, of course, provide them an opportunity to do before this debate has concluded. It is critical that this is not just a bandaid. It is critical that, after passing this administrator, the government doesn't just wash its hands, walk away and say: 'Mission accomplished; job done. CFMEU is reformed.' We all know, as the BLF reared its ugly head again, the CFMEU will rear its ugly head again unless it's properly dealt with by the Commonwealth parliament—unless it's provided for in legislation that deals with not just the current issues and the current leadership of the CFMEU but the structural, cultural and endemic issues that have led to the CFMEU operating its business the way it does. It is incumbent on every party in this chamber to commit to this course of action—to cleaning up this industry—to commit to no longer taking money from this corrupt and criminal organisation, and to commit to fixing these problems. At the end of the day, these have real and tangible impacts for the Australian people. It is no wonder that, in this country, we cannot deliver an infrastructure project at the state or federal level without massive blowouts. It turns out that we've been paying ghost workers of the CFMEU, who don't even turn up to work but get paid nonetheless to line the coffers of the CFMEU. It's no wonder that state taxes around this country, whether it's property taxes in my home state of Victoria or elsewhere, are rising, to meet those black holes in infrastructure blow-outs we've seen on the watch of the Allan government and the Andrews government in Victoria, for example. It's also no wonder that housing has become so unaffordable, when every first home buyer is paying a CFMEU tax on their first home, on their apartment. Credible experts have placed this CFMEU premium as up to 30 per cent of the cost of the build. When young homeowners are struggling to save, to build a deposit to buy their first home, when they're struggling with the 12 interest rate increases on this government's watch, it adds a special insult to injury that one of the reasons why they're paying more than they should is that the CFMEU was tolerated and buttressed and supported by this government and by the Labor Party for so many years. Make no mistake, this is a cost-of-living issue, and, if those opposite are sincere about alleviating the very serious cost-of-living crisis we're facing in this country, then they'll take real action to reform the CFMEU, real action to reform the building industry, real action to tackle the criminality and corruption that's emerged on their watch, rather than just wiping their hands of it after they've appointed an administrator after the bill is, hopefully, agreed by the chamber this week. 12:46 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I notice the Greens this morning said we should all look at ourselves in the mirror. Well, do you know what? I say, 'Right back at you.' Quite frankly, I have no idea why you're blocking this legislation. They are thugs. They are bullies. They treat women like second-class citizens. That is what the CFMEU are doing. Yet, you're standing by them. It blows me away. I've very good sources that have told me that construction workers are being compelled to join the CFMEU for an annual fee of $1,200 as a condition for participating in Victoria's Big Build project. This practice raises serious concerns about the violation of workers' rights and the enforcement of freedom of association, which is a fundamental legal principle in Australia. My sources say this is happening on foreign owned, tier 1 contractors, such as CPB, John Holland and ACCIONA. They must be held account for their apparent disregard for Australian law. These companies must follow our local laws or lose the privilege of working on taxpayer funded projects. I've also received credible information that suggests these tier 1 contractors may be colluding with the CFMEU to breach anticompetition laws and engage in price-fixing on government projects. This alleged conspiracy involves selecting only CFMEU endorsed, non-competitive labour hire firms, undermining fair competition. Specifically, I want to address a senior executive. Let's call him Craig; that's not his real name. Craig moved from the CPB to the UGL and the CIMIC Group company. It has come to my attention that Craig may have collaborated with the CFMEU to unfairly target and remove AWU affiliated workers from a government funded project in Melbourne. Not only is this unethical; it's illegal, and this behaviour cannot be tolerated. Craig is just one of many that I have been made aware. If foreign owned contractors continue to engage in, or turn a blind eye to, this level of corruption, then the government need to consider withholding taxpayer funding from their federal projects, effective immediately. Regarding certain CFMEU officials, including Gerry McCrudden and his associate Jerry McQuaid, both men were exposed by Age journalist Nick McKenzie for threatening a traffic management firm. This government needs to investigate the possibility of revoking their work rights in Australia, once again effective immediately. Joe Myles, who I understand plays a significant role in orchestrating these activities in Victoria, should also be looked at. As a senior vice-president of the CFMEU, Joe Myles's actions reflect very poorly not just on him but on the organisation as a whole. It's time to remove individuals like Joe and the other dumb and dumber officials I've mentioned from any involvement in government funded construction projects. If the Greens can find their courage today and help get that administrator in place, the administrator will be able to look at the CFMEU credit cards, and I'm looking forward to that because I've been told they will find some interesting charges. That's right—some interesting charges. But I say this: while I'm waiting for the administrator, if the ATO and ASIC aren't already on to this, before we make fools of you, I suggest you start looking at it today because this is part of your departmental jobs. Here's a wake-up call. There is information available out there. People are prepared to come forward. So, once again, if the ATO and ASIC aren't looking at this, I suggest it'd be very wise to start looking before you are called out. Finally, ongoing issues with union raffles, ghosting by union officials and the alleged skimming of funds from training programs, long-service leave, income protection and superannuation also need to be put under the administrator's microscope. It needs to be part of the whole program. If you're not going to look at them in full, then we're wasting taxpayers' money by going in the first time. Once and for all, if just one side of politics could finally clean up the CFMEU and set an example, then the rest of the unions can follow, and we'd have a much better Australia for it. There is no doubt. These activities appear to be designed to siphon off money from workers to benefit union officials—but who would've guessed?—rather than serving the interests of the workers they claim to be representing. If we can get this administrator in place today, that'd be a good start at cleaning this up. Every day we wait is another day that this corruption and intimidation just goes on and on. Additionally, in Queensland and now Western Australia, they have introduced the best-practice industry conditions. This is a CFMEU takeover by stealth, and they are coming in those states. Isn't it interesting that they're both Labor states? They're feeding their own. In Queensland, all projects over $100 million are subject to the best-practice industry conditions, and, in Western Australia, the threshold of $1 million is coming soon. We have EBAs and industrial agreements, and now these state are bringing in CFMEU conditions by stealth through state based legislation. That's what your own state Labor parties are doing to you. They are working against you, and they should be shameful. I'll tell you now: I'd love to see every Labor Party that is in power in every state also join up to the three years where they'll not take any money from the CFMEU. I want to hear it from them. I want to know what your partners in the states are doing on this, because it's going to cause, and is causing, credible damage. It shouldn't be just the federal party not taking money; it's about time your Labor states and your premiers out there grew a backbone and said: 'We too are going to join the forces here. We are not taking CFMEU donations for three years.' Otherwise, this is just a joke, and it makes you people over here look really bad. I have to say: what is the point of EBAs and fair work if the states introduce their own rules? That is where we are at, and, seriously, it's just beyond a joke. I want to hear from you Labor premiers out there. I'm putting it on you today, and you journalists should be ringing every single one of them and asking them if they are going to say, 'We are not taking money from the CFMEU as of today.' Let's see what you've got. 12:54 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I, too, would like to make a contribution on this extraordinary bill, the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024. I say 'extraordinary' not because the bill is particularly extraordinary—in fact, it is probably one of the most un-extraordinary bills I've ever seen in my life—but I say it's extraordinary because we are in this place because we need to have such a bill. What's most distressing is that we have a bill before us at the moment that really doesn't do what the government is trying to convince the Australian public it does do. They are feigning being tough about some quite extraordinary behaviour for a constituted union in this country. Yet, as we stand here today, the legislation introduced by this government makes dishwater look strong. It is a very, very weak bill and goes nowhere near achieving what the government would like the Australian public to believe it is going to achieve. Notwithstanding that, the opposition would like to see some stronger action taken in relation to the actions of the CFMEU and the ongoing litany of behaviours that have continuously plagued this organisation because of their refusal to actually be lawful. Every other organisation, institution, individual or political party in this country is required to act within the law, but apparently not the CFMEU. I have to say, one of the things that amazes me is that we haven't heard more from other unions in Australia, because the CFMEU gives them all a bad name. There are many unions in this country that I would have thought would have been absolutely horrified at some of the behaviours of the CFMEU. In fact, it was really quite interesting to see that, a couple of weeks ago on television, the member for the Hunter Valley, Mr Repacholi, when he was asked about the CFMEU, kept on referring to it as the 'MEU'—almost as if the 'CF' part of the CFMEU didn't exist, or he didn't want to acknowledge it or to have anything to do with it. Now, for a member of the Labor Party and, obviously, somebody who's very aligned with the mining union because of his background, it's really interesting that he wanted to distance himself from the construction sector part of this union. So I'd call on other unions: if you don't want your reputation to be dragged through the mud as it currently is being, you should also be standing up and saying why you believe the CFMEU, like every other organisation in Australia, should actually have to abide by the rules—that is, to live by the laws of Australia. But the sad thing about this is just how unbelievably weak this bill is. It professes to be going to do some tough things, but it really does very little. I don't think the government is really telling the Australian public the truth about this legislation. This legislation goes nowhere towards giving any confidence to the Australian public that the scandal-plagued CFMEU is actually going to be brought under control by this legislation. There are many people I have heard say that it looks like a bill that has been authored by the CFMEU; they might as well have written it themselves, because they certainly would not be in fear of any of the legislative provisions put forward by the government in the original bill. Also, interestingly, the bill gives extraordinary power to the minister. The minister can pretty much do whatever he likes. He could end the administration early if he chose to. So, really, the bill doesn't achieve a great deal, apart from apparently giving power to the minister. When you consider that there are so many members of parliament or senators who owe their place in this place to the CFMEU, you would have to suggest that it's a little bit like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. But, as we stand here today, probably one of the most egregious things is how much this union and its actions have impacted on the cost of really important infrastructure in this country. This union's behaviours, actions and demands and their unlawfulness have basically placed a tax on just about every single construction-sector project that they have had anything to do with, whether that be building new hospitals, new schools or new roads, or the impact it's having on our housing sector at the moment. It is very easy to sheet home the increase in prices partly to the CFMEU. It's interesting when you speak to the construction sector. They are quite happy—and everyone says exactly the same thing—that there is pretty much a 30 per cent efficiency penalty to deal with any construction that relates to the CFMEU. So what I would say is that, if the government are really serious about doing more than just virtue signalling about actually making a difference and cleaning up the mess in this country that has been created by the lawlessness of the CFMEU, they will take real action and make sure that they give some teeth to this legislation so that it can deal with the problem that is before us. The coalition have been very serious. We want to see the CFMEU brought under control and we want the CFMEU, like every other Australian, to have to abide by the law. We have sought a number of amendments, which hopefully we will see the Labor Party support. Clearly, as indicated by their contribution earlier in the day, we can't expect the same sort of sensible support from the Greens, who, for some weird and wondrous reason known only to them, seem to think that running a protection racket for the CFMEU is something that's in their best interest. But, anyway, hopefully Senator Shoebridge will make a contribution eventually on behalf of the Greens, and we might find out why it is their intention to run this protection racket—not just an ideological rant like we heard earlier today. But the amendments that we've sought to move do a few things. A couple of them, I think, are really important to put on the record. If you're going to put an administrator in, give the administrator the teeth to be able to do something. Don't have a situation where the minister can overrule the administrator in their actions. Be prepared to have the strength of your own convictions. Put what you're saying in the legislation and make sure that the administration time is not something the minister can just cut short because he feels like it. Actually build into the legislation a minimum time that the CFMEU is in administration so we can have confidence that there will be time for the administrator and all the other necessary processes to be put in place so we can clean up this mess once and for all. Therefore, we believe that it should be in the legislation that there's at least a minimum of a three-year administration and the minister doesn't have the ability—should the Labor Party win the next election—to immediately put an end to the administration. We also don't believe that the scheme of administration should be able to be varied without the application of the administrator. We also believe the legislation must clearly set out what the scheme of administration should do. It should not be solely determined by the minister. For the purposes of transparency, the administrator should be providing reports to this place, this parliament, so that we know what's going on, and those reports need to be provided very soon after the administrator takes on their role. The administrator needs to be given the power to ensure that the actions that are needed to make sure that this corruption that has been going on for as long as I can remember is stamped out once and for all, including things like making sure, for the CFMEU, that a fit-and-proper-person test applies to delegates and officers and that we have appropriate auditing so that the financial dealings of the CFMEU are transparent. Everybody else in Australia who is a public organisation is required to be audited. How come the CFMEU seems to be able to operate behind closed doors without any oversight of anything that they do? I think the auditor should be paid for by the CFMEU. The taxpayers have forked out enough because of the corruption of this union. It's about time the CFMEU started paying something towards cleaning up the mess that they created themselves. We need to make sure, as I said, that the administrator has the powers to be able to deliver what this government is promising is going to be delivered by this legislation, because, as it currently sits without amendment, you could not have any confidence whatsoever that that is going to be the case. The government talks a really big game about how this particular piece of legislation is going to clean up the CFMEU, but the reality is that, if you want to restore respect and trust in this sector, you are going to have to do more than put a piece of legislation into this place that does little more than slap the CFMEU with a wet lettuce leaf. You could drive a truck through this legislation, and I think the government knows it set itself up in a way so as to retain control of what's going on with the CFMEU. This is all smoke and mirrors, and there is really very little substance. We hope we are able to get the necessary amendments through this place so we can strengthen this. Because if we don't, I fear we will end up with the same lawlessness we've seen on our building sites since time immemorial. If the government were really genuine about making sure this legislation was real, they would accompany it with the restoration of the ABCC, because it was immediately after the ABCC was voted out, chucked out, unceremoniously by those opposite that we started to see a renewed escalation in the absolute blatant and flagrant lawlessness of the CFMEU. Why don't you pass our restoring and ensuring integrity bill which you voted against? You can't come in here and talk out of both sides of your mouths— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU ( ): Thank you, Acting Deputy President Fawcett. You'd be delighted to know and delighted, I am sure, to support the idea we retained, restored and maintained the integrity in this particular sector, because, like every other senator in this place, we've seen in this place time and time again the first-hand examples of where the behaviours of the CFMEU have adversely affected the electorates we represent, the states we represent. What I would say to anyone in this place is: if you are going to pass this bill—and I assume we will despite the Greens doing everything they can to fight and kick and not pass it—it is a mess of Labor's own making that they are trying to fix. What I would say to Labor—through you, Acting Deputy Chair—is: if you really are going to fix this mess, you actually have to be genuine about the measures you are going to take. Restoring the ABCC, which you abolished, would be a really good start, because the abolition of the ABCC basically gave control of the construction sector back to your mates in the CFMEU. Most Australians, if they knew of the kinds of behaviours we've witnessed over the years with the CFMEU, would be absolutely horrified to think that anybody would defend those actions. I will not repeat some of the things that the CFMEU have been not just accused of but found guilty of. They are so incredibly terrible that I am not even going to utter what they are. It is not only criminal activity, threats, corruption, bribery but the intimidation, the violence and bullying, the standover tactics, the misappropriation of funds and many other accusations of quite extraordinary behaviour are the kinds of things, I think, the average Australian probably would never believe occur in what is pretending to be a legitimate organisation within the Australian economy. I am very hopeful that the government will realise the Australian public are not going to put up with a government that's going to run a protection racket for a union that has been single-handedly destroying our economy for so many years I can hardly remember. If you really are genuine showing you actually have the strength of your own convictions then make sure this bill is amended in such a way as you are able to put hand on heart and say, 'The strength of the provisions in this bill will actually make a difference to the behaviour of the CFMEU.' As it currently stands, I doubt that will be the case. I think it would be wonderful if the Greens would stand up in this place and say that they will not accept one cent from the CFMEU during the period of administration, not accept any assistance in terms of resources to support any of their campaigns during the time the CFMEU is in administration. If they do that they will show they are genuine; if not, they aren't. (Time expired) 13:09 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I want to start by reiterating a position that I put to the chamber just earlier today: the Greens will always oppose violence wherever we see it—especially in the workplace—and we will always support action to address sexism and misogyny, whether it's in the workplace, in this place or wherever else we find it. There is no question of the deeply concerning allegations against elements of the CFMEU. There is no question about that. And so working through these issues as best we can to squarely address those matters in a way that makes union members—particularly women union members and officials—as per their rights, feel respected and safe will always be a guiding principle in the work that we do. We've seen the allegations aired. At this stage, many of them are just allegations. But nobody could see that and not be deeply troubled, say something must be done and accept that, in that, there needs to be some external break on what has been happening to allow as rapidly as possible those principles of democracy and respect to be re-established throughout the CFMEU. That's a starting point for us as we confront this legislation and confront what has been brought to the parliament. Saying that doesn't answer the question in its entirety in front of us. I'd also remind senators that there's currently a court case afoot that would, if the orders that are being sought by the general manager of the Fair Work Commission were granted, deal with these issues. That court case has got another date before the courts in just a little over a week. It will come back before the courts. I would have thought that it would be a principle that would unite us, that as best we can these issues should be dealt with in accordance with law, in accordance with established practice, to put independent arbiters in place. If we can conceive of a process that sees a lot less of these actions being done by ministers and politicians and far more being done by courts, who will not have the same political angles, political manoeuvres or political history, of course we should be aiming for that. Of course we should. We've brought these principles to our discussions with the government. Right now, it feels like forever, but we were given a briefing on this legislation by the government just less than a week ago. On this kind of principled, incredibly complex legislation, which has so many potential implications well outside the union movement, we will not apologise for wanting to get it right. We will not apologise for looking at legislation that provides unprecedented powers to a single politician over a civil society organisation. I'd say that, whether it's a union, a law society, an environmental group or a multicultural association, when we are looking at legislation that is providing, effectively, unlimited political powers to an elected minister without constraint by the courts or constraint by this place, we will not apologise for looking at it in incredible detail. I will deal with some of the specific concerns about that ministerial overreach further in this legislation. Can I also say this: we know that a strong construction union keeps people alive and it keeps construction workers alive. And I've seen that. In a former life as a solicitor, I've been onto multilevel construction sites where there has been union representation and I've seen the detail about safety, the concern about safety and the respect about safety. I've been onto sites where there wasn't the union, and it was on sites where there wasn't a union that young workers' lives were lost. It was on sites where there wasn't a union where people's pay was not respected; they were paid cash, and they were treated like second-class citizens. While in no way ignoring what I said earlier in this contribution about our very real concerns—and they are largely located in the Victoria branch, but they extend to the NSW branch—we will not forget that it has been the construction union that has saved the lives of countless workers and also ensured that construction workers in this country have a wage they can live on and have a wage and conditions that respect them for the work they do. I have heard repeated comments from the coalition that the fact that the union stands up for safety and the fact that the union stands up for workers' wages and the fact that the union stands up for workers' entitlements are 'inflating construction costs'. Another way of characterising that is, because of the union, construction workers who put their lives on the line, their bodies on the line in the work that they do, get a fair days pay for a fair days work, and that's an important principle in this legislation too. And that is a fundamentally important principle for us. When we're looking at the potential precedent value of this legislation, there hasn't been legislation like this in the federal parliament before. To give such extraordinary powers, literally to take over an organisation, to rewrite its rules, to summarily terminate any and everybody without regard to natural justice—there has never been legislation like this brought to the federal parliament. Should it require scrutiny? Of course it does. Just yesterday we saw a very clear statement from the NSW Council for Civil Liberties. The NSW Council for Civil Liberties are a rigorously apolitical organisation. Their concern is civil liberties, and they have raised serious concerns with the federal government's Fair Work (Registered Organisation) Amendment (Administration) Bill and the government's accompanying amendments. Very briefly, I'll read from their statement: While any allegation of criminality is serious and must be addressed, the powers set out in this bill are far-reaching and establish a dangerous precedent for the trade union movement, membership-based organisations, and the rights of individuals to natural justice and procedural fairness. The rushed nature of this legislation which is designed to override a process begun by the Fair Work Commission and the Federal Court threatens the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. We note that the proposed legislation would set a precedent where membership-based organisations can have democratic control externally removed on the basis of untested allegations. This is of concern to all Unions, registered Clubs, and Australian membership-based organisations. The Bill violates Australia's obligations under the International Labour Organisation, namely Articles 3 and 4 of the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948. The NSWCCL has long held that everyone has the right to natural justice and procedural fairness, regardless of the allegations they face. If this legislation is passed next week, it threatens this fundamental right. The right to freedom of association and the nature of membership-based organisations across Australia must be protected. We agree with them, and we have said to the government that we are willing to work with you to address those concerns but also to come up with a scheme that will address those other concerns that I raised. We've put detailed amendments to the government, and we've had meetings with the government, but the government's response has been to say no, and the government 's response has been to say: 'Don't you worry. We'll cover it in a scheme.' I say now: table the draft scheme. We say to the minister: table the draft scheme so we know what is in the mind of the minister when the minister is going to be given these unprecedented powers. Table the draft scheme. Show us what's in your mind. We've raised concerns about giving the minister unlimited power over the rules of an organisation through the scheme. It does by means of multiple provisions in this bill: the bill creates a scheme that can summarily terminate anyone in the union, rewrite the rules or appoint whatever administrator they like. Our concern is that, when you give that power to this minister, you give it to every future minister. If there is a future Minister Cash—and I'll do what I can in my political work to prevent that happening—we have asked: is Labor comfortable with giving Minister Cash that power over the CFMEU? And, if Minister Cash—or Minister X, Y or Z—gets used to exercising that power over the CFMEU, what other organisations would Minister Cash seek to exercise that power over, without any constraint and with no referral back to this parliament? The answer from the government has been to come up with some amendments that say that the scheme can't be changed by the minister unless there's concurrence from the administrator. Those are the amendments we've received. I say now to the government, as we said in negotiations: 'But the minister can sack the administrator.' And, if the current administrator won't agree to the amendments to the scheme, then future Minister Cash will sack that administrator and appoint their own administrator—maybe Administrator Dutton— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Minister Shoebridge, just be aware of standing order 193: imputations or personal reflections are disorderly. Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 A future coalition minister or a future Labor minister may sack the administrator to the CFMEU and appoint Administrator Dutton, who would no doubt be compliant with whatever a future coalition minister would want. Where are the checks and balances in that? We've said we will work with you to try and find a solution to this and that we will work with you so that natural justice can be re-established while giving sufficient powers under a scheme to deal with the unlawful elements—to deal with those organisations and to entrench elements of natural justice. We have provided detailed amendments to the government to try and work this through. In response to these matters of genuine principle and concern that we put to the government, we get these shallow, aggressive political attacks from the minister about how he wants to produce some Facebook squares to address it. Is it any wonder we're frustrated by what the government has been doing and by the refusal to have genuine and fair, open negotiations. It is increasingly clear what Labor's plan is. They are not willing to negotiate in good faith with the Greens. They are seeking to cut a deal with the coalition to protect their right. We have been saying—and we continue to say—issues of fundamental principle that reach beyond this bill. We have in our mind, other civil organisations, such as protesters, forest protesters and climate protesters, which have been increasingly criminalised by both Labor and the coalition. We have in our mind using terrorist statements and weaponising national security organisations like ASIO to attack the government's political opponents and to advance the attack against other organisations. We have in our mind the way Labor and the coalition together want to ramp up federal powers to the AFP and ASIO and other centralising powers, and we see that one of the essential protections we have in this country is civil organisations that are not controlled and directed by the government or by a minister. We're not just going to pretend those principles don't exist because it's politically inconvenient for us or because the government wants to rush this legislation through. We will continue to have an open door to get this right— (Time expired) 13:24 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I am not prone usually to statements of 'I told you so', but, on behalf of the coalition parties, as we stand here debating the lawlessness, corruption, bullying tactics and intimidation of the CFMEU, let me say to the Labor Party, the Greens and all those who've defended the CFMEU over the years: we told you so. You've been warned again and again, not just by the coalition but by many across industry, many across Australian society and even from within Australia's courts, about the constant, persistent lawbreaking, business-destroying and productivity-crippling actions of the CFMEU. The revelations that came through Fairfax media or Nine's newspapers over recent months really weren't revelations at all. You would have to have had your head buried deep in the sand to be remotely surprised by all that was uncovered in relation to the behaviour of the CFMEU across Australia. Yet the Albanese government did indeed come out with 'Quelle surprise, oh my. Who knew that John Setka and the CFMEU were so bad? Who knew they were doing all of these terrible things?' It has been on the record again and again. Indeed, the CFMEU's construction division has racked up around $19 million in fines and penalties, ordered by Australian courts, over the last eight years. They just treated it as a cost of doing business—a cost of doing business for them to continue to extract every possible concession they can in every possible workplace, not for the benefit of the workers but for the power of the union. That is the way that these officials have gone about their operation. That is why, at this moment in time, when a Labor government has been forced, dragged kicking and screaming, to take action to clean up the CFMEU, we must get it right. These are the same Labor Party and the same Greens political party who voted against every possible effort, over the past decade and beyond, to clean up the CFMEU. When the Australian Building and Construction Commission legislation came to the parliament, they opposed it. They fought to water it down and weaken its standing. When the Registered Organisations Commission legislation came to the parliament, they opposed it and they ensured every effort was made to weaken it and water it down. When the ensuring integrity legislation was brought to this parliament to ensure the integrity of union officials by ensuring that, if they were getting repeated criminal offences against them, they could no longer hold those offices, the Greens opposed it and, indeed, worked with parts of the crossbench to defeat it. Australia would not be at this point if not for the obstinate opposition of those opposite over the last decade-plus in relation to the CFMEU. If they'd ensured the ABCC had real teeth— Senator Polley e5x You were in government. Why didn't you do something? Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X I'll take the interjection. We did—and you opposed, you weakened and you stood in the way at every possible step. You say, 'Why didn't we do something?' Why didn't you vote for the ensuring integrity legislation that would have ensured John Setka was no longer an office bearer years ago? Years ago, he could have been driven out of the CFMEU— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU Senator Polley, interjection is disorderly under standing order 197. Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X This was all foreseeable and all preventable, but those opposite stood in the way. Listening to the Greens contribution just now, I can't help but be astounded by the most unprincipled position being taken but cloaked in some sort of pretence of principle by the Australian Greens. Where is their stance and their commitment to standing up for all those who have been abused by the CFMEU—to the sexism, misogyny, lawlessness and corruption? How is it that the Greens can come here and continue to pretend that? We are also intent on holding the government to account. This cannot be a pretend administration. This must be one with teeth, and that is why we've been taking the days to work through negotiations with the government to ensure it is an administration of teeth with teeth that will properly clean up the CFMEU. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT DYU It being 1.30, we will move to two-minute statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 32 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Snowy Hydro Project, Mining Industry 32 13:30 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I rise today to speak about two issues that are of concern to the productivity of this country. The first one regards the release of water from the Murray-Darling system and, in particular, the Snowy-Murray system. In estimates, I asked on notice if I could get the volume of releases out of the hydro project to the irrigation project. It was started by Ben Chifley and finished by Robert Menzies throughout the forties and fifties. I've got the answers back, and it turns out about 2,000 gigalitres are released each year from the Snowy Hydro project for irrigation purposes. Of those 2,000 gigalitres, we actually buy back 3,400 gigalitres. I want you to think about that. We now buy back more water, which is allowed to then run into the lower lakes and evaporate away, than what the Snowy Hydro project actually releases. Ben Chifley would be rolling in his grave about this, because that whole project, in terms of irrigation, is completely redundant. You may as well just have let the water run down the Snowy in the first place rather than have built the dam and diverted it westwards, because it just runs down into the ocean in another direction. What a waste of time! The last thing I want to touch on is the recent decision made by the minister for environment Tanya Plibersek, who's decided not to allow the McPhillamys mine in Orange to go ahead. The Regis gold company has spent $300 million so far just on developing this, and, because 17 people have decided they've got cultural sensitivities, they want to shut it down. They won't even disclose what those cultural sensitivities are. It's time to get going in this country, and we can't continue to shut down. (Time expired) Early Childhood Education, Aged Care 32 13:32 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I'm a proud member of the Albanese Labor government because we care about Australian workers, and we keep delivering for them. I spoke to early childhood educators last week here in Canberra about the 15 per cent increase that the Albanese Labor government was able to pass on to early childhood educators. We actually understand and respect the work that they do each and every day for the children of Australia. I've visited lots of different centres throughout my home state of Tasmania, and I know how hard those workers work. My youngest daughter was an early childhood educator before she moved into education more generally. We know and we recognise their skills and the work that they do for our young children. We have delivered this pay rise, unlike those opposite. For the 10 years they were in government, they did nothing for early childhood educators. They did nothing in terms of a pay rise for aged care workers. They did nothing for those carers who work in the disability sector. Since we've been in government, we've actually delivered real wage rises to those workers and to Australian workers in general. We know that it takes a village to raise our children, but it is so important that their education starts from the time they go into care. It is really a matter of getting educated from the cradle to the grave. I am so pleased to be part of a government that has delivered $103 a week to aged care workers. By December 2025, they will earn $155 more each week. That will help them deal with the cost of living, and it's another giant step towards true recognition of their professionalism in this sector. Gambling Advertising 33 13:34 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia Well, it's another day and another step backwards by the Labor government in tackling the problem of gambling and gambling advertising in this country. We've heard from the Labor Party's own backbench today, with one member quoted as saying: It's disgusting. … … … We're being softened up and pummelled by the gambling industry. The ministers who are talking are just repeating the language of the gambling lobbyists. What an indictment on this government—what an indictment on the lack of leadership from ministers and the Prime Minister. We all know, the experts have told us and we had a parliamentary inquiry that came up with unanimous recommendations to say that the single most important thing we could do to protect kids and families from the insidious, parasitic nature of the gambling industry would be to ban their ads—stop their ads on television and online; get rid of them, like we had to do with tobacco advertising. But, rather than having the spine to stand up and stare down the gambling lobby, the Prime Minister and his ministers are all lining up and, as their own backbench has said, just repeating the language of the gambling lobby while we're being softened up and pummelled by the industry and the lobby. It is absolutely disgusting, as Mike Freelander has said today. Australia loses more money to gambling than anywhere else in the world does. We are the biggest losers. It is impacting families, it's tearing families apart, it's ruining sport and it's ruining a whole new generation's love of sport. (Time expired) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 I remind all senators, when referring to those in the other place, to use their correct title. Complete Care Pharmacy Rosny Park 33 13:36 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania A couple of weeks ago my colleague Senator Anne Ruston came to Tasmania, and together she and I visited the Complete Care Pharmacy in Rosny Park. I wanted to share in the chamber today the inspiring story of Kristina Fox and Julie Sorrentino, the visionary owners of this pharmacy. These two incredible women have dedicated their time and resources to create a patient-first business model. I have been around many pharmacies in my home state of Tasmania over the last few years, and this is the first time I've seen this kind of model in action, and it was truly incredible to see. Kristina revamped the pharmacy with cutting-edge design and technology that features a robotic dispensing system, five specially designed consulting rooms and a triage prescription software that she developed herself, which in effect means that, when potential clients or patients come into the pharmacy, they can easily be triaged to get a consultation with a pharmacist. This pharmacy's commitment to community care shines through in an impressive range of services tailored to the needs of patients. To ensure the exceptional delivery of these services, their team includes skilled professionals such as nurse practitioners, lactation consultants, a diabetes educator and a continence nurse advisor, and there are also registered NDIS providers. They've embraced change and shifted the focus from purely dispensing medications to providing broader healthcare services. I think it's really important to recognise that multidisciplinary care isn't limited just to general practitioners, but it involves various healthcare providers working together. Complete Care Pharmacy serves as an absolutely stellar example of how all of our pharmacies can take a proactive role in teamwork, emphasising that pharmacists are crucial to the overall healthcare system. Tibet 33 13:38 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I rise today to address a matter of profound significance: the ongoing Sino-Tibet conflict and its devastating impact on the Tibetan people. I acknowledge that in the building today there are representatives of the Tibetan government in exile, from Dharamshala, India, who have joined with parliamentarians to continue to advise us of the plight of the Tibetan people. For far too long the Tibetan people have endured the denial of their basic freedoms and human rights. The situation is deeply troubling, as many Tibetans find themselves subject to arbitrary treatment within a legal system that prioritises the Chinese Communist Party's political considerations over any concept of rule of law that you or I might be familiar with. The unjust system operating in the Tibetan regions of what China claims as its own undermines the local people's access to justice and perpetuates a cycle of oppression. As a person of faith I'm deeply committed to advocating for the rights of all individuals to express and practise their chosen faith beliefs. The forced assimilation of Tibetan families and the erosion of their rich cultural heritage is particularly alarming. The systematic stripping away of Tibetan language, music, ideas and customs not only diminishes the cultural identity of the Tibetan peoples but also deprives the younger generation of the opportunity to learn and embrace their own heritage. This cultural erasure is a profound injustice that must be addressed and reversed. Earlier this year I had the privilege of visiting Dharamshala, invited by the Australia Tibet Council. I was accompanied on that visit by Senator Dean Smith, Mr Michael McCormack and Mr David Smith. I had the true honour of meeting with His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and I engaged with Tibetan survivors who have endured imprisonment for simply protesting for 20 minutes—eight weeks of torture and nearly five years of imprisonment. This cannot continue. Pellowe, Mr David 34 13:40 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland In an alarming example of the growing threat to religious freedom in Australia, Dave Pellowe, a Christian minister, is facing legal action in the Queensland Human Rights Commission. The complaint stems from comments he made at a recent Church And State conference, where he repeated Christian theology on ownership of land. Specifically, he refused to provide a welcome to country on the basis that Aboriginals do not own this country; God does. Psalms 24:1 teaches us that 'the earth is the Lord's, and everything in it' and there are similar verses in Genesis and Leviticus, so the theology of the statement is not in dispute. God delegated stewardship of this beautiful country to those who follow God in faith, his image leaders, bestowing the right of individuals to keep and use their land and property in service of God. Neither Aboriginal nor Christian can claim sole ownership of this land. We both exercise stewardship, on behalf of God. The complainant purchased a ticket to attend a Christian conference, marketed as a Christian conference, and was apparently offended to hear a Christian message! Church And State conferences teach the gospel. One attends a Church And State conference to hear the Bible taught and to be actively involved in society. Isaiah 24:4-6 offers a warning against supplanting God's word with another teaching easier on the ears and easier on any superficial consulting of conscience. The church is losing supporters because established religion does not offer leadership. Today it has fewer warriors and no longer has use for the armour of God. The answer to the erosion of support for Christianity is not a softer message; the answer is stronger messaging and deeds that defend the faith. It's time to end the age of appeasement. To those listening at home, Church And State are holding a telethon tomorrow night to fund legal challenges to the war on Christianity. I urge Christians and those who care for religious freedom to tune in online tomorrow night. We have one flag. We are one community. We are One Nation. Energy 34 13:42 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland If you've been following the energy policy debate in this country, you would've had to be half asleep to have not regularly heard the words 'renewable energy is the cheapest form of power'—it's the constant mantra of those that have been in control of our energy system for about a decade now. Time and time again, there seems to be this disconnect: we say that renewable energy is the cheapest form of power; yet the more renewable energy is installed, the higher everyone's power prices go. We saw the latest chapter in this fiasco last week, when the Queensland government announced that it would pay an undisclosed sum to one of the biggest companies in this country, Rio Tinto, to keep the Gladstone aluminium smelter alive. That smelter employs a thousand Australians, easily, and 3,000 or 4,000 other Australians' jobs rely on that smelter. It's a massive facility that underpins the economy of Gladstone. Rio Tinto, over the past four or five years, have said that they would try and switch their aluminium production in Australia to a hundred per cent renewable energy. Now, if renewable energy is the cheapest form of power, these would be happy days for the people of Gladstone and for the people in our manufacturing sector, because clearly this would help them underpin and continue their production of aluminium, if it's so cheap. Yet an amount of money is being paid to Rio Tinto—and we don't know how much it is—that, according to media reports from the News press last week, could relate to the subsidy of energy costs for the power-hungry smelter. Why do they need subsidies for energy costs if they're installing the cheapest form of power? They're replacing coal-fired power, in this case, in Gladstone, with wind and solar, but they need a subsidy. It doesn't make any sense. And why can't we know how big is this subsidy to one of the biggest companies in this country? The green energy scam continues apace, and all of us are paying for it. Aged Care 35 13:44 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia Today I stand not just as a representative of Western Australia but as a voice for our elderly, those who have given their lives to build our communities, raise our families and shape our future. The care we provide to them in their later years reflects our values as a society. Yet, for far too long, our aged-care system has fallen short, leaving those who deserve our utmost respect and compassion to suffer in silence. In my conversations with aged-care residents and their families, I've heard stories that are both inspiring and heartbreaking. Rosemary spoke of her desire to maintain her agency, to make choices about her own life even in her later years. Jim shared his frustration with the quality of care and food, wishing for an environment where he and his fellow residents feel truly at home. These are not just isolated experiences; they're the lived realities of countless elderly Australians, who are not just numbers in a system but individuals with a profound need for dignity and respect. The findings of the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, over three years ago, laid bare the systemic failures and harrowing stories of neglect and abuse. While efforts have been made, there is still so much more that needs to be done. Every day we delay is another day that Rosemary, Jim and so many others are denied the protections they need. It is another day that families across WA are left wondering whether their loved ones are being treated with care and respect. It is another day that dedicated carers are left without the resources and guidance they need. So, to my colleagues on all sides of this chamber, I say: let us come together, not as politicians but as human beings who understand the value of life at every stage. Missing and Murdered First Nations Women and Children 35 13:46 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I rise to make a short statement about the inquiry into missing and murdered First Nations women and children, which delivered its final report last week. Firstly, as I did in my speech last week, I want to recognise everyone who shared their painful truths and insights at the inquiry's hearings. I am truly sorry that this report has failed you and that, as many of you have shared this with me since its delivery, you have felt retraumatised, unheard, let down and that it doesn't go far enough to address this national emergency. I have shared that I am also so disappointed by the inquiry's recommendations. They lack measurable outcomes, which is why we put forward our own Greens recommendations. Sadly, they were not agreed to by the committee. It should have been above politics to do the right thing. One thing hasn't changed since the inquiry commenced 2½ years ago. As late as last night on my flight here from Perth, I was still getting messages about black women in dangerous, life-threatening situations with no response from police. Since I last spoke on this, we have also learned that the committee didn't consult with the relevant government ministers and ask for their insights or their input into the suggested recommendations. The Minister for Indigenous Australians wasn't consulted. The minister for children and young people also wasn't consulted, which is quite shameful. First Nations women and children are at the heart of our communities and are the link to the next generation. They should never be invisible or forgotten. Bringing light to the enormity of this issue should have been the reckoning for this nation. For me, achieving change will require some political goodwill to invest and take the actions that are urgently needed by our people. We can't erase the past, but we can build a better future together that protects the strong identity and culture of First Nations people in this country. It is like a sleeping being. It is now awake, and it's time for truth. International Politics 35 13:48 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria All around the Western world we see liberty's light being snuffed out, little by little, by Marxism. It suffocates what freedoms we have left. The thing is that this march of insanity could be stopped dead in its tracks if only people were brave enough to speak out against it. The West will be destroyed not by the vocal minority but by the silence of those who know better but do not speak out. If we want to save the West, then good people must be willing to be vocal against the insanity that we see all around us. If I had just a dollar for every single person who, privately and in hushed tones, has told me that they agree with me on political and social issues, well, heck, I'd be very wealthy indeed. But those same people will barely say a word publicly in defence of what is right. They keep silent, privately hating what is being done to their country but too weak to say a word against it for fear of reprisal by those who control the narrative. And so silence begets silence until silence is deafening. Meanwhile, they wonder how the world has changed so much—and for the worst. If we want to save the West, ordinary people must be willing to speak out—not just in private or anonymously on social media, but proudly and loudly at your workplace, to your friends, in your sports club, to your family and to your neighbours. Cowardice is not an option. Speak the truth while you still can. And if a price must be paid, then pay that price or you'll continue to watch as your nation is destroyed right in front of your eyes. You need to stand up and do something about it. Regis Resources 36 13:50 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Once more the radical Left tail is wagging this dog of a government as we see their radical Left agenda, their anti-resources agenda at play. And this time you don't have to take it from those on this side of the chamber, we have it in writing as an ASX announcement. Everyone who knows anything about the ASX and about company announcements on the ASX knows that these announcements are legalled to within an inch of their lives. They generally come across as completely anodyne, completely banal statements of fact. And yet this is what Regis Resources has had to say on the ASX just this morning about the section 10 cessation effectively closing their McPhillamys Gold Project in New South Wales. They've said: Minister Plibersek has stated that this declaration "will not stop the mine". To the contrary, this decision does impact a critical area of the Project development site and means the Project is not viable. A decision by Minister Plibersek on the pretext of Aboriginal cultural heritage has stopped this project of a great Western Australian mining company Regis Resources. This is the Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Act, the debacle we saw in Western Australia, done by stealth by this Labor government. The blocking of this project will cost hundreds of millions of dollars, hundreds of jobs in the town of Orange. And you see, once again, the Left outflanking the Labor Party, and them rushing to try to cover their Left flank politically, at the cost of every Australian. Aged Care 36 13:52 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania I believe in a thing called love. There is no darkness in the story of Mark and Bev—a true love story. You've heard of The Notebook; however, this is a modern-day love story that is 87 years and 89 years old. Mark and Bev met in an Umina Park aged-care nursing home earlier this year. I was invited to their wedding, and I came bearing chocolates and flowers—as you should. The wedding was beautiful, with all the splendour of a wedding of those half their age. The church and chapel could not house the large number of residents attending, so the dining hall was used instead. The staff catered to the adoring couple and rolled out the red carpet for the lovely pair. Imagine a large function room adorned with rows of residents in wheelchairs and those bed chair things. Walkers lined up as far as the eye could see. A fully staffed kitchen and a few bubbles popped and shared around to celebrate. I noticed the sense of unity Mark and Bev shared. Their community gathered around them to share this special moment, and there was pure joy in the room. It was the first wedding of its kind in Umina since its inception. Aged care holds a special place for me. My partner, Tim, has worked for almost a decade in aged care. We know all the ins and outs; we know the good, the bad and the funny. We need to review how aged-care residents receive care. It's not working as intended. Quality of care is the most important thing. If quality of care is not given, there is no sense of community and residents like those in Umina will suffer. If we're lucky we will get old, and we'll all need quality of care. Thank you to Mark and Bev, and I wish you all the best—but go easy on the honeymoon! The celebrant, Dudley, even wanted Tim and I to get off our backsides and offered to conduct our wedding ceremony if and when we have one. And, no, that's not a proposal; I'm good in my short-term relationship. Pensions and Benefits 36 13:54 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania At the last election, people had faith that Labor would bring in a new era of transparency. When they were in opposition, Labor MPs rallied against the secrecy of the Morrison government and its failure to address transparency issues. Those issues ranged from a federal anticorruption commission to using grants to pork-barrel seats to jobs for mates to the failure to answer questions and to secrecy surrounding government processes, not to mention Scott Morrison's many ministries that he didn't even tell his colleagues about. Now they are in government, the Labor Party are proving they are just as bad. Last sitting, I did an order for the production of documents for the review of the cashless debit card completed by the University of Adelaide. The report confirmed what those communities have been telling me for months: since the mandatory application of the cashless debit card was removed, there has been an increase in alcohol use and gambling, particularly in Ceduna, East Kimberly and the Goldfields sites. The findings are absolutely damning but not surprising. To ensure that Labor's decision to wind back the cashless debit card was grounded in public consultation and adequate consideration of the benefits of the scheme, transparency warrior and former senator Rex Patrick submitted a freedom of information request for Minister Rishworth's diary. Minister Rishworth's office concocted a ridiculous excuse that it would take her office 6,456 minutes, 107.6 hours or 14.35 working days to comply with the request. The minister told the media that she had visited the cashless debit card locations numerous times prior. It is clear to me that this is a desperate attempt to cover her own tracks, and I can tell you right now they haven't been transparent because they do have something to hide. Estimates documents show that the minister hasn't visited all the trial sites for two years. The cashless debit card had its place; it had its benefits, but, instead of listening to those benefits, the Labor Party has made a political decision to keep that out. I say, Minister Rishworth, shame on you! Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee 37 13:56 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Last week, I tabled the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee into missing and murdered First Nations women and children. The issues dealt with within that inquiry were very difficult and confronting. I rise to give my profound thanks to the following committee and broadcasting staff who assisted the committee in the course of its work. The committee office staff included Sophie Dunstone, Tasman Larnach, Monika Sheppard, Suzanne Blogg, Ash Clements, Mervyn Piesse, Alice Read, Joshua Start, Leah Schamschurin, Grace McElholum, Aaron Murphy and Erika Rockstrom. I would also like to place on the record my thanks to the broadcasting staff who assisted the inquiry, and it should be noted that we had 16 hearings, including six in camera or private hearings with impacted families. The broadcasting staff who I would like to specifically thank and acknowledge at this point in time are Sophie Travis, Clinton Madden, Pat Gallagher, Keith Andrew, Richard Norman and Jesse Maxwell. I note that the deputy chair is here in the chamber at the moment, and I'm sure that she would agree with me in saying that the staff displayed great empathy, intelligence and should be congratulated for their professionalism during the course of this inquiry. Their efforts are greatly appreciated. Gender Equality 37 13:58 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Today is Australia's Equal Pay Day. It takes 50 extra working days for Australian women to earn the same, on average, as men. The recent ABS data shows the gender pay gap is 11.5 per cent. It's a notable decline from the 14.1 per cent pay gap we inherited from those opposite, but much more needs to be done. We know that feminised industries are historically underpaid. That's why we backed record increases to the minimum wage. We backed and funded a 23 per cent pay rise for aged-care workers. We made it easier for workers in low-paid, feminised industries to bargain for pay rises. We set up a new expert panel at the Fair Work Commission on the pay equity in the care and community sectors. We banned pay secrecy clauses. We introduced a right to request flexible work. We prohibited sexual harassment in the Fair Work Act. We made gender pay equity and equality an object of the Fair Work Act. Would you believe it: the Liberals and Nationals posed or voted against every single one of those measures. If you look at their voting record, you wonder if Mr Dutton has a weird and outdated view about the role of women in the workforce. On this side of the chamber, Labor will always stand by all workers. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Sheldon. The time for two-minute statements has expired. We'll move to question time. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 37 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Intravenous Fluid Products 37 14:00 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Gallagher. The current shortage of saline IV fluids in Australia poses a very serious risk to the operations of our healthcare system. Last week, you confirmed the government had known about an impending shortage since May 2023. Overseas drug regulators including the FDA, the European Medicines Agency and New Zealand's Pharmac have confirmed that they have minimal to no issues with their national supplies. Minister, now that it has become apparent that this shortage has resulted from your government's lack of action, will you correct the record and admit that this is not, as the health minister has falsely claimed, a global shortage and finally take responsibility for a crisis of your own making? 14:00 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Ruston for the question. I know you'd like to blame everything that happens around the world on the Albanese government, but I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that the shortage of IV fluids, which has affected a number of countries around the world, is the fault of the Albanese government. We have put in place a number of steps to ensure that appropriate management of the shortage of IV fluids is managed as you would expect, and this is really common practice— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator McKenzie, I do not intend to call you to attention the whole of question time. Minister Gallagher, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING These matters are managed, and they're managed very effectively in the health system, as they are across a wide range of medications should there be a shortage. There are well-established mechanisms to manage these shortages, and the health minister met with his colleagues on Friday. They released a joint statement on IV fluid shortages, including the steps being taken to address supply in Australia by the national IV fluid response group as well as reassurance to the Australian public that health services are continuing. I know the TGA, as I said last week, is also managing a number of steps to ensure that we are doing everything we can to increase supply of fluids for use across our hospital and health system, and all of those steps are being done as well. Of all the systems there are, the health system manages shortage of supply of certain medications—in this case, IV fluids. They have well-established systems. They do so appropriately and so they can continue to operate the services that the Australian people expect. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, first supplementary? 14:03 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia I'm not sure Australians in hospital would suggest that you've been managing this effectively. Minister, Australia has sovereign manufacturing capability of saline IV fluids and your government was given a significant warning of the impending shortage. Since the minister became aware of the issue last year, what discussions has he or have the Albanese government had with Australia's saline manufacturer, Baxter, to see how they could support them to expand their capacity? 14:03 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I know that the health department has been engaging with all of the suppliers that exist in Australia, including Baxter, about how they can work to increase the supply, and they've been working with the TGA. It is expected that supply will continue to be constrained for a little while yet, but all jurisdictions report that they do have supply and that there is supply remaining while further resources are put into securing additional supply. Queensland and Victoria are currently the most affected, with other states having more supply than those. South Australia's position is improving now they have access to overseas supply through some of the arrangements that the health department has put in place. So everybody is working together to ensure continuity of the health system and to maximise the opportunities to alleviate supply. I'll come back if there is anything further I can give the shadow minister on Baxter. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, second supplementary? 14:04 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia At the height of the COVID pandemic, Australia faced a global supply crisis of key medical equipment with barely any warning at all. Instead of deflecting to the states, the coalition government used the National Medical Stockpile to guarantee our supplies and provide them to state jurisdictions. Minister, why has the Albanese government refused to show similar leadership on the national shortage of saline IV fluids and is instead misleading the public, deflecting to the states and territories and taking no responsibilities at all? The PRESIDENT 112096 I think it was you, Senator Ayres. If it was, I ask you to withdraw. Senator Ayres 16913 I withdraw. 14:05 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Ruston for the question. This is, as I think the question highlights, the big difference between the former Morrison government, which sought to divide and fight with the states, and a government that is working with the states in the national interest to deliver the supply. In relation to Baxter, further to the question asked previously, Baxter is the major supplier of saline products in Australia. Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, you may know that, Senator Ruston. I'm answering your question. They have advised the TGA they are working to expand domestic manufacture in 2024, and they are also supplying overseas registered products as an interim measure to meet the increased demand. So everything is working as it should when there is a supply shortage. We don't seek to blame the states. We have a national response to IV fluids that is being managed appropriately by the Commonwealth in conjunction and partnership with the states. MINISTRY 39 MINISTRY Temporary Arrangements 39 14:06 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I apologise to the chamber. I neglected to outline at the commencement of question time a change in ministerial arrangements. I have written to all the party leaders about Senator Farrell's absence this week, and ministers will represent the portfolios in accordance with the correspondence I provided last week. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 39 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Women's Economic Security 39 14:06 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Women and Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Minister, today is Equal Pay Day, marking the 50 days into the new financial year that Australian women must work to earn the same, on average, as men did last year. Last week, it was promising to see that the gender pay gap has continued to narrow, but the gap is still 11.5 per cent. There is more work to do. Can the minister please outline what the Albanese Labor government is doing to reduce the pay gap and why closing the gender pay gap is so important? 14:07 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Walsh for the question and also acknowledge how great it is to work with everyone on this side of the chamber who is so focused on closing the gender pay gap and really sees it as a core priority for the Albanese government. And I also acknowledge Senator Walsh's long career in advocating for pay equality and improvements for pay and working conditions for women. Equal Pay Day is a practical way to show what the pay gap means for women—50 days since 30 June to catch up with what men earned in the last financial year. So, in a 48-week working year, this is more than one day per week. The good news is that the gender pay gap is reducing and is now at a record low of 11½ per cent, down from 12 per cent in November last year and down from 14.1 per cent in 22 May when we came to government. Since that time, women's average weekly wages have increased by $173.80. That's a 10.8 per cent increase in average weekly wages. We've also hit a record high in women's workforce participation, at 63.2 per cent. And, because we have had women's economic equality front and centre of this government's agenda, we're doing the hard work, with a 15 per cent pay increase for early childhood educators and a 15 per cent pay rise for many aged-care workers. Both of those are, of course, highly feminised industries. We've secured record pay rises for hundreds and thousands of women who work on award wages. We've fixed the bargaining system to get wages moving and encourage more enterprise agreements. We banned pay secrecy, a big way that was being used to keep women's wages down. We've put gender equality at the heart of the Fair Work Commission's decision-making. And we've got increased transparency in reporting gender pay gap, taking away the secrecy that exists in industries specific to see what women get paid. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walsh, first supplementary? 14:09 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria The Workplace Gender Equality Agency, WGEA, is leading the Equal Pay Day campaign. WGEA have been busy this year releasing two new gender pay gap datasets to help keep the focus on the issue of equal pay. Why is keeping the spotlight on the gender pay gap important? 14:09 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Walsh for the question. I'd also like to thank WGEA, the Workplace Gender Equality Agency. It's a small but powerful group. Their home base is Sydney. They do an incredible job in keeping this parliament and the Australian community informed about what's happening when it comes to wages for women. The Workplace Gender Equality Agency published employer level gender pay gaps for employers with a hundred employees or more. It's the first time this data has been published, and we heard from many women who went straight to the website to look up what their employer or their favourite brand had in terms of a gender pay gap. This new data energised an important national conversation. Also this year, WGEA released the first results for Commonwealth public sector reporting. It's appropriate that the Commonwealth public sector reports on their gender pay gap, just like the private sector. That showed that, whilst we had lower remuneration average gender pay gap than the private sector, there is still more work to be done. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walsh, second supplementary? 14:10 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria After years of active wage suppression by the previous government, Australians finally have a government that wants Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn. Why has this government been so focused on increasing the wages of Australians? 14:11 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Walsh for the question. The focus on wages has been to make sure that, after a decade of wage stagnation, we get wages moving again. Also, importantly, we know that, if you earn more and keep more of what you earn, you can deal with some of the cost-of-living pressures that we've been seeing, so it's been an important part of our cost-of-living agenda. We know that those opposite like to keep particularly those on minimum wages down low. We know they had that section in their submission to the Fair Work Commission. But now, after going to the Fair Work Commission, we are arguing for better wage outcomes for minimum wage workers, including women, and tackling those undervalued and underpaid industries, like early childhood education and aged care. The can could have been kicked down the road, but it was more important that we make that responsible investment in the budget so that we can show that women in those highly feminised industries should get better pay and be better valued for the work that they do. Taxation 40 14:12 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Minister, how much will an average Australian worker earning between $50,000 and $100,000 per year lose to bracket creep over the next four years, inclusive of the latest stage 3 tax cut? 14:12 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory They will certainly be getting more in their pay packet than they would have if we had not amended the stage 3 tax cuts. We remember, when we came out with our revised stage 3 tax cuts—what was it? 'Let's go to an election over it! We're going to wind it back, and we're going to go to an election over it.' And we still think that's the position—winding it back. All options are on the table. By lowering the rate and the thresholds, we have dealt with bracket creep in a more efficient way, and more people on those lower and moderate incomes are getting more money in their pockets. Future governments may decide to do further work in this area, but the revised stage 3 tax cuts that we put in place not only dealt with bracket creep but also importantly ensured that every single working person in this country who is paying tax got a tax cut, as opposed to the heavily weighted tax proposal to those on higher incomes. So we have more appropriately responded to the issues of bracket creep, and we have more appropriately dealt with the fact that every working person in Australia deserved a tax cut and that those earning under $100,000 deserved a better share of the deal. That was the revised plan that we took. That was the plan that passed this parliament, in fact, but we know that it wouldn't take those opposite too long to put all options on that whiteboard over there—to wipe it off and to put it back in place. We know that's what Senator Hume wants to do. We know that's what Mr Dutton wants to do. They wanted to fight an election over more people getting a better deal on tax. That's the approach the opposition took. It's not the approach this government took. We wanted a better, fairer deal for people that dealt with tax reform at the same time. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sharma, first supplementary? 14:14 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales Has Treasury completed any analysis as to the total value of bracket creep to government tax receipts over the next 10 years, and, if so, what may the total value be? Will this be more or less as a result of Labor's changes to the stage 3 tax cuts? 14:15 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory (—) (): Treasury provides forecasts in the normal way, as you would expect. Their forecasts across all receipts and expenses are factored into the budget papers, so that information is there, and that reflected at budget time the revised proposal that we put to this parliament, that we argued for to the Australian people and that those opposite want to undo. The tax cuts that we put in place will return bracket creep, and they lower average tax rates for all taxpayers compared to the 2023-24 setting. So, in answer to your question, yes, they will be factored into the forecasts. We are very pleased with how our reformed and revised plans both were supported in the parliament and indeed have been supported by the community. I think the community understands that everyone getting a fairer and better deal was delivered through the revised tax cuts that we championed. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sharma, second supplementary? 14:16 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales ABS data has revealed that Australian households have now dedicated a new record of 16.4 per cent of gross household income to personal income tax over the past 12 months. PBO analysis demonstrates that bracket creep will cost the average taxpayer between $1,820 and $2,020 over the next four years. How can you claim Australians will keep more of what they earn when all of the analysis suggests that under Labor they will be worse off? 14:16 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory On the decisions this government has taken, we have delivered a tax cut to every working person in Australia. We've returned bracket creep. We've got lower average tax rates. We've got wages moving again, which is something that those opposite were unable or unwilling to do, and all of that feeds into household income. If Senator Sharma is arguing—and I think this is one of the promises that they've dropped out there—about lowering tax rates, then work that up for the election. Our policies have been clear. We do rely on income tax to support investments in our budget, like Medicare and the TAFE system, and the agreements we have with the states in a range of areas like the NDIS and aged care. I think any government has to raise revenue, and we appreciate the fact that income tax, company tax and other revenue lines support that. (Time expired) Middle East: Migration 41 14:17 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales My question is to Minister Wong representing the Prime Minister. Minister, Mr Peter Dutton has set a new low in racism with his disgraceful calls for a blanket entry ban on Palestinians fleeing Israel's genocide in Gaza. With Mr Dutton's history of bigotry, many of us Muslims and people of colour aren't surprised. After all— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, please resume your seat. The PRESIDENT 112096 Yes, I will ask Senator Faruqi to withdraw that statement. Senator FARUQI 250362 I withdraw. After all, Mr Dutton is a man who suggested it was a mistake to let Lebanese Muslims into this country, whipped up false fears about African gangs in Melbourne and boycotted the apology to Stolen Generations. More recently, he said that a government that included Muslims from Western Sydney would be a disaster. Mr Dutton is totally unfit to be an MP let alone an opposition leader or—God forbid—the Prime Minister. Minister, why won't your government show leadership and call out Mr Dutton's behaviour for what it is—vile, dangerous racism? Why won't you use the 'R' word? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm going to ask for order across the chamber. Minister Wong. 14:19 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I think it is disappointing that things that are said by Mr Dutton which we do not support, which do not reflect our policy, our values or our approach, are somehow used in that question as a political attack on the Labor government. What I'd say to you, Senator Faruqi, is what I've said previously when the discussion of racism has occurred over the last decades. When I am asked that question, what I have said is that I do not know what is in people's hearts, but I can look at what they say. I do know also where the words of politicians, and in this case the words of Mr Dutton, land for communities—how people feel when they hear those words. And I know that, when Mr Dutton has an opportunity to bring people together or to divide, he almost always chooses the latter, and you've referenced some of the times we have seen that. We've seen that when he said that welcoming Lebanese refugees was a mistake. We've seen that when he's spread falsehoods about African migrants. We've seen him also say that white South Africans should have fast tracked visas. I remember also the words of his political hero, John Howard, when he called for a reduction in Asian immigration because that was bad for social cohesion. So, yes, Senator, I do understand, and so do many of us on this side—I think all of us on this side, but some personally—where these words land and what that means for communities. But what we try to do is to govern— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, first supplementary? 14:21 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Minister, Mr Peter Dutton is unfortunately not the only one spewing racism in this place. We also have Senator Hanson. Almost two years ago, Minister, a parliamentary committee recommended mandatory antiracism training for MPs. First Nations people and people of colour are harmed every day by the hateful filth that comes out of the mouths of Senator Hanson and Mr Peter Dutton. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi— Senator FARUQI 250362 When will you finally mandate antiracism training? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, I'm going to ask you to withdraw that reference to Senator Hanson and Mr Dutton. Senator FARUQI 250362 President, it's a fact. I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi— Senator FARUQI 250362 I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, resume your seat. Senator Brockman 30484 A point of order— The PRESIDENT 112096 I am dealing with this, thank you, Senator Brockman. If you have a different point of order, I'll invite you to stand at the end. Senator Faruqi, you know that, when I'm in the chair and I ask for a withdrawal, I expect a withdrawal, not a debate. Senator FARUQI 250362 I withdraw. It is a shame that, in this chamber, racism is not called out, but a crackdown on those who call it out is the go. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, please resume your seat. I have a senator on his feet. Senator Brockman? Senator Brockman 30484 Given that the senator has been forced to withdraw two clear breaches of standing orders, where, quite frankly, withdrawing them makes the questions nonsensical, I just wonder whether these questions shouldn't fall over. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Brockman. I will seek the advice of the Clerk. I advise the chamber that I am advised, about both questions, that questions to ministers, as most senators in here understand, need to go to matters of government, so it is hard to reconcile how those questions from Senator Faruqi go to government policies or government actions or government business. However, as you know has happened in previous cases, I do invite the minister to respond. You've got one second left, Senator Faruqi, so I'm calling it, and I invite the minister, if she wishes to, to respond. 14:24 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia What I can say to you is that the government's view is that what politicians should do and what the Labor Party seeks to do is to bring people together. What we seek to do is to work across the diversity of our community, which we see in the diversity of our caucus, and we seek to bring people together. We don't seek to divide. We don't seek to inflame. We seek to govern in the interests of all Australians and we seek to bring people together. We do that for two reasons. One is that that is where our philosophy is, because we believe in collectives. We believe that is the way you find change. That's the way you achieve change. The second reason we do it is this goes to the heart of what sort of Australia we want. We want an Australia where the diversity of Australia is seen as a strength. We want an Australia that is unified. We want an Australia that looks to the future positively and optimistically. We do not want a divided Australia, and we will always fight those who seek to divide. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Faruqi, second supplementary? 14:24 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales A recent report by the Australian Human Rights Commission found that the government was reluctant to use the word 'racism' and that its preference is for 'social cohesion', which has weakened antiracism work. The problem isn't social cohesion, it is racism, Minister, and your government is only making it worse with your dog whistling on international students and the abandonment of truth telling and treaty. When will you stop hiding behind 'social cohesion' and get serious about tackling racism and mandate antiracism training? (Time expired) 14:25 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I note that the Greens in 2016, under a different leader, promised an Australian centre for social cohesion. I note that Senator Di Natale talked about social cohesion. I note now that somehow that is no longer an appropriate thing to do and we are being criticised for using social cohesion. Whatever the words are, I believe, and we believe, in an Australia where people are not targeted because they are different. I believe in an Australia where people should be brought together. That is what we will always work towards. What I find interesting, Senator Faruqi, is you say these things about Mr Dutton, but you were prepared to work with him and his people on the CFMEU bill, on the build to rent bill, on the help to buy bill, on the Net Zero Economy Authority bill, on the NDIS bill and on creating a new EPA. So next time you come in here and give us all a lecture, let's remember where you vote. Energy 43 14:26 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator McAllister. We know that there are a range of technologies available to Australians to save on energy bills and reduce emissions. What is the Albanese government doing to support families to improve the energy performance of their homes and save on their power bills? 14:26 Senator MCALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I thank Senator Grogan for her question. I am very pleased to inform the senator that over the weekend the Albanese government announced $160 million to support Westpac's sustainable upgrades home loan through the Clean Energy Finance Corporation. This builds on the $60 million we announced with Plenti in June. It is all part of the $1 billion Household Energy Upgrades Fund and it is complemented by the $300 million commitment, the Social Housing Energy Performance Initiative, which delivers upgrades for social housing. The investment will mean that eligible customers with older homes or with appliances that don't meet modern energy standards will now be able to access lower interest loans to upgrade them. A house's design, materials and appliances all determine how well it uses energy. That's why we want to help Australians embrace upgrades and technology that can help with comfort, cost and of course also the climate. We know from analysis undertaken by Climateworks Centre that home energy upgrades like double-glazing windows and installing solar panels could save, on average, between 40 and 50 per cent of typical domestic energy bills. These are all steps that households can embrace if we can provide just a little bit of support, because we know that if we can connect households with finance and good information about technology, these are changes that Australian households want to make. This announcement continues the rollout of finance from our $1 billion Household Energy Upgrades Fund, designed to help homes become more energy efficient and to ease the cost of living. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Grogan, first supplementary? 14:28 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Thank you, Minister; that's great to hear. I am pleased that the Albanese government is supporting Australian households to improve the energy performance of their homes. Can you step out for us what other energy measures this government is delivering that will help ease cost-of-living pressures on Australian families and businesses. 14:29 Senator MCALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thank you, Senator. On this side of the chamber we understand that Australians are struggling right now, and this announcement is the latest in a long line of investments that this government has made to ease cost-of-living and put downward pressure on people's energy bills. Earlier this year, we announced that every Australian household would receive $300 in energy bill relief. This, of course, comes on top of our initial phase of energy price relief, which those opposite opposed and voted against in this chamber. We recognise, on this side, that Australians needs short-term relief to help with the rising cost of living, but we are also investing in the long-term solutions needed to keep power prices down in the future. The truth is that Labor is the only party with a real plan to tackle emissions and put downward pressure on power prices. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Grogan, a second supplementary? 14:30 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Thank you, Minister. It's great to see a structural approach. Could the minister explain why the Albanese government has taken this approach to ease cost-of-living pressures and drive down emissions? 14:30 Senator MCALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thank you, Senator. On this side of the chamber, we believe in clean, cheap, reliable energy that puts downward pressure on energy bills. What does Mr Dutton believe in? He believes in using taxpayer money to invest in the most expensive form of energy that there is and then take 20 years to build it. Mr Dutton can't even answer basic questions about his risky nuclear plan like: How much will it cost to build? How much will it add to energy bills? None of these answers have been provided, and Peter Dutton—Mr Dutton—and the Liberals want you to trust them, but you just have to witness the debacle that was the New South Wales local government nominations to understand that you can't trust these people with anything. If you can't trust them to lodge a form on time, how on earth could you trust them to build a nuclear reactor? Native Title 43 14:31 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator McCarthy. Is your Labor government supporting the Queensland state Labor government to secretly give away freehold land to Aboriginal corporations, with little or no community consultation beforehand, under the Queensland state Aboriginal Land Act? 14:31 Senator MCCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Thank you, Senator Roberts, for the question. The answer is no. There are no secret deals going on; there's no secretiveness in any of this. This is obviously a decision of the Queensland government in terms of what is going on in Queensland in regard to land. I'd just like to remind the Senate that native title recognises that First Nations people have traditional rights and interests to land and waters. We've had native title legislation in Australia for 30 years, and it continues to work to create jobs and improve lives. Of course, there's always room to improve, Senator Roberts. In June, we announced that the Australian Law Reform Commission is undertaking an inquiry into the future acts regime in the Native Title Act 1993. The review will investigate any inequality or unfairness or weaknesses in the regime, which governs how development projects can occur on land subject to native title. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, a first supplementary? 14:33 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Do you support the secret attack on 15 Queensland towns currently under attack in this way, including Augathella, Boonooroo, Croydon, Duchess, Eurong, Happy Valley, Laura, Maryborough, Mount Isa, Rainbow Beach, River Heads, Roma, Thargomindah, Theodore and Toobeah? 14:33 Senator MCCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Senator Roberts, I responded in my first answer in regard to the beginning of your question, but I will remind you and One Nation of this, because I have looked at the press releases that you've put out. In fact, regarding Senator Hanson's press release 'Toobeah community still ignored while arrogant Indigenous corporation plans takeover', I note that One Nation put in there: One Nation is the only party contesting the state election with a policy that Queensland belongs to all Queenslanders. Let me remind you, One Nation: the Yuggera people are Queenslanders; the Kalkadoon people are Queenslanders; the Yidinji people are Queenslanders; the Gunggari people are Queenslanders. So, while you might want to electioneer for the Queensland election, can I just point out that there is no secrecy here and you degrade this Senate by running down Aboriginal people. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 14:34 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Are you concerned that the city of Mt Isa, capital of north-west Queensland, with all its mineral wealth, is subject to Aboriginal corporation claims based on race and greed and made with no real consultation, when these resources should be available for all Australians? 14:34 Senator MCCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Come on, Senator Roberts. You can do much better than that. Let's list the debate here. Let's not isolate any community based on what you've just said. I think it's disgraceful to actually allege that First Nations people are not a part of this country and don't deserve to be involved in the economic benefits to this country— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts. Senator Roberts 266524 President, it's a matter of imputation. We do not allege that the Aboriginal people are not part of this country. I ask— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, that's a debating point. Minister McCarthy, please continue. Senator MCCARTHY 122087 I would say that, in terms of the people of Mt Isa, I would encourage the First Nations people there—the Kalkadoon people—and all people who live in Mt Isa to work together for the benefit of that community. Infrastructure 44 14:35 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Standard & Poor's global rating agency and Moodys have warned that the Victorian government will face a severe credit rate downgrade if it continues to progress the $200 billion Suburban Rail Loop project. The Victorian Labor government has seen $40 billion in construction cost blowouts that have required the Commonwealth—your government—to pay an additional $5 billion for existing projects in your last budget, without a single additional kilometre for road being built as a result. Minister, has the government received advice from global rating agencies about the potential impact of the Suburban Rail Loop project on Australia's credit rating, if Victoria has its credit rating downgraded or if the Albanese government provides a financial bailout for this project? 14:36 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I wouldn't think it would be normal that we would get information from the ratings agency about an individual project from a state government. Normally, that wouldn't be the focus of the ratings agency. The ratings agency engagement with the Commonwealth is around our budget and the expenditure related to that, not to an individual project with one state government. As Senator McKenzie would know, in the infrastructure program, there are many, many projects with every state and territory government and some with local government in the infrastructure portfolio, so I would say the answer to that question is no. On the broader question of infrastructure, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government has done an extraordinary job in reprofiling and making sure that the Infrastructure Investment Program can actually deliver infrastructure in this country, as opposed to all the promises that were made when you were in government that didn't have funding attached to them. It was like there was this magic pudding: 'Well, we'll pay that out of the IIP.' But, when we come to government and actually start working through, as Minister King has done, and see the level of underfunded programs, there were tough decisions she had to make, including tough discussions with state governments about their increased cost relating to projects. We've gone through it methodically. The minister for infrastructure has done the job that she needed to do. We take our engagement with state and territory governments seriously. We try to work in partnership with them, but we only allocate funding where it's in the national interest to deliver that project and, if there are management issues around costs and overruns, then we manage those with the states as well. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, first supplementary? 14:38 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria The Reserve Bank's monetary decision to hold interest rates on 6 August recognised continued strong demand in the economy, and the governor revised up demand growth forecasts 'due to stronger forecast public spending'. That is both your government and Labor state governments. Given the impacts of state Labor debt and borrowing on the national economy, why haven't you, the Treasurer or the Prime Minister had the hard discussion with the states about the ramifications of their profligacy and asked them to rein in spending? (Time expired) 14:39 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory That is an interesting twist, isn't it, from last week when we were apparently responsible for everything bad that had happened in the country in relation to spending? But it seems that Friday— Senator McKenzie 207825 She was clear it was both of you. Senator GALLAGHER ING Yes, the governor was clear. She was clear that you and all of you in all of your questions were incorrect. When you sought to blame spending in the economy and linking that to interest rates remaining higher for longer, you were wrong. I would give leave for all of you to stand up and say that today, if you would like to do that. In relation to the matters that we are responsible for, the Commonwealth budget—it would be good to get a question about that, wouldn’t it?—we have been focusing on cost of living, ensuring that we can help people with some of those pressures and keeping inflation low, and the evidence from the governor supported that approach. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, second supplementary? 14:40 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria How much federal and state wasteful spending and debt, including on CFMEU influenced projects like the Suburban Rail Loop, will it take before you take action to ease the real harm this rampant spending is bringing onto Australian families? 14:40 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Please restrain me from mentioning commuter car parks here and sports grants. What are those other big hidden buckets of funds that had nothing attached to them? To talk to us about wasteful spending—I mean, come on! You were the experts in it! Let's just put a big chunk of money and see if we can allocate it to all of our MPs' electorates during an election campaign—that was your approach to budgeting. There was the waste and the rorts and the mismanagement that we have fixed in our budgeting. We've returned money to the budget. We've found savings. We've supported projects where they can be supported. We've reduced deficits and produced surpluses. We've lowered the interest costs on our debt. We have done all of that, and we've still found room to support people with cost-of-living pressures. I will not take a lecture from those opposite about wasteful spending. AUKUS 45 14:41 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Defence. The Albanese Labor government has just signed the AUKUS 2.0 agreement. One of the many issues under the agreement is that allows for the US to provide one-year's notice and walk away from the deal if it thinks it would be detrimental to the US military to provide Australia with nuclear submarines or materials. Keeping in mind that the US does not make enough submarines for its own needs and won't for the foreseeable future, why did your government sign up to an agreement that will allow the US to walk away at any moment and take all their stuff with them? 14:42 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Firstly, I would make the point that, while he is entitled to hold this position, we disagree with the fundamental position of the Australian Greens and with Senator Shoebridge in the Defence portfolio, because they are not supportive of AUKUS. I'm sorry? Senator Shoebridge 169119 You need to say it more often. Senator WONG 00AOU I need to say it more often—that the Greens don't support AUKUS? I know that you don't support AUKUS. Obviously, the question is motivated from the perspective of someone who doesn't actually think that this is a good thing for the country. We do. There has been a lot of work that has been undertaken, including in the US. I acknowledge the work of Ambassador Rudd in working with both sides of politics in the US to ensure that domestic legislation was passed in really quite extraordinary time frames to try to lock in as much progress as is possible. The reason we support AUKUS is that we think it is central to the protection of the nation. Of course, it would be good to live in a world where we didn't need these sorts of hard decisions. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, on a point of order? Senator Shoebridge 169119 It's on relevance. My question was about the one-year, get-out-of-jail-free clause. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. That was part of your question, and I remind the minister of that part of your question. Senator WONG 00AOU In relation to the terms of the agreement, which will go through the normal parliamentary process, obviously, that was negotiated between the parties. There will be aspects of it no doubt that will attract scrutiny. I would make the point that no government can ever assure forever that a future government will do something, and that is unsurprising. I am pleased to report to the Senate the extent of bipartisan support for AUKUS for the strategic reasons that I know you don't accept, but the extent of bipartisan support which was very clear to me in the recent AUSMIN meetings— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, first supplementary? 14:44 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Minister, under this agreement, if the US ever sells us a second-hand submarine and then that breaks down and the reactor starts leaking radioactive waste into Australian waters and harming sailors and the environment, it's Australia, not the US, that has to pay the damages under this agreement. Why would you agree to indemnify the US in this way? 14:45 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia In relation to the first point about the year's notice, I would again reference the fact that that assertion ignores the progress and architecture in place to deliver AUKUS, including a bipartisan support in the United States— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Shoebridge 169119 We've had a minute for the minister to answer the question I that asked— The PRESIDENT 112096 The minister is being relevant. You referenced the agreement, and the minister is answering in relation to the agreement. Senator WONG 00AOU I was referencing the year's notice that formed part of both the first and the second question. I would note the bipartisan support in the US for the passage of important provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act in the US Congress by December 2024 to enable the transfer of the Virginia class and the transfer of skills and knowledge already underway. The Australian industry and the RAN, the Royal Australian Navy, are already engaged in how to build, operate and sustain nuclear powered submarines. Senator Shoebridge, I know this is not something you agree with, but this is a project which we do regard as important for Australia's national security. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, second supplementary? 14:46 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Perhaps we'll get this answered. Why is there no mechanism in the agreement for any compensation to Australia by either the US or the UK? If the US does walk away, Australia has no clawback mechanism to get the billions and billions of dollars we've already given to the US. How could your government have signed this? 14:47 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Fundamentally you don't agree with it, and you're asking me a question about a hypothetical. We are focused on delivering it. Senator Waters 192970 It's not a hypothetical. Senator WONG 00AOU It is a hypothetical. I'll take the interjection from the Leader of the Greens in the Senate. It is a hypothetical. 'If this doesn't happen, then' is by definition— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Shoebridge, I call you to order. Senator WONG 00AOU By definition it's a hypothetical—'if this doesn't happen, then'. My point is: the reason that the Australian— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Senator Shoebridge. Senator Shoebridge 169119 If I had asked a hypothetical, it would have been out of order. My question was directed to what's in the agreement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Shoebridge, that is a debating point. Please resume your seat. Senator WONG 00AOU I again make the point that this treaty will go through the normal processes before ratification, go through the normal process of scrutiny within the parliament. I'm sure Senator Shoebridge will be very active through that process. But I again make this point: the Australian Greens do not support the acquisition of a new submarine capability, so we all know why these questions are being asked. (Time expired) Missing and Murdered First Nations Women and Children 47 14:48 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator McCarthy. Last week the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee released findings from its inquiry into missing and murdered First Nations women and children. I want to take the time to acknowledge and thank committee members for their important work on this matter as well. Can the minister outline the importance of this inquiry and the stories shared by First Nations women and their families? 14:49 Senator MCCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I thank Senator Stewart for her question. I welcome the report tabled last week from the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee. The inquiry has shone a light on a harrowing set of stories experienced by First Nations women and children. I know the Senate inquiry held a large number of hearings across the nation, and I take the time to acknowledge the Chair, Senator Scarr, and the Deputy Chair, Senator Green, and, in particular, the passion and determination of Senator Cox. I want to thank the many families and organisations who gave evidence at the hearings and to acknowledge the unspeakable pain behind every story shared as part of the inquiry—to acknowledge the real and significant grief experienced by families and entire communities. To those who have come forward to share their experiences with the committee: I want to assure you that we see you and we hear you; we hear your stories and we certainly see your pain. It takes bravery to share these stories and it takes great strength. We know that families have been seeking answers for a very long time, some for many decades—over 50 years. We thank you for sharing your experiences with the committee. I also thank the committee members for your dedication to listening to these stories and for delivering a set of recommendations for the government to consider. There are many recommendations, spanning a number of critical areas, that need to be addressed. Our government is committed to carefully working through the recommendations in this inquiry. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, first supplementary? 14:50 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Can the minister outline the government's approach to considering the recommendations made in the inquiry report? 14:51 Senator MCCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Our government will carefully work through the recommendations put forward. I will certainly work closely with my colleagues across the government, with the Attorney-General and with the Minister for Social Services as a starting point. We will take the time to consider the recommendations put forward. The report makes clear the scale of the problem experienced by First Nations women—experiences of violence, compounded by racism and the very institutions that are meant to help. We know First Nations women continue to experience disproportionately high levels of violence and First Nations women are 34 times more likely to be hospitalised and six times more likely to die from family and domestic violence than non-Indigenous women across the country—horrific figures. We are working, and determined, to turn these figures around. Strong and safe First Nations families are a key focus of the National Agreement on Closing the Gap. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Stewart, second supplementary? 14:52 Senator STEWART 299352 Victoria Thank you, Minister. Can the minister explain the government's approach to reducing family and domestic violence in First Nations communities? 14:52 Senator MCCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory We know there is no one, single, isolated factor contributing to the experience of family violence for First Nations people, and it is critical that national policies are responsive to the multifaceted experiences faced by First Nations women and children, including the ongoing impacts of colonisation, racism and intergenerational trauma that compound experiences of violence. The national plan includes a dedicated Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander action plan. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander advisory council, made up of respected First Nations women and men with experience in this sector, led the development of the standalone action plan. The action plan is supported by $194 million to fund specific actions and support the safety of First Nations women and children, like funding the family violence prevention legal services and increasing prevention services, programs and campaigns for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. Environment 48 14:53 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator McAllister. I refer the minister to plans for a new billion-dollar gold and silver mine, which proponents Regis Resources say now is not viable because of an 11th-hour decision to block the project, despite the project having all state and federal environmental approvals in place. Given this massive hit to our regional economy will cost over 800 jobs, does the minister agree with Regis CEO Jim Beyer, who said: Regis considers this … shatters any confidence that development proponents Australia-wide (both private and public) can have in project approval timelines and outcomes. Mr Beyer goes on to say that this will affect any project, of any type, anywhere, and ends by finally saying that this decision highlights the increasing sovereign risk of investing in Australia. When will your government stop scaring off investment and killing off jobs? The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Duniam. Minister McAllister. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I have the minister on her feet. Minister McAllister. 14:54 Senator MCALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I am aware that the Minister for the Environment and Water has placed a protection order on a site near Regis Resources' McPhillamy gold project in New South Wales. This decision, as I understand it, affects the proposed site for Regis's tailings or waste dam; it does not stop the development of the mine. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order across the chamber! The minister is answering the question. Senator MCALLISTER 121628 I understand that Regis Resources has assessed around four sites and 30 potential options for the tailings dam. I hope that the company can find an alternative site for its tailings and waste dam. Genuine partnership with First Nations people is essential for the Australian mining sector to reach its full potential, and the Australian government is committed to that goal. The government has been unequivocal in its support for mining, which employs 300,000 Australians, announcing very significant measures for resources in the budget. I will make the observation that there are striking similarities between this decision and a decision made by the former minister for the environment, Ms Susan Ley, who is now the deputy Liberal leader. Back in 2021, she made a very similar decision just down the road from this same site. She made that decision after listening to the views of the same local traditional owner group, the Wiradjuri Traditional Owners Central West Aboriginal Corporation and she said at the time she was protecting it because of its cultural significance. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam, a first supplementary? 14:56 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Given this project had already secured all state and federal environmental approvals required and was blocked after many years of assessment and consultation supported by local traditional owners, will the minister seek to amend the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act to remove this serious sovereign risk and uncertainty, killing off jobs and investment in this country? And if not, why not? 14:57 Senator MCALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Perhaps you do wish to describe it in this way, but sovereign risk is not the same as being asked to comply with existing laws for the Australian government. These are not the same things. It is of course the case that the government has embarked on a broader process of reform for our cultural heritage arrangements. Indeed, we had understood that this had been embarked upon as part of a bipartisan process, because everyone in this chamber, I think, recalls what happened at the Juukan Gorge. I think everybody remembers the national level of concern that was articulated at that time, and everybody remembers that there was bipartisan agreement that heritage laws needed to be reformed. If you have changed that position, you might inform the chamber. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam, a second supplementary? 14:57 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Nice way to try and conflate issues here, but given the government seems happy to kill off projects that generate jobs and economic activity along with their funding of the Environmental Defenders Office—millions of dollars every year—does the minister agree with the concerns of the Minerals Council of Australia CEO, Tania Constable, who says that these shifting requirements created by the Albanese government undermine investment and risk jobs across Australia? When will this Labor government end the attack on our economy through these environmental laws? 14:58 Senator MCALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Once again we have the opposition asserting that environmental laws, which have been in place for a very long period of time, including under the government that you were part of, Senator Duniam, are in some way hostile to the interest of Australia's economy. It is actually not our approach. We believe firmly that our economy can prosper and indeed flourish through an approach which not only respects the role of business in our economy but also respects and acknowledges our shared commitment to protecting our cultural heritage and protecting our environment. It's on that basis, of course, that we've commenced reform processes, both in relation to the EPBC Act and in relation to cultural heritage. The one thing that you might do is actually take steps to support the reforms which are coming before this parliament, and you will have the opportunity to do so. Employment 49 14:59 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. I note that low wages were a deliberate design feature of the Liberal and National parties' economic plan for over a decade, and now Australian households are struggling with rising cost-of-living pressures. The Albanese Labor government was elected on a promise to get wages moving and get Australians into secure, well-paid jobs. How has the Albanese Labor government's agenda helped to support a strong and resilient labour market, keep Australians in jobs and create new opportunities for people to work and earn? The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! If you can't listen in silence, please leave the chamber. Minister Watt. 15:00 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator O'Neill—one of the many champions of job creation on this side of the chamber. I note that there are now around 990,000 reasons why the opposition is unhappy over there. That's the number of extra jobs that have been created in Australia since the Albanese Labor government came to office. Nearly 990,000 new jobs created—the most in a single parliamentary term, in any government's history, in our country. We know that there's still a lot more work to do. We know that many Australians are doing it tough, but one of the best ways that we can help Australians deal with cost-of-living pressures is by helping them into work. That's exactly what we're doing, with total employment in Australia now standing at a record high of 14.5 million jobs. Unlike those opposite, the Albanese Labor government has been focused on creating good jobs—jobs that give people enough hours to meet their needs and jobs with pay rises and better conditions. Isn't it interesting—the notion of good jobs is something that the opposition all chime in about. They've been basically asleep all of question time, wishing they could just get back to their homes, but the minute we talk about good jobs for Australians that's what fires them up—because we know that's not what they need. The latest ABS data shows that Australians aren't moving into just any jobs— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator McKenzie, on a point of order? Senator McKenzie 207825 Relevance. I think the minister is actually confusing our boredom this question time— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, that is a debating point. Please resume your seat. Minister Watt. Senator WATT 245759 It's good to see they are awake at last. It only took a bit over an hour. The latest ABS data shows that Australians aren't moving into just any jobs; they're moving overwhelmingly into full-time jobs. Sixty-three per cent of all jobs growth under the Albanese government's watch has been in full-time jobs—625,000 more full-time jobs have been created in Australia in mining, manufacturing, the services economy, nursing and teaching. All of those are good full-time jobs that have been created. In fact, the number of people in full-time jobs across Australia now stands at a record high of 10 million. Despite challenging economic conditions, we've managed to keep unemployment low while continuing to bring down inflation. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Neill, a first supplementary? 15:03 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Thank you, Minister, for that answer— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Neill, resume your seat, please. Senator McKenzie, come to order or leave the chamber. Senator O'Neill, please continue. Senator O'NEILL 140651 Thank you, Minister, for that answer. Given Mr Peter Dutton and the Liberals and Nationals voted against the government's initiatives to get more women into the workforce, how has the Albanese Labor government reduced barriers to work and delivered fairer wages for women, after 10 years of low wages, insecure work and unequal gender policy settings under the coalition? 15:03 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator O'Neill. I'm pleased to remind all Australians that things have changed for Australian women since the Albanese government came to office, because it's women that have led the jobs boom. Fifty-two per cent of all jobs growth in Australia has been in jobs for women, since the Albanese government was elected. That's an extra 510,000 women in jobs in Australia since we were elected. Again, women are not just getting into any jobs; they're more likely to be full-time jobs. Sixty per cent of all women who have taken up work since we came to government are in a full-time job. None of this is a coincidence. Just as we know the opposition had a deliberate design feature of their economy to bring down wages, it is a deliberate design feature of the Albanese Labor government's economic policy to get more women into work and to get more Australians into work. It's the result of a government that prioritises economic equality for women and, as Senator Gallagher was talking about, we've also brought down the gender pay gap to the lowest level on record, 11.5 per cent. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Neill, second supplementary? 15:05 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales In the face of cost-of-living pressures, how is the Albanese government helping Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn while relieving cost-of-living pressures, and why are these reforms are so important? 15:05 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator O'Neill. It was good—I don't know if you caught it earlier in question time, but Senator Sharma was recognising that the Albanese government is helping Australians keep more of what they earn. I'm pleased that you're paying attention to what we're saying and that you're now picking up our mantra as well. Maybe you'll come on board and back that kind of thing as well, Senator Sharma, because, unlike Peter Dutton and the coalition, we see strong and sustainable wages growth as part of the solution to the cost-of-living challenge not part of the problem. We've delivered wage increases while keeping unemployment at record lows, getting more people into jobs and getting inflation to moderate. We do know that people are under pressure and that there's still more to be done, but just imagine how much worse things would be for Australian families if the Liberals and Nationals had their way and those record employment figures and pay rises had never happened. Under those opposite, the unemployment rate averaged 5.6 per cent. We've got it down to 4.2 per cent. It took the coalition their entire wasted decade in office to lift the minimum wage by as much as we have in our first term. Under Labor, you'll earn more and keep more of what you earn. The PRESIDENT 112096 The time for answering has expired, and I remind you to refer to others in the other place by their correct title. Senator Wong 00AOU I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 50 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Antisemitism 50 15:06 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia During question time on Wednesday last week, I undertook to provide further information in response to questions asked of me by Senator Chandler relating to the comments of the Iranian ambassador. I have written to Senator Chandler to provide additional information, and I table my letter for the information of all senators. DOCUMENTS 51 DOCUMENTS Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force 51 Order for the Production of Documents 51 15:07 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia As I previously advised the Senate in my explanation on 4 July 2024, the advice I have is that report sought by this order remains under consideration by the government. It is the usual practice in receiving independent reviews for government to take the necessary time to work through them and develop a response to the recommendations. As part of that, this government is consulting widely across stakeholders, including Defence, other agencies and the family of ADF personnel who have lost their lives while serving. The government believes it is important that this consultation be finalised to enable completion of the government's response to the report. I'm advised that further time is needed to undertake that work. The government intends to respond to the order once that process is complete. The government understands, and I, personally, am very aware of, Senator Lambie's deep personal commitment to serving members of the ADF, to veterans and to transparency. I, again, reaffirm to Senator Lambie that the government is ready and willing to brief her on this matter at a time suitable to her. The Deputy Prime Minister and his office would be glad to do so whilst the government continues to conduct consultations ahead of finalising the government response. In particular, I emphasise the Deputy Prime Minister is happy to work with Senator Lambie on mutually agreeable arrangements for this briefing, noting concerns she has previously raised in the chamber that the durations of the previously scheduled briefing was insufficient. I do invite Senator Lambie to take up the offer of a briefing. I hope she can see that the government is seeking to provide her with as much information as possible prior to the formal response to the review being completed. 15:09 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the explanation. Sometimes I worry that I do sound like a broken record in here, but that's actually not my fault. It's the fault of defence and the minister for not getting stuff done. The Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force is defence's legal oversight system. They are the agency that is supposed to make sure that, when veterans are placed under investigation, they get a fair go. But that hasn't happened. I know it, and the veterans know it. I've known about problems with the IGADF for years. There have been so many cases of weaponised administration against defence members over the years. The chain of command has misused and abused the legal processes to target members, and the IGADF signed off on the abuses while apparently still reviewing the cases. It was only after lawyers, often acting pro bono, managed to have the IGADF cases reviewed that the cases were found to be an abuse of process and an attack on the ADF victims. What happened to the IGADF officers who did the initial reviews and found there was nothing to see here? They were promoted and given medals. What's new? What about current IGADF investigations into what is clearly systemic abuse? They drag on with no end in sight, and the victims simply expect that it will be just another 'nothing to see here' outcome. What about the former ADF lawyer who tried to complain about the defence abuse response process? The fact-finding didn't speak to any witnesses; it ignored relevant evidence and decided this lawyer was lying, based on irrelevant material. Last year I wrote to the Attorney-General requesting an urgent audit for three reasons. Firstly, the office of the IGADF had never been audited—not once—in the 20 years since its establishment. Secondly, the office of the IGADF has increased its staff by 85 per cent, at the expense of taxpayers. Third and finally, the IGADF has been called out, by the royal commission, for its poor leadership and lack of accountability and transparency on numerous occasions over the last three years. Even though the IGADF and the Australian National Audit Office are separate agencies and are supposed to be independent and impartial, the secretary of Defence, Greg Moriarty, met with the IGADF to discuss the scope of a potential audit. My, my, my—not so independent anymore, are we? Naughty, naughty! In September last year, Justice Duncan Kerr was commissioned to review the office of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force. This review was handed down to the secretary and the Chief of Defence Force five months ago, but none of us have yet seen it. I asked former senator Rex Patrick to get an FOI organised, but the minister's office say they won't comply because they are still considering the report. This is offensive to the objectives of the act. Australians paid for this report, and it concerns matters of public interest—let alone the veterans' lives that are on the line. It sounds like the report probably reflects what veterans have been telling me for years, which is that the IGADF is broken. In my opinion, the way it operates is hurting veterans and, in some cases, is leading them to take their own lives. The FOI has been appealed to the Information Commissioner, but, sadly, that could take years. But watch this space because I'm not going away. We're thinking about having it shifted to the Australian review tribunal. I got another letter from Mr Marles last week, and apparently the government needs more time to complete consultations as part of this consideration to finalise the government response. That's government speak for: 'Hello. We're working on the spin here.' It took three months to do the 20-year review, but they are still sitting on it five months later—what an absolute joke. Diggers have put their lives on the line for this country, only for the IGADF to protect the top brass, not them. Remember it was the IGADF report by Paul Brereton that gave the senior command a free pass on their role in the alleged war crimes in Afghanistan. A free pass—that's right. The role of the IGADF is very important to, as they say on their website, 'oversee the quality and fairness of Australia's military justice system'. But the IGADF's importance relies on the job being done fairly, impartially and independently. The minister needs to release this report right now, and, when he has done that, he should make the IGADF an independent agency, completely independent from defence. I'm sure that will be one of the recommendations to come out of the royal commission; otherwise, we will just keep losing our veterans and defence will keep policing itself, which is the problem here. It's been 20 years, and they've done absolutely nothing but bring shame upon themselves. But what throws me around even more is that you still have the same inspector-general sitting there and you have not sacked him, because I can assure you there are enough reasons, I would think, in that report, let alone what has gone through the royal commission. You should've removed him, shown some leadership and said you're not going to tolerate this behaviour from one of the highest officers in our defence forces. You lack the courage to do so, and, in the meantime, you are still leaving veterans out there wondering whether or not to take their own lives because of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force and the way it acts. 15:14 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales You can hear the layers of frustration in Senator Lambie's contribution, and the reason is that this is a repeated story from defence. They sometimes even pretend that they're transparent and they occasionally say, 'The ADF is incredibly transparent.' They're about as transparent as a brick. In this regard we're talking about an independent review that, by all means, government can have a look at, but is the government going to sit on this independent review for as long as it's sat on the non-independent review into the former CDF and his medals? Remember that one? I think that was kicked off 2½ years ago—the CDF marking his own homework about whether he should keep his own medals. That's been sitting on Minister Marles's desk for five seasons, I think. Winters have come and gone, and entire crops have been sown, grown to their potential and harvested while that report has been sitting on Minister Marles's desk. It's about something straightforward, I would have thought: whether or not the CDF should have kept the medal he gave himself when he extended the criteria and credentials for getting a medal. Is the same thing going to happen to this absolutely critical 20-year review? When we get the answer from the government and the minister of, 'We're still considering it'—still considering it? Defence couldn't make a rapid decision to save their lives. Defence couldn't make a rapid decision, from my observations, to save the country. Defence could just for once release something—just once. And maybe even just once they could proactively release something. Do we agree with the contribution and the level of frustration that we heard from Senator Lambie? Absolutely, the Australian Greens do. I can tell you now that there are people all across the country who are now closely watching a department that wants to spend three-quarters of trillion dollars of public money over the next decade and are asking: how could both the government and the opposition allow them to get away with such appalling responses to basic transparency, such appalling responses to misuse of public money and such appalling responses to major public interest issues like this? Show us the report. Question agreed to. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 52 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Intravenous Fluid Products, Infrastructure 52 15:17 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care and the Minister for Finance (Senator Gallagher) to questions without notice asked by Senator Ruston and Senator McKenzie today. In particular, I rise to speak in relation to the highly disturbing decision of the environment minister to reject planning consent approval for the McPhillamys gold project, proposed by Regis Resources, in New South Wales. It's extremely concerning. This is a $1 billion gold project proposed for regional New South Wales. It would have created approximately 800 jobs and would have generated great wealth for this country. The gold in the ground at that project is worth at least A$7 billion. The local community—as opposed to the minister, who lives in Sydney—wants the project because that project will generate local jobs, support for local businesses and training opportunities for local young people. Yet the minister has come in over the top and refused development of that project. It is deeply concerning to see that the chief executive officer of the company that proposed the project has come out and said that this underlines the issue of 'sovereign risk' in this country. Just put yourself in the position of the company. They've invested $150 million into that project—it hasn't produced any gold—since 2012, which is over 12 years of work, and the minister comes over the top and rejects the project, notwithstanding it was approved by the New South Wales planning authority; notwithstanding that the minister's own department, the Commonwealth department, actually approved the project; and notwithstanding the fact that local organisations, local community members and the local Aboriginal land corporation had no objection to the project and the locals wanted it built. This is no way to govern our country, and it has great consequences for future developments in this country. I come from the mining industry. I come from a company that was a great developer of mines in a little country called Laos. We lifted thousands of people out of poverty, and we did it to the highest standards of occupational health and safety, environmental standards, and standards of community sustainability of projects including microfinance et cetera. Whenever we looked at a project in Australia, it always concerned us that we would have these sorts of regulatory issues. Here is a company, and for 12 years they have been trying to progress a project in this country. This is the absolute contempt they are shown by this federal environment minister. Companies have choices. They do not have to build projects here. They don't have to spend their exploration dollars here; they can spend it offshore. It is decisions like this that will reverberate around boards all over the world. Companies will say: 'I'm not going to spend exploration in Australia; it's too hard, because I might strike Minister Plibersek. I can put 12 years of effort and $150 million into a project, and she will knock it back. I'll go somewhere else because other countries take a different attitude.' To make it even worse, the minister says: 'Well, you have other options. You can reconfigure your project.' So the minister is giving project development advice to the proponents in relation to the project. This is what the company said to that in their ASX announcement today: Minister Plibersek has stated that this declaration "will not stop the mine". To the contrary, this decision does impact a critical area of the Project development site and means the Project is not viable. Regis notes that during the Section 10 assessment process, it was made clear to the Minister that the Project would not be viable if the Section 10 declaration was made … So to the minister I say: instead of giving gratuitous advice which isn't informed by the facts, as is the case here, do your job and make development decisions that are in the best interests of the Australian people and the best interests of local communities, especially in our regional centres that need these jobs and need these opportunities. 15:22 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia I too rise to make my contribution. I'm from WA, a mining state, and I'm not antimining by any means. I am a supporter of mining. I also know that mining creates some 300,000 jobs here in Australia. I know my industry, the great road transport industry—we're the first ones there. We're the ones that clear the turf, we're the ones that bring in all the supplies, we're the ones that bring in all of the infrastructure and we're the ones that move in all the people. So I do absolutely get the importance of mining to the Australian economy. I had not heard of this gold project of Regis Resources until this morning, when I read something in the paper. I listened intently to Minister McAllister's answer, and I also listened intently to my good friend Senator Scarr's contribution and how he read what the company said on the ASX today. From the information I have received today, the minister is very clear. It's about a tailings dam, I think; the minister was concerned about traditional owner sacred site issues around where the tailings dam is. I don't know the full size of the site and all that, but I did hear Minister McAllister say very clearly that they hope the project—this is what I've picked up. I see you shaking your head, my learned friend over there. I get that, but I still have faith that the minister has said that in this chamber, and I see no reason why the minister would make anything up. I also know proponents of mining projects and others—when something get knocked back, there's a big ballyhoo. You know yourself, Senator Scarr, that your door, my door and every door in this building—except for the fairies at the end of the garden path—gets knocked on by all the lobbyists and companies that come in and tell us what's really going on, or what they hope is going on. What I'm picking up is that there's a bit of ambit here. I hope that something better does come of this. I just wanted to clear that. I also want to go to the first question that was put, in terms of the IV fluids shortages, which came to light last week—it was raised in this chamber. We know that it's saline—it's salt water. I remember someone saying to me on Friday, 'How hard is it just to get some salt water?' We've got to dig a little bit deeper. We know they're critical hospital medicines and are used in routine and critical care settings. We all know that. We know sponsors of IV fluids have noted global supply issues—'global' is what they're saying, loud and clear—with an unexpected increase in demand and manufacturing constraints that have contributed to shortages. Everyone in this building and everyone out there, even those poor devils in the chamber that have to listen to half the stuff going on—good on you; thanks for coming, but gee whiz I take my hat off to you!—know of global shortages around the nation. I know that from all my conversations since the pandemic, as I ask every decent employer that comes through my door to see me here and in Perth: 'What happened to everyone? Where have all the workers gone? Where has everything gone? What happened since the pandemic?' In my trucking industry, road transport, we've had skill shortages for years. Mum and Dad don't want their son or daughter to come out of school and go into road transport, which is so sad. It's such a brilliant industry, and you can make a magnificent earning—boy or girl. You can have your hands on the steering wheel of a forklift, or you can be in administration or sales. But for some reason we've really struggled in that. But where have all these workers gone? Let us talk about the global supply chains. This doesn't get mentioned, but when our previous Prime Minister quite rightfully decided to shut down the country and stop all the flights to keep us all safe and when the state premiers acted, we understood why that was done. But we must not forget this: the shipping industry and the Chinese did us no favours. This doesn't come out: they absolutely squeezed the supply chains down. I know from my great mates in the trucking industry—one of them is a great mate; I introduced him into the industry as a 19 year old back in 1979. He brings in mill balls. He has a contract where he's got about 10 or 15 road trains running throughout the week carting mill balls for the gold mines in the mid-west. I can't quite remember the exact figure, but the cost of getting containers off the Fremantle port before the pandemic was around $1,200. By the time the international shipping companies had finished squeezing the daylights out of us Aussies, it had gone to something like $7,000 per container. When we talk about global supply chain squeezes—anyone tried to buy a Toyota lately? Good luck with that! There is a lot more truth in it that gets put out that doesn't come out in this building in here. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Thank you, Senator Sterle. Senator Reynolds? 15:27 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I too rise to take note of the question asked by Senator Duniam today. Listening to the contributions of two of my colleagues, particularly from Senator Sterle, you would think that there is absolutely nothing wrong with how this government is handling the mining and energy sector. Two and a half years ago, when they took government, there was great concern that there would be a sovereign risk in both of these sectors due to a Labor union-dominated government. Those whispers of sovereign risk are now turning into a deafening roar. Not only is this decision by the minister to completely override all federal and state reports and authorities on Regis at the cost of $150 million and over 1,000 jobs but it actually demonstrates yet again this government's real agenda and approach to the mining and energy sectors. This is not the first time. Senator Sterle might be interested to know that this happened last week in Western Australia with another project. The Bellevue gold mine in Western Australia was the subject of another section 10 objection lodged by a single complainant, a move that AMEC claimed has direct implications for the already approved mining projects across the country. That is absolutely correct. AMEC CEO, Warren Pearce, said: This is an incredibly disappointing decision that sets a truly terrible precedent for investment risk in Australia … If any project, no matter how thoroughly consulted, negotiated, supported and assessed— including by the local Indigenous land council— … then how can any company— Australian or overseas— or investor have confidence to invest in Australia. This is all coming at a time when the iron ore price is plummeting. China is producing less iron, and that is likely to continue. So, at a time when we need, more than ever, to be mining and extracting more minerals and energy from this country, particular critical minerals and rare earths, this government continues to speak through one side of its mouth to the minerals sector and through the other side to the green movement—and similarly in terms of its actions. This is a time when Australia needs to get rid of excessive red tape, green tape and all other sorts of tape. At the moment, it takes on average 16 years from somebody finding a mineral deposit and going through the process to starting extraction—16 years! Everybody here knows that the transition to net zero requires new energy technologies, and they require a vast amount of critical minerals and rare earths. Australia could be producing these in an environmentally friendly way, sustainably and slavery free, none of which occurs with the commodities that we are getting processed from China. Those opposites say, 'Oh, yes, we need to do more about this industry,' but they are making it worse. Ultimately, this is going to cost the Australian economy dearly. Having China stockpiling and processing most of these is a significant national security issue. They've got their own stockpiles but tomorrow could turn the tap off for our industry, pretty much grinding it to a halt. What are those opposite doing? Their nature positive approach. All of the states and territories, and all of the regulatory bodies, say to go ahead on the Regis goldmine, but Tanya Plibersek says she will make a decision and override everybody on the basis of a local Indigenous group who are not the recognised Indigenous landholders. In answer to Senator Sterle's question about why he hasn't heard why this decision was made: the minister's decision ignores the concerns of Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council, which has the legitimate legislative authority to speak for country. That land council said there were no concerns that could not be managed with this goldmine. It's a matter of concern to the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council that these claims have been made by people and the minister has listened to them and nobody else— (Time expired) 15:32 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I note the opposition's focus on the Regis Resources decision in question time today and in taking note of answers to questions. Of course, as the minister said, this is a decision of the kind that has been made by both parties of government. This is a decision that does not, in fact, stop the development of the mine at this particular site. As a government we believe in creating jobs, including in mining, without destroying Aboriginal heritage sites. Our belief is that we can support jobs in mining—we can support the 300,000 people who work in mining, who do that critical work—without destroying Aboriginal cultural heritage sites. We support those jobs and we support those people who work in the mining sector, but we do not support the destruction of sacred sites. We in the Albanese Labor government will continue to support jobs in mining, just like we support jobs across the economy. At the same time, we'll support proper consultation and the proper protection of sites. The 300,000 Australians who work in the mining industry are a really important part of our economy, and we will always back jobs on our side of the chamber. That's why I am so proud that, as Minister Watt said, 990,000 jobs have been created on our watch. This is the biggest number of jobs created by any first-term government ever. It is the most from any first-term government on record. As Senator Reynolds said in her contribution, we are looking forward to investing more in our critical minerals sector. We want to add value to our critical minerals. We want to create more jobs by making more of what we need right here in Australia. So I'm really looking forward to Senator Reynolds and those opposite supporting our important legislation to do just that—our Future Made in Australia legislation, which is making its way through the House and making its way to the Senate through the Senate economics committee. We are extremely proud of our record in supporting Australians to get into jobs. Nine hundred and ninety thousand jobs is an extraordinary achievement by this government, by employers and by all the people who are taking up the opportunity to work in those jobs. And these jobs are better paid than they have been, compared with the record of those opposite. We are now seeing wages moving again in this country. Wages are now moving four per cent year on year, which is a fantastic result to see after 10 years of low wages as a deliberate design feature of the economy under those opposite. More people are in jobs, more people are earning more and, yes, people are keeping more of what they earn too. That's because we decided to take the Liberals' stage 3 tax cuts that were just for some and make sure that every single Australian taxpayer got a tax cut—an average of over $1,800 a year for Australian taxpayers. That is what is actually going on in our economy today under the Albanese Labor government. There are 990,000 new jobs—almost a million new jobs. Wages are now moving four per cent year on year. We've had three consecutive quarters of real wages growth because inflation is moderating and wages are moving ahead of inflation. This is real money in real people's pockets. We know that they are also keeping more of it because we decided to make sure that we would deliver a tax cut for every single Australian taxpayer, not just some. We decided that we would back wage rises for minimum wage workers—$140 a week extra for minimum wage workers since we took office. I note the contribution from Senator Gallagher today, saying that Australian women are earning on average $173 a week more because we back jobs for women, we back them earning more and we back them keeping more of what they earn too. 15:37 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales It's interesting when you come to take note of answers and you find the other side has nothing to take note of in your questions and what has been said—because what's been said over there is a lot of hope: 'We hope the Regis mine goes ahead. We hope they can find another location. We hope that the 800 jobs can be re-created. We hope the $7 billion income goes ahead.' But there is no hope when the boss of the mine goes to the ASX and says, 'This will end the project.' There is no hope for the 800 people that were hopeful of getting a job to be able to put food on the table, keep roofs over their heads put their kids through school and get over these cost-of-living dramas. There is no hope of that anymore. I have stood on that site. I have walked around with the people of Blayney and I've seen the hope that they had for a better life from this project. This mine had all the approvals. They had land council approval. They had all of these things ready to go, but 17 unknown people raising an unnamed, undisclosed problem with an area of the site has ruined that. I have gone through IRC Engineering with the owners in Blayney—people out there gearing up for what they hoped could be a new boom area for the town. When we talk about this site, and they talk about the cultural heritage, let's be clear. When we went on the site, we had to stay on the roads because it has been mined that much in the past in the previous gold explosion—it has been mined out by all the old technology—that there are pits everywhere. We could fall down into existing pits, existing workings and these sorts of things. This isn't cultural heritage. This has been mined or farmed within an inch of its life on the surface, and this was a new chance to go forward. The answers that we got talked about this happening under us—a similar thing up the road. It was a go-kart track. It was a go-kart track that was knocked back under section 10. To my son and me, that may be almost as important, but, for the people of Blayney and people trying to put something on the table, it is not. We come here, and we say that we hope the project can go ahead. It's on the scoreboard. The company has said it can't, not because of the local land council or even the First Nations elders. Seventeen people came with a complaint or an issue that can't be told or put forward on a site that was being mined and farmed for generations. This is what we're getting to in this country—the reason we can't do things. If you want to stop something, you have so many more advantages than those who want to go and do something. Regis put up $150 million to make the lives of these people better, and you have stopped it. Question agreed to. Native Title 56 15:40 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Indigenous Australians (Senator McCarthy) to a question without notice I asked today relating to native title. My office has received many calls from Australians concerned about Aboriginal land claims becoming more numerous and related to widespread fear in the community. Some concerns relate to the more frequently occurring native title claims. Recently, I've become more aware of claims based on the Queensland state Aboriginal Land Act 1991. For native title claims to take effect, a tribunal needs to determine and formally finalise them. A determined native title may be in two forms. Non-exclusive title is the most common form. It means that the native title holder is entitled to enter and share access to the land and is entitled to carry out cultural activities including camping, fishing, hunting and ceremonial activities. The native title holder is not able to exclude others from entering the land or to lease, sell or impose fees. Exclusive title is less common and means that the native title holder can enter the land and exclude others and can use the land for cultural purposes. They're not able to sell the land and may lease it out for commercial or other purposes. More than 50 per cent of the Australian mainland is now under native title. A lesser-known form of Aboriginal land claim can be made pursuant to the Queensland state Aboriginal Land Act 1991. Under this act, the state government may give away Crown land or convert non-exclusive native title land into inalienable freehold land to an Aboriginal corporation. This would allow the title holder to do anything with the land except sell it. They could exclude others from accessing Aboriginal land. This process bypasses all requirements of the Native Title Act. Requirements to consult are more limited than those under the Native Title Act. That requires more open disclosure. There are currently 15 Queensland townships under attack using this method, which is often stealthy and secretive. This practice must stop as it's creating advantages based purely on race. Whose town is next? Question agreed to. AUKUS 56 15:43 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence (Senator Wong) to a question without notice I asked today relating to AUKUS. It was an extraordinary performance from the government on this response. Key questions are being asked about an agreement that is now finally in the public domain and an agreement that could have been entered into only with the concurrence of both the Foreign Minister and the Defence Minister. Yet we have the Foreign Minister, the minister in this chamber, refusing to engage in straightforward questions about the one-sided nature of this agreement. I asked the minister how could the government have entered into an agreement which sees the investment of hundreds of billions of dollars of Australian taxpayers money, with the bulk of it going offshore to the United States and the US. We now know the agreement has in it a provision that allows the United States or the UK to terminate it on one year's notice. How could you agree to an agreement such as that without a clawback provision? How could that happen? The nonresponse from the Foreign Minister spoke volumes. The refusal even to engage with the issue, to just keep pretending that it's okay because they are our friends, spoke volumes. The US and the UK have approached this like rational nations looking after their national interests, and Australia has come to it like, I don't know, some sort of lovestruck teenager who is desperately keen for the relationship to continue. That's what this agreement reads like. You could look at article 1 of the agreement, which says that the US and UK will do this but only insofar as it's in their national interest and only insofar as it doesn't in any way prejudice their defence and security. Why is that important? It's important because the US knows that, if it provides any nuclear submarines to Australia and it doesn't have enough for itself, the US Navy will tell the next President that it does prejudice their security in their terms—and what will happen? They will take all their stuff back and keep our money, and we will get nothing. Is it any wonder we ask those questions of the foreign minister? What is extraordinary is her refusal to answer. Question agreed to. Middle East: Migration 57 15:45 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to a question without notice I asked today relating to migration. Stoking division and racism from Mr Peter Dutton is nothing new. That is his brand. It was his brand last month, when he said Muslim candidates in Western Sydney would be a 'disaster'. It was his brand in 2018, when he whipped up racism against African migrants. It was his brand in 2016, when as Minister for Immigration and Border Protection he attacked Lebanese Australians, suggesting their migration to this country was a 'mistake'. And it was his brand in 2008, when he shamefully boycotted the National Apology to the Stolen Generations. What we saw last week, when Peter Dutton called for an entry ban on Palestinians fleeing a genocide in Gaza, was just more of the same bigotry. Well, I'm sorry to break it to you, Mr Dutton, but the millions of black and brown people, including First Nations people and those from Asia or Africa or the Middle East, are not going anywhere, no matter how much you wish for it to be otherwise. But overt racism from the Liberals is not the only danger in this country. The unspoken racism we see from Labor is just as potent. While Mr Dutton is shouting for Palestinians to be prevented entry, Labor is doing just that. Home Affairs data shows that more than 71 per cent of Palestinian visa applications since the genocide began have been rejected—71 per cent. And it's not just with visas where Labor fails on racism. A report released last month by the Australian Human Rights Commission pointed out that the government is reluctant to even use the word 'racism'. Right-wing media and MPs huff and puff and show hurt and indignance at being called out on their racism. Where is this concern about the actual racism itself? Where is this concern about the damage and harm it inflicts on targets? Well, there is none. There is no concern for the targets. Why is there this aversion to calling out racism for what it is? How will we ever tackle racism if we can't even use the word 'racism'? Question agreed to. Presentation 57 NOTICES 59 NOTICES Postponement 59 15:48 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Does any senator wish for the question to be put on any of those notifications? If not, we will proceed. COMMITTEES 60 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 60 15:49 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 There being no objection, we will move on. Economics References Committee 60 Reference 60 15:50 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: (1) That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 19 September 2024: How the Australian Bureau of Statistics produces statistics relating to the inflation rate, including how the Consumer Price Index and Cost of Living Indexes are measured. (2) That the Senate directs the Economics References Committee to hold a public hearing on Monday, 9 September 2024, commencing at 6.30 pm and concluding no later than 8.30 pm, for the purpose of hearing from officials of the Australian Bureau of Statistics regarding the production of statistics relating to the inflation rate. Question agreed to. MOTIONS 60 MOTIONS Cost of Living 60 15:50 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I remind senators that, after 4.30 pm last Thursday, a division was called on the motion moved by Senator Kovacic relating to general business notice of motion No. 570 concerning the cost of living: That the Senate notes that the Albanese Labor Government has lost its way and Australians are paying the price because of the Prime Minister's inability to control rampant inflation, as well as his broken promises to cut electricity bills, to provide cheaper mortgages and that families will be better off. I understand it suits the convenience of the Senate for a deferred vote to be held now. Is there any objection? No senator has indicated an objection. The question before the Senate is the motion moved by Senator Kovacic relating to general business notice of motion No. 570 concerning the cost of living be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [15:55]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

26 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. Henderson, S. M. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Smith, D. A. 31 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Cox, D. Darmanin, L. Faruqi, M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McKim, N. J. O'Neill, D. M. Shoebridge, D. Smith, M. F. Steele-John, J. A. Sterle, G. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Waters, L. J. Watt, M. P. Whish-Wilson, P. S. Wong, P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 61 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Economy 61 15:58 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 A letter has been received from Senator O'Sullivan: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: Labor's policies and failed economic management are driving dual cost of living and cost of doing business crises, with business insolvencies increasing and many small businesses struggling to stay afloat. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 15:58 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I thank my colleagues for the overwhelming support for this matter of public importance. It is, of course, of significant public importance because Australians are significantly hurting right now. It doesn't matter where you go in this country, it doesn't matter what part of the state you might come from or go into, you recognise that Australians are significantly hurting. Many would say the cost-of-living pressures on Australian households is being felt like never before in their lifetimes—they have not experienced it—particularly if they are under the age of, say, 30 or 40 years of age. If you are older than that then of course you would remember the recession in the early nineties and, for those who are older, even beyond that. But there are many factors that are contributing to this cost-of-living pressure. Of course, the government is mishandling the budget. That's why we're seeing an increase in government spending. The size of government has grown as a result. There's quantitative easing. As a result, we're seeing interest rates rise, and the cycle continues. We've got a problem going on in this country where wages are chasing inflation and inflation is chasing wages. It's a cyclical chasing-the-tail kind of scenario, and this government is doing nothing about it. But there is one thing that is contributing negatively that this government could do something about but they have spent way too long on. Finally, we've got a bill before this place that's going to somewhat deal with the challenge before us. That is of course the declining productivity as a result of the overbearing influence of the CFMEU in construction workplaces across Australia. We're seeing the price of Australian homes impacted. The Master Builders Association says up to 30 per cent of the cost of building a home has been influenced by the undue influence of the CFMEU on work construction sites across the country. That flows into roads and major construction projects across the country. We've got the METRONET in Western Australia, with huge cost overruns. They are partly to do with the poor management of that project by the state Labor government. They are also partly to do with the cost of supplies and supply chain issues and pressures that are on those projects. But we know that there's undue influence of the unions—the CFMEU, in particular—within these construction projects. I've spoken to construction companies. The government say it's not as big an issue in Western Australia. Well, talk to any major construction company or minor construction company in Western Australia. They'll tell you that the CFMEU is certainly alive and well and there's no problem with having a union at all but, when you've got a union that is exerting pressure within construction sites and projects across the country—and we know that there has been gross evidence of impropriety; there have been payments, coercion, thuggery and intimidation—all of this impacts upon the costs of doing business in this country. As I said, the cost of living is the biggest issue that Australians are facing. We need services that are delivered, we need hospitals to be built, we need roads to be built, we need new houses to be built, and we need new residential units to be built. When you've got undue influence—illegal influence in many cases, as we've seen—then that impacts upon the cost of delivering those projects, which then impacts upon inflation because the government has to continue to build those projects. So what do they do? They just increase the size of the grant that goes to the state or that particular project, which again impacts upon inflation. So the government can't just stand by and pretend or say all the words that would seem like they're in touch with what's going on; they actually need to do something about it. This government is asleep at the wheel when it comes to managing this economy. One way they can deal with it is by dealing with the CFMEU. (Time expired) 16:03 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania When the Albanese Labor government came into office, inflation had a '6' in front of it. I think the former speaker in his contribution was a little bit liberal with the truth there, because it had a '6' in front of it and now it has a '3' in front of it. That's called progress. We're bringing inflation down. But those opposite always want to talk the economy down. They always want to talk about the cost of living in this place. But, when it comes to supporting legislation which is going to help Australians dealing with the cost of living, what do they actually do? They vote against the legislation. What did they do when we introduced legislation for the Future Fund to provide social and affordable housing? What did they do with that legislation? They voted against it because Mr Dutton said no. What did they do when they were in government? They had a policy to keep wages low for Australian workers. So what did they do when we legislated for aged-care workers to get a pay increase? What did they do? Mr Dutton said no and they voted against it. What did they do when we brought in legislation to support disability workers getting a pay rise? What did they do then? They again said no, because that's what Mr Dutton told them to do. So they voted against it. What did they do for early childhood educators in this country to help them deal with the cost of living, but also to demonstrate respect and acknowledgment of the important work that early educators in this country do for our children, our greatest asset? They voted against that as well. The Australian tax office, on 1 July, gave all working Australians a tax cut. The majority of low-income earners in this country got twice the amount of money that those opposite had legislated when they were in government. So don't come into the chamber bleating and pretending that you are concerned about the impact of the cost of living on the Australian people when you keep saying no. The thing that Mr Dutton is known for, apart from being the worst-ever health minister, is for saying no, no, no. That's all he does. He says no, no, no. Let's talk about the energy rebate—$300 to every household in this country. And what did those on that side do to that legislation? They said no to a rebate of $300 for every household in this country, and they also said no to the rebate for small businesses. If those opposite had any real concern for Australians who are doing it tough—we do. We understand because we talk to Australian workers, we talk to people in our communities, and we know how tough it is. Those opposite pretend that they're the great economic managers, but it is this Labor government, the Albanese Labor government, that has had back-to-back surpluses—the first time in almost two decades. We have done that. We have created almost a million jobs, and the majority of them full-time jobs, in this country. Why? Because Labor governments always protect Australian workers. We always stand with them, unlike those opposite. Why do those opposite like tearing down a Labor government? Why do they like to run the economy down? Why don't they want to support any assistance that we have put forward? It is just blatant political opportunism. When we froze for a year any price increases on medications, and then reduced the cost of medications, what did those people on that side, the Liberals and the Nationals, do? They voted against it. Your actions actually speak louder than words. And we know when it comes to energy, Mr Dutton, who was the worst-ever health minister, has this idea of building nuclear reactors around the country. Nobody wants them in their backyard. (Time expired) 16:08 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Millions of Australians are getting smashed by high inflation and high interest rates. They can't pay their rents, they can't pay their mortgages, they can't put food on the table and they can't pay their power bills. But do you know who loves the current economic climate? Big corporations. The share of the national economy going to wages has never been lower, and the share of the national economy going to profits has never been higher. Big corporations are profiting obscenely at the moment, and millions of Australians are getting price gouged by those big corporations. And what is the Labor Party, which is in government, doing about it? Absolutely nothing. It's refusing to implement strong competition laws. It's refusing to make price gouging illegal. It's refusing to introduce laws that would allow us to bust-up the supermarket duopoly and end the price gouging on food and groceries. It even refused to properly tax those corporations that are making obscene profits. One in three of the biggest corporations in this country pay no tax whatsoever. What does that mean? It means ordinary, everyday Australians are being left behind because the big corporates have got their hooks into the political establishment parties in this parliament. 16:10 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland There doesn't seem to be a debate that Australians are struggling with the cost of living right now; everyone realises that. Where the debate does need to shift to is the reasons why that's occurring and, therefore, what we have to do to get out of it. Something that is barely ever mentioned in this debate, certainly not from the government benches, is our shocking productivity performance in this crisis. We have had a decade or so now of stagnant productivity growth that's been shared by most other countries around the world. The chickens have been coming home to roost in the last few years because we've been spending too much money, we spent too much during the COVID era, our interest rates have been low and that has stimulated a lot of spending in our economy, but, because our productivity has been low, we haven't been producing as much goods to meet that spending, to meet that demand. Inflation is always the phenomenon that occurs when you have too much money, in this case too much spending—government spending, low interest rates, fuel spending, chasing too few goods. So the real sustainable solution out of this problem is to produce more goods from our economy. If we can lift our productivity, if we can lift the rate at which we can produce things from the natural resources we are blessed with in this country then we'll get out of this inflation faster and with a lot less pain than would come by simply jacking up interest rates to stop and to choke off that excess spending. Yet there is almost zero focus on this, as I say, especially from the government. This phenomenon of low productivity growth is a tough one but is one that's been well-known for some time, yet, when this government came to power, they had a Jobs and Skills Summit within months of forming government. They spent a lot of money and time marketing this Jobs and Skills Summit but they forgot—quite perplexingly—to invite the Productivity Commission along to their Jobs and Skills Summit. It was not an auspicious start from this government but, right from the get-go, they've had zero productivity agenda. We now have the situation where the Productivity Commission has just one referred inquiry to it—a historic low, as far as I can tell. They couldn't tell me a time at estimates where they had fewer inquiries referred to them by the government. There is no focus on this right now. It is tough work but it's not overly complex. What we need to do is cut red tape, cut inefficiency in government, make sure we approve in a timely fashion those businesses and companies that want to invest in our country. We have seen an example of that just in the last few days on the front pages of major papers, with this government inexplicably refusing approval, or really avoiding approval of a gold mine in Western New South Wales. It was nothing to do with fossil fuels—so controversial right now—but was a gold mine at a time of record gold prices that would have created thousands of jobs in and around Orange in western New South Wales, that would have created massive investment in our country and lifted our productivity, because we would have produced more goods—more gold in this case—from the same natural resources we have. This project was approved under environmental laws at both state and federal level yet we had the environment minister over the weekend step into it and use a relatively arcane law from the mid-1980s to stop the project, to stop the investment. Today that company has said to the market that this potentially threatens their whole project and potentially much other investment in Australia. This is just one example but there is a litany of examples. Buybacks are occurring in the Murray-Darling, where we are taking food production out of business to send more water down an already flooded river, again, reducing our productivity. There is a shocking lack of approvals on gas projects around the country limiting our production of energy and bringing energy costs down. There is an inexplicable subsidy of swathes of wind factories and solar factories going onto prime agricultural land across Australia—again, reducing our nation's productivity. The Labor Party has retreated back to 1970s industrial relations laws—stuff that goes back further than what Paul Keating had changed in the 1980s—again, limiting our efficiency and productivity. All of those decisions will add up to a massive cost to the Australian economy by reducing our productivity, reducing our prosperity and ultimately manifesting in inflation and cost-of-living pressures if the government continues its spending like a drunken sailor. That is the change we need from this government. We need to get them to realise they have to stop playing politics and focus on the productivity. That's the only way out of this cost-of-living crisis. 16:15 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales What a great suggestion to put up and have a debate today about the cost of living. When reading this suggestion on what we should be discussing today, I thought about small business struggling to stay afloat. That is a critically important issue. We need to make sure that small business has the opportunities to operate efficiently, effectively, get a fair return and to not be exposed to unsafe practices, not be exploited by those at the top of the supply chain or the companies they work for. That's something I hold very dear, because I've been lucky enough to be the national secretary of the largest small business organisation in this country, the Transport Workers Union. Among the discussions and debates we've had over many decades is something that's been fundamentally opposed by those opposite, and that is giving small business rights. When the gig economy legislation came up, those opposite argued time and time again about gig workers not getting minimum standards. Here are people providing the labour and the low-cost equipment, yet they're turning around and getting paid such pitiful amounts of money that they have to work extraordinary hours. And, when those companies decrease their rates further, they find them working even more extraordinary hours. A survey of well over 1,000 riders from just over two years ago showed that 74 per cent of respondents used multiple apps to receive enough jobs and money. But what the report most importantly said is that 81 per cent of the respondents depend on the money they earn from ride share, food delivery or parcel delivery to pay bills and survive. What that leads to, in these important statistics, is that 55 per cent of the total respondents have experienced threatening or abusive behaviour, with 43 per cent noting the risk of being abused by a customer is a significant concern. Why do they all do that? It makes you wonder. Over 45 per cent of those workers receive less than minimum wage. They've got a choice: they either work extraordinary hours, put up with the abuse—and they have poor rates of pay, as owner drivers, as gig workers. They get such little amounts of money that they have to keep putting up with the abuse. They have to keep receiving these poor wages. And those poor wages mean they have to work more and more extraordinary hours. What we saw leading up to the very important legislation making sure that very small businesses, microbusinesses, get minimum rights and conditions against the big, powerful gig companies, the Ubers of this world, who engage nearly 120,000 workers across this country—what they have to put up with is a bargaining position. I'll go back to 2021, when Senator Stoker, who is thankfully no longer here, said contractors are able to take time off work and can go work for somebody else if they're not happy with the money they get paid; they can just seek employment elsewhere. And then we saw Christian Porter, the then minister, saying that there are complicated questions which need consideration for economic modelling about if you can turn around and give these workers rights. So it was too complicated to turn around and give minimum conditions to contractors. And then, of course, in 2022, the opposition spokesperson on industrial relations, Senator Cash, talked about how the gig economy is an opportunity for independent contractors to have the freedom of flexibility to enter into contracts, negotiate their own rates of pay, set their own times and duration of work. Well, the reality is they can't set them. The companies just tell them: 'This is what it is. This is the rate of pay you're going to get paid.' What those companies do is, when somebody speaks up, they sack them. In January 2024—and there is a long list of examples—delivery rider Zhuoying Wang took her concerns about low pay and rider safer to HungryPanda while taking part in a peaceful protest in Sydney CBD. Instead of sacking her, HungryPanda simply stopped giving her orders. In 100 hours logged on to work she earned just $84. That's 84c an hour for 100 hours. That's why we need to go to the commission. That's why they need to have rights to say that they shouldn't be treated that way. That's why these microbusinesses should have an opportunity to be union represented. The workers should also be able to represent themselves through a system that gives them a voice. Zhuoying said: I spoke out about it and tried to talk to the company, to ask for help. I never engaged in unlawful behaviour. I just wanted a fairer, safer job. That's what we voted for, and that's what those opposite voted against. 16:20 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Well, I couldn't believe my ears last week. The Albanese Labor government burst out of the gates to tell Australians to celebrate and rejoice: wages had gone up 0.8 per cent for the quarter. The Treasurer and Prime Minister tell us: 'Pop the champagne bottles! Just ignore the fact that inflation has gone up one per cent for the same quarter.' That means everyone has gone backwards an average of 0.2 per cent. Can you believe the Treasurer and Prime Minister can bring themselves to front up to the cameras to address this parliament and put such a ridiculous spin on the latest round of bad news? How do they do it? How does the Labor Party keep telling Australians we've never had it better, while Australians struggle through the worst cost-of-living crisis in modern history? The GDP is treading water; it's barely staying out of technical recession. How is it staying out? Thanks to one million fresh migrant arrivals in just two years, boosting official gross domestic product, GDP, to just barely over the recession threshold. Meanwhile, let's look at how everyday Australians are faring. We're in the middle of the worst per capita recession since the Great Depression. Australians have not gone backwards on average this badly since the 1930s—almost a century. What is the Liberal-Labor uniparty's answer to this? The uniparty will continue to send our natural resources overseas for China to use in building solar panels that China sells back to us. The uniparty will continue to obey what unelected foreign organisations like the World Economic Forum say. The uniparty will keep letting foreign predatory investment funds like BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street, and banks like JP Morgan, own our critical industries and get away with economic murder. The uniparty will continue to let too many new arrivals into our country before we have the necessary housing and services, prolonging the housing crisis that the uniparty created over recent decades. The housing crisis did not occur overnight; it's been cultivated. Only One Nation will stop this madness and put an end to anti-Australia decisions that are sending our people backwards. (Time expired) 16:22 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland For so many Queenslanders, every day it feels like life gets harder while Labor and the LNP put corporate profits ahead of everyday people. Rents are continually going up, yet Labor refuses to freeze and cap rents to allow wages to catch up. Bulk-billing doctors are hard to find. People are avoiding seeing the dentist because of how expensive it is. Your grocery bills keep going up. Queenslanders deserve better. But nothing changes if nothing changes. In October, Queenslanders have the chance to get real change by electing someone who will fight for them. A vote for the Greens in Queensland is a vote to address the cost of living by freezing rents for two years, capping rent increases and giving renters a guaranteed right to a lease renewal. A vote for the Greens in Queensland is a vote to build 100,000 well-designed public homes to rent or buy for below market rate. A vote for the Greens in Queensland is a vote to tackle the cost of living for families by making public schools fully funded and truly free. A vote for the Greens in Queensland is a vote to take back into public ownership the essential services that Labor and the LNP have privatised. The Greens have a plan to tackle the cost-of-living crisis for Queenslanders. If Queenslanders want change, they're going to have to vote for it. 16:23 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Western Australian businesses are sinking under the weight of a cost-of-doing-business crisis. Already we know that 97 per cent of all businesses in Western Australia are small businesses. We also know that 1,079 businesses became insolvent in the last financial year. In the June quarter, 308 companies in Western Australia went insolvent. That is one every seven hours. When Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister; and Jim Chalmers come to Western Australia in the week beginning 2 September, I want them to go to WA small businesses and explain why our rigid industrial relations system, labour shortages, the high cost of credit, regulatory overload, and inflationary pressures on business inputs are matters that they think do not deserve the attention of the government. Just last week, the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman had this to say about the pressures that small businesses are feeling. He said, 'The number of corporate insolvencies climbs towards a 10-year high.' He says that requests for help from small- and family-business owners seeking assistance with insolvency have increased by over 50 per cent this year. These include people 'considering insolvencies and those who are concerned that an insolvent business owes them money'. He goes on to say: Requests for help from small businesses in financial distress in retail trade and personal services (e.g., hairdressing) have surged since January 2024. As well as being highly distressing for the people involved, these requests are often an early warning sign of tightening trade credit. That's the advice. That's the bleak warning from the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman. It gets worse. The Reserve Bank of Australia said earlier this month that things are getting tough for businesses. The Reserve Bank has said, 'The outlook remains highly uncertain.' The Reserve Bank says that the unemployment rate is rising gradually, many households and businesses are under pressure and the lagged effects of monetary policy are uncertain. What that means is that things are going to get worse. But, as we heard in this Senate chamber last week, the government doesn't think there's a problem. The government thinks the cost-of-living and cost-of-doing-business crises are manufactured. That's not the view of the RBA and it's not the view of the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman. The Reserve Bank of Australia goes on to say that financial conditions have tightened for businesses over the tightening phase. It says: 'The cost of business to borrow from banks and issue corporate bonds has increased substantially since April 2022. Tighter monetary policy since May 2022 has passed through to higher rates on new and variable rate debt for businesses.' The future looks very bleak. What's more concerning about this is that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Dr Jim Chalmers said that this would not be the case, when they were campaigning for election to secure government. Anthony Albanese said that things would be better under Labor. They have not been better under Labor, and Western Australian businesses are now paying a very high price for it. Added to this, of course, is the fact that household savings ratios are now the lowest they have been for 16 years, at just 0.9 per cent. It is bleak for families and it is bleak for businesses. The Labor Party, in government, doesn't have a plan and it doesn't care. When Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Dr Jim Chalmers come to Western Australia in a few weeks' time, they need to explain to WA businesses why their future is not bleak, and why they can have some confidence to employ people, open bigger businesses or to even just stay in business. Labor has let Western Australian businesses down, and the data shows it. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB Order! The time for the discussion has expired. MATTERS OF URGENCY 66 MATTERS OF URGENCY Gas Industry: Middle Arm 66 16:29 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB The President has received the following letter from Senator McKim: Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today the Australian Greens propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: That the Government must withdraw its $1.5 billion subsidy to support a gas export terminal and petrochemical hub in Darwin's Middle Arm. This is not a Future Made in Australia." Is consideration of the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerk will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. I call Senator Hanson-Young to move the motion. 16:29 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today the Australian Greens propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: That the Government must withdraw its $1.5 billion subsidy to support a gas export terminal and petrochemical hub in Darwin's Middle Arm. This is not a Future Made in Australia." This motion put forward by Senator McKim is an important motion and one of urgency for this chamber, because we have the current government wanting to spend $1. 5 billion of public money on a project in Darwin Harbour that the community is worried about, concerned about and doesn't support. Furthermore, without being fixed, it would drive the climate crisis to be even worse. What this particular Middle Arm project would do is act as a supercharger for the extraction of new gas, fracking and the export of fossil fuels at a time when we know that the climate crisis requires courage and leadership from governments right around the world to stop making the climate crisis worse, to stop extracting more fossil fuels, to stop pouring fuel on the fire. The International Energy Agency says, 'We will not be able to arrest dangerous global warming if we keep opening up new coal and gas mines.' And what this Middle Arm precinct in the Darwin Harbour will do is give a very strong signal for the supercharging of the expansion of fossil fuels. No wonder so many Territorians are worried about this. This Saturday is election day in the Northern Territory, and Territorians have the opportunity to send a very strong message to both the Labor Party and the Liberal Party that they don't want their Darwin Harbour trashed for the sake of further expansion of fossil fuels. They don't want their health and their community and their children's future to be sold out to the gas lobby. We know, because we've heard from the health experts and we've heard from the doctors, that the Middle Arm Project, as currently designed—an export hub for gas; a petrochemical hub—will be a toxic pollution factory only kilometres from Darwin residents and their suburbs. There is $1.5 billion of taxpayer money being used to create a toxic petrochemical hub right in the heart of Darwin. There is $1.5 billion of taxpayer money being spent trashing the Darwin Harbour. The tourism industry and the fishing industry in Darwin are worried about the impact that this toxic pollution, this toxic hub is going to have on their businesses and on their local environment. The Middle Arm gas hub is a threat to human health, clean air, safe water and, of course, our climate. Territorians want their government to listen. Recently, when a Senate inquiry was up in the Darwin area looking into this particular project, seeing how $1.5 billion of taxpayer money was going to be spent, we were inundated with strong community concern. Hundreds of residents spoke out, talked to us as a committee, wanted to engage, wanted to have their voices heard. They're angry that they are being ignored by the current Labor Territorian government and the current Liberal opposition. They're angry that rather than spending $1.5 billion on helping Darwin become a renewable hub, a place where the environment is looked after and celebrated, rather than an injection into local tourism, into local culture, into fixing the hospital system, housing, the education system—all of the things that $1.5 billion could go to helping the local community in Darwin—they are furious that $1.5 billion of taxpayer money is being spent helping the fossil fuel industry expand. The Environment Protection Authority in Darwin is turning a blind eye to the very real risks to the environment and human health too. People are furious that the doctors warning signs are being ignored. People are furious that the government is ignoring their concerns about what this means for clean air and clean water. Darwin already has an air quality problem, and this toxic hub will only make it worse. 16:34 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Well, here we have, once again in this chamber, an ample demonstration of this radical Green Left tail wagging this dog of a Labor government, and it's a government that doesn't know whether it should be chasing its tail or whether it should be chasing the stick. So, instead, it just chases the parked car. We see a government that's completely unable to make decisions in the national interest. Instead, they get dragged ever further to the left by the radical Greens, their fellow travellers in the environment movement and the radical animal-activist movement. We see a government that's completely incapable of acting in the benefit and the interest of the Australian people. Anyone out there with half a gram of sense knows that gas is essential to our economy. It is essential to the future of our energy grids, and it's crucial to the transition that other countries want to undergo in their energy grids. In fact, I was lucky enough just last week to meet with a delegation from the Japanese parliament to this country, who, once again, emphasised to me the importance of Australian gas exports to their country for their own energy security but also for their transition plans to a less carbon-intensive economic environment. Instead, we have the Greens in here trying to drag the Labor government to the left, and, whether it's through ignorance or incompetence, they allow themselves to be dragged because they cannot make a decision in the national interest. I've been lucky enough to travel north in Western Australia in the last few weeks, particularly over the winter recess. I took the opportunity, once more, to visit the Burrup Peninsula and look at the quite remarkable development that's going on there—the thousands of jobs for the current construction of the Pluto Train 2 and the ongoing jobs and high-quality investment in infrastructure that the gas company provides in that local area. But I was also lucky enough to travel to an area that's actually been decommissioned, Thevenard Island, where, once upon a time, about 15 years ago, there were two large condensate tanks, a massive pipe right across the island and, obviously, a workers' quarters. Now you go to that island and not a trace of that activity exists. The large concrete jetty that was there, which was obviously very tall to deal with the massive tides in the north of Western Australia—and I've seen that jetty in the past—is now no longer there. In fact, it has gone without a trace. The two large condensate tanks—and, when I say large, I mean that they would just about fill this chamber—are not there anymore. In fact, they're gone without a trace. In fact, even more remarkable is that the gas and oil rig that was a few miles offshore and could be seen last time I was out there has gone. It's been redeployed elsewhere to generate new economic activity and to generate new supplies that are needed not just domestically for our own energy system but internationally for countries like Japan and their energy transition. Instead, we get phrases, particularly from state Labor governments, like 'load shedding' and we get bans on new gas in homes. We pay industry in Western Australia to close down rather than have them put pressure on the energy grid, because this Labor government, being wagged by the tail that is the Greens, wants to go for a renewables-only approach to energy supply. That simply doesn't stack up when it comes to industrial development. It simply doesn't stack up when it comes to manufacturing. The fact is that the Greens, dragging Labor with them, have never seen a mine or an industrial development that they like, but they have the jobs that will be the future of Australia. 16:39 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia The government will not be supporting this motion. We, on 5 September, supported the Greens in referring this issue to an inquiry by the Environment and Communications References Committee, and that inquiry has not yet reported. This is somewhat pre-empting the outcome of that inquiry process, which would pose the question: why did you bother with the inquiry in the first place? But that report will come forward, and that will give an outline, exactly, of the evidence that was heard and the challenges that were put forward. In relation to the Middle Arm development, the Albanese government has made a commitment to invest in the Middle Arm Sustainable Development Precinct to support industries that are critical to meeting our commitment to net zero. We do understand that there are a range of views and perspectives on this project, but we are committed to working with the NT government and the community to ensure that the necessary assessments take place before the project proceeds. Those assessments are under way, and pretty much all of the commentary is pre-emptive of what those assessments are going to show us. Before the Commonwealth takes a final investment decision, we are going to look at all of those assessments. That includes Infrastructure Australia's assessment of the stage 3 business case. The NT government is working with Infrastructure Australia to progress the projects through the stages of that process, and, through that, we will find out more. We will see the details of what the reality is. What we have heard, for a couple years now, are an awful lot of assumptions. We've seen various changes in how this development is going to roll out, and yet what we've seen from the Greens is their cherry-picking of the bits that sound as explosive as they can. They have been cherry-picking those bits and overblowing what they see as negatives. The final decision that we make will consider the most appropriate funding structure to implement the government's commitment to shared infrastructure, to funding and to providing resources for the shared infrastructure. We've already seen Infrastructure Australia support and approve the stage 2 business case, and one of the comments they made, which I think is quite critical, is that the project will support the transition of Australia's exports to high-tech, low-cost, low-emissions energy sources. Let's just be really clear, because there's an awful lot of muck and bother being thrown out there: the project will be required to meet all regulatory approval processes, and that includes the EPBC processes. That includes the NT government's own processes, and any Commonwealth funding that's going to go towards infrastructure that supports industries critical to meeting our commitment to net zero needs to be clear. This development is also going to include hydrogen and the manufacture and export of lithium batteries. The proposals being progressed include a hydrogen facility using solar energy and facilities for green ammonia production, gas and critical minerals processing for use in energy storage batteries and precursor battery materials. Gas remains an important energy source for Australia, and we don't shy away from that. The NT government is also working alongside Larrakia Energy and Korea Midland Power Co, and they've also signed an MoU to achieve a rapid development of the green energy project, which is going to support a 300-megawatt solar farm in close proximity to the Middle Arm precinct. It is a mixed-use facility, and the whole idea of the government investment is the shared infrastructure to help us reach net zero. These projects are also going to provide significant economic benefits and an estimated 20,000 jobs in the Territory. This project is a valuable contribution— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 ( ): Thank you, Senator Grogan. Senator Cox. 16:44 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia I rise to also support this urgency motion moved by my colleague Senator McKim, and I wholeheartedly support the comments of our previous Greens speaker Senator Hanson-Young. Let's be really honest about what the Middle Arm precinct or hub is. It is a petrochemical and gas project. It always was—and always will be, if this government does not get serious and admit the truth. This project was hatched out of the 'gas-fired recovery' under the previous government in this place, the Morrison regime. It was hatched by, or was the brain-child of, Andrew Liveris, who worked with the Morrison government to create this petrochemical and gas hub, right there in the Middle Arm development in Darwin Harbour. As to what we know about this and what we found out through the course of this inquiry that has been run by my colleague Senator Hanson-Young, I, respectfully, want to say to those in the government: stop greenwashing this. Stop greenwashing the fact that there are petrochemicals and fossil fuels. The 'gas-fired recovery' has just been reheated as your new Future Gas Strategy. That's all it is. What you've done is to say to the Australian taxpayer: 'You're going to give $1.5 billion to make sure that industry is the tail that wags the dog of the government in this place.' And it continues to do that. The Minister for Resources continues to allow the fossil fuel industry in this country to dictate policy in this place. They continue that revolving door. We heard Senator Brockman come in here and talk about meeting with the Japanese government. They have a transition plan. They don't want any more gas from us. It might be under contract, but they don't want that oversupply of our gas. It's billions of dollars in their pocket, that they are making—to the detriment, mind you, of people like the Nurrdalinji Aboriginal Corporation in Beetaloo, who attended this inquiry and said: 'We don't want fracking on our country. We don't want our gas being piped into Larrakia country, into Middle Arm.' The ignorance of these people! They've ignored the traditional owners who fought Santos many times in the Federal Court over the Barossa project, and ignored the Nurrdalinji people of the Beetaloo Basin, who've said the same thing: 'Stop ruining our water in the Northern Territory by fracking gas'—for export, not for domestic use. It's for profit, for your donors—the people that are happy to be the tail that wags the dog in this place. And that's what Middle Arm actually does. We're not protecting sea country. We heard from many, many traditional owners: from the Larrakia people, during this inquiry into Middle Arm, who talked about the importance of protecting Aboriginal cultural heritage in the Middle Arm area. They talked about being locked out of that area under the Darwin LNG agreement. For many, many years, they haven't been able to return to that area. For $1.5 billion of taxpayer money, we can fix the hospitals, as Senator Hanson-Young said. We can make the area a tourist hub. The ecotourism operators in this area have written a petition, which we supported, because of the destructive effect that Middle Arm will have on their businesses. So for the Labor government to sit here and say, 'No, we don't agree,' is ridiculous. They don't care about the people in the Darwin Harbour precinct. They care more about Middle Arm—this petrochemical and gas hub—than they do about the local people. We've already heard about the impact on air quality. It is all there—all that information is laid bare in the report that is coming as part of this inquiry. Stop giving $1.5 billion to these people— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 Thank you, Senator Cox. Senator Faruqi. 16:49 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales In 2021, the International Energy Agency said no new fossil fuel projects and, if the world is to reach net zero by 2050, no new coal and gas. In 2023 they repeated this call, and what are Labor doing? They're doing the exact opposite. They're approving new coal and gas; fracking for gas in the Beetaloo basin, which will increase Australia's emissions by 11 per cent; and throwing $1.5 billion of public money, taxpayer money, to export this gas through the Middle Arm project. This Labor government was supposed to be different from the disastrous climate-denying coalition government. They spoke big about net zero, about a 2030 emission reduction target and about transitioning to clean renewables. But, as usual, it was all hot air. Labor is all talk and no action. But we can see through the noise. We can see through this greenwashing. We can see that you are not listening to climate scientists. We can see that you are not listening to First Nations people. We know that you didn't even consult First Nations elders who have warned about the risks of this climate bomb. The only people this Labor government listens to are big coal and gas corporations and their shady lobbyists. The Middle Arm project is the perfect example of how dirty politics operates under Labor. The reality is that both Labor and the coalition cannot be trusted when it comes to climate or to listening to First Nations people. Luckily, for the people in the Northern Territory, they will have the chance this weekend to send a strong message to the major parties, to the old parties, that they deserve far better than parties committed to wrecking the planet. The Northern Territory Greens are running a phenomenal campaign, with more candidates than ever and a membership base that has quadrupled in the last 18 months. Amazing women like Asta Hill, Suki Dorras-Walker and Kat McNamara are running to ban fracking in the NT; stop Middle Arm; urgently meet the needs of young people, rather than criminalising them; implement a rent freeze; and get dirty money out of politics. The Northern Territory Greens have a chance to make history on the weekend. I wish them the best of luck for this weekend, because the planet and its people depend on it. 16:52 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Labor's decision to pump $1½ billion of public money into a petrochemical hub at Darwin's Middle Arm is actually a middle finger to the people of this country. It's a middle finger to everyone who wants climate action. It's a middle finger to young Australians, who are going to inherit the worst impacts of the climate calamity that is currently being driven in this country by the Australian Labor Party. Middle Arm, the middle finger to Australians, shows where Labor's true priorities lie. They are doubling down on the fossil fuel corporations, doubling down on publicly subsidising the burning of fossil fuels and doubling down on taxpayer handouts to bolster the already obscene profits that fossil fuel corporations are making in Australia. The decision to publicly fund Middle Arm is reckless and morally indefensible. Labor is propping up a dying industry and sacrificing the future of all Australians for short-term profits and short-term political benefit. The duplicity of Labor MPs is nothing short of staggering. They post Canva graphics on social media. They cluck their tongues about how they hate their party's climate-destroying policies. They pose with koalas. They mouth platitudes about protecting the environment. They pretend to care about the climate calamity and they pretend to be taking climate action. But, when push comes to shove, they turn up in this place and they vote for the very policies they claim, on social media, that they oppose, and they smile while they're doing it. Those Labor MPs want us to believe they're different—that they're allies of the climate movements—but their actions tell the real story. By backing Middle Arm, they are complicit in cooking the planet. They are contemptuous and they should be held in contempt by every Australian. They are doing nothing other than serving their fossil fuel donors and betraying young people, who are going to bear the brunt of their sellout. 16:54 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria Let's be very clear. Middle Arm is a publicly funded climate disaster in the making and it must not proceed. In the middle of a climate crisis, Anthony Albanese wants to use a whopping $1.5 billion of taxpayer money to subsidise a gas export and petrochemical hub a mere three kilometres from the centre of Darwin. This Middle Arm precinct will generate 15 million tonnes of carbon emissions each year and will open up the Beetaloo Basin to fracking, contributing to a catastrophic 11 per cent increase to Australia's emissions. It is incomprehensible that, while communities are experiencing more extreme weather and mere weeks after the world experienced its hottest day on record, Labor would not only support new coal and gas but spend $1.5 billion of taxpayer money to fund it. There is enormous community opposition to the toxic gas and petrochemical hub that would be Middle Arm. The health impacts are clear. First Nations concerns, as my colleague Senator Cox outlined, are well established, and the lack of consultation with the Larrakia traditional owners has been woeful. Climate change is projected to disproportionately affect Northern Territory communities, and Darwin is expected to become a climate change sacrifice zone and uninhabitable in coming decades. Northern Territory residents are already at risk of extreme heat, rising sea levels and increasing natural disasters. The government must withdraw its $1.5 billion subsidy to support Darwin's Middle Arm precinct—because, frankly, Labor, you cannot have it both ways. You can't put in a bid to co-host a UN climate conference while spending billions in public money investing in dirty coal and gas expansion. Labor, you can't promote a future made in Australia while you're wrecking Australia, its climate, its biodiversity and the health of its communities. Territorians will go to the polls this weekend, and they have a chance to send a strong message to the government that they oppose the toxic and dangerous Middle Arm hub. Territorians who feel betrayed by the major parties and want to protect the health of their region can send a strong message by not voting for the major parties, who continue to degrade and pollute their local environment. Territorians have a choice to vote green for a clean energy future. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 281603 The question is that the urgency motion moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [17:01]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Marielle Smith)

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

Question negatived.

BUSINESS 70 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 70 17:04 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I seek leave to move a motion concerning the consideration of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024. Leave not granted. Senator WONG 00AOU Pursuant to contingent notice, I move: That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion concerning the consideration of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024. I move: That the question be now put. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the question be now put.

The Senate divided. [17:09]
(The President—Senator Lines)

31 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Wong, P. 11 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Babet, R. 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.

17:12 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the motion to suspend standing orders be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [17:12]
(The President—Senator Lines)

30 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Wong, P. 11 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Babet, R. 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.

17:14 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I move: That a motion concerning the consideration of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 may be moved immediately and determined without amendment or debate. And I move: That the question be now put. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the question be now put on the procedural motion moved by Minister Wong.

The Senate divided. [17:16]
(The President—Senator Lines)

Question agreed to.

17:19 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question now is that the procedural motion moved by Minister Wong be agreed to. The Senate divided. [17:19] (The President—Senator Lines)

The Senate divided. [17:19]
(The President—Senator Lines)

32 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lambie, J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. Wong, P. 11 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Babet, R. 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.

17:20 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I move: That: (a) the questions on all remaining stages of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 be put at 6.30 pm; (b) subject to paragraph (c), this order shall operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; (c) at the expiration of time, the question be put on all circulated amendments; (d) divisions may take place after 6.30 pm until consideration of the bill has concluded; and (e) divisions may take place after 6.30 pm until consideration of the bill has concluded; and following consideration of the bill being completed, the Senate return to its routine of business. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion as moved by Senator Wong be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [17:22]
(The President—the Hon. Sue Lines)

Question agreed to.

PETITIONS 74 PETITIONS Live Animal Exports 74 17:25 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland by leave—I table a non-conforming petition, signed by 638 Townsville residents, to end the live animal export trade. DOCUMENTS 74 DOCUMENTS Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 74 Order for the Production of Documents 74 17:26 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland In response to the order of the Senate of 14 August 2024, I table the government response to the interim report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on the shutdown of the 3G network. Consideration 74 COMMITTEES 74 COMMITTEES Economics References Committee 74 Reference 74 17:27 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I move: That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 18 November 2024: The involvement of the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU) in the governance and management of industry superannuation funds, with particular reference to: (a) the implications of CFMEU members holding board positions on these superannuation funds, and the potential conflicts of interest that may arise; (b) the adequacy of the independent expert review mandated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) in relation to trustees' compliance with their duty to act in the best financial interests of beneficiaries of the funds; (c) the broader impact of public allegations of misconduct within the CFMEU on the governance and trust management practices of industry superannuation funds; (d) the measures necessary to ensure transparency, independence and accountability in the governance of industry superannuation funds, particularly those with significant union involvement; (e) the role of APRA and other regulatory bodies in overseeing and enforcing compliance with prudential standards in industry superannuation funds; and (f) any related matters. I spoke about these matters last week, but they bear repeating. It's about the CFMEU and industry superannuation funds. It's about them getting in bed with bikies and organised crime, criminal assaults on non-union workers who are just trying to make a living, them stalking and illegally intimidating people at their own homes, organised wage theft on an unprecedented scale in the coalmining industry, economic productivity in decline and major taxpayer funded construction projects worth billions of dollars at a standstill. All of this lies directly at the feet of the thugs in charge of the CFMEU and their puppets in Labor and the Greens. I want to read part of an article from Robert Gottliebsen. He states: It's been alleged for decades that the CFMEU, or at least groups closely linked to the union, have been involved in organised crime. Some of the legal and allegedly illegal money generated has swirled around in a massive pool that, from time to time, was allegedly used to fund both the ALP and the Greens. … Increasingly, ALP people around the country have looked at the relationship between the CFMEU and the Victorian ALP which led to the "train to nowhere" project and worried that one day both the national government and other states might be ensnared in the same way. Late last year, a warning bell rang. The CFMEU national construction division secretary Zach Smith stated that he would push to overhaul economic policy. "I want to pull the Labor Party to the left on economics … I don't think economics works for working people. I think we need to have a massive rethink," he said. Then a few months later, the then boss of the union John Setka declared he was planning to use the union's delegates and members to sign up 1000 rank-and-file members to the Labor Party. Such a large membership drive could give the CFMEU significant control over Labor preselection and party conferences, which elect the party executive and vote on policy. It was time for the alleged CFMEU organised crime links to be revealed. He goes on to say: The ALP desperately wants legislation before the federal parliament to pass quickly, before the CFMEU money is diverted to obscure places enabling it to be again mobilised to exercise political power, Victorian style. The original bill did not ban the administrator from making political donations—an important measure for the ALP, because any such donations would presumably go to the ALP (and maybe the Greens) and be an important source of funding in the next election. The Coalition stood firm and donations were banned. A big win. One Nation supports that as well. The conduct allegations made against the CFMEU have prompted the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority to act. APRA has ordered two construction industry super funds, Cbus and the Queensland based BUSSQ, to have an independent review of their ties with the CFMEU. So they should. To have CFMEU members as directors of funds controlling almost $100 billion of Australian superannuation savings is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. However, we've seen reviews like this before, and little to nothing has been done to implement the recommendations. The Cooper review of Australia's superannuation system in 2009 recommended that the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 be amended to ensure no less than one-third of employee representatives and trustee directors were non-associated. The Murray review of the financial system in 2014 recommended that a majority of independent directors and an independent chair be mandated for boards of corporate trustees of public offer superannuation funds. In that same year, an internal review of Cbus recommended the appointment of independent directors to its board. It wasn't implemented. It's therefore understandable that yet another review ordered by APRA is unlikely to generate much confidence that these superannuation funds will rid themselves of the CFMEU's corrupt and malign influence. So I am moving a motion for a Senate inquiry into the involvement of the CFMEU in the governance and management of super industry funds. This inquiry will have the following terms of reference. First, 'the implications of CFMEU members holding board positions on these superannuation funds and the potential conflicts of interest that may arise.' I say that because I have directors fees at the year ended 30 June 2023 here. The fees of A. Devasia of $50,368 were paid to AMWU. There's one here, A. Donnellan, which was $19,058, which was again paid to AMWU. Then there's R. Mallia, which was $109,648 plus super, which came to $121,224, to the CFMEU. Then we have J. O'Mara, $114,000 plus super, $818, to the CFMEU. You've got Setches, where another $89,037 went to CEPU. Wayne Swan, former Treasurer under the Labor government, received $199,000 plus $20,980, but that was as a director. He has been closely associated as a Treasurer with the Labor Party. M. Zelinsky had $45,901 paid to the AWU. All these payees are to unions. Where is the distancing? The other terms of reference for the inquiry are: the adequacy of the independent expert review mandated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) … the broader impact of public allegations of misconduct within the CFMEU on the governance and trust management practices of industry superannuation funds; the measures necessary to ensure transparency, independence and accountability in the governance of industry superannuation funds, particularly those with significant union involvement; the role of APRA and other regulatory bodies in overseeing and enforcing compliance with prudential standards in industry superannuation funds; and any related matters. 'Accountability' is the watchword here. Like their puppets in Labor and the Greens, the CFMEU doesn't believe it should be accountable to anyone—to the law, the parliament, the Australian people or even its own members. Again, I must commend my One Nation colleague, Senator Roberts, for his diligence in uncovering wage theft, which has been called the largest case of wage theft in Australian history, by the CFMEU. Only after Senator Roberts exposed the unfair pay between work-hire workers and others did Labor do anything. I refer to the thugs controlling this union and their dirty deal with the mining company to rob hundreds of Queensland and Hunter Valley coalminers of their entitlements. If these thugs will steal entitlements from the members they're supposed to be helping, why on earth should they have any influence over the retirement savings of these same workers? They must be held accountable. One Nation supports the re-establishment of the Australian Building and Construction Commission and the Registered Organisations Commission, to support more accountability. Another effective curb on the CFMEU's unwarranted and unearned power would be to ban donations to political parties from this union or any associated entities. With that, I now must take you to another article, and it's by Hannah Wootton. It was written on 27 December 2023. It talks about donations to political parties and associated entities. She said: The spending was revealed for the first time in late 2023, as funds were forced to publish itemised disclosures of funds' advertising, pay and political donation spending under tough new transparency laws. Leaders of several funds faced questions from customers at their annual meetings about how their hefty spending on advertising and sponsorship meets their duty to always act in customers' best financial interests. Executives said marketing helped growth that would improve funds' scale and therefore drive down fees. The prudential regulator and the Coalition— and One Nation, in this as well— are pressing for greater transparency about funds' spending and how it aligns with that legal obligation. Construction industry fund Cbus paid unions the most of the eight super providers, with the bulk of its $2.6 million bill for sponsorships and directors fees going to the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union. Perhaps we should ban these union thugs from any sort of involvement in elections. That would be a good start, wouldn't it! They certainly don't support democracy or the rule of law, so why should they even be accommodated? Yet, the industry super funds not only seem to accommodate them; they seem to protect them, and that is a serious issue. It's an issue that deserves a Senate inquiry, not another useless internal review ordered by APRA. It's my expectation that the inquiry will uncover a lot of activity that demonstrates why the CFMEU doesn't belong in charge of almost $100 billion of Australians' retirement savings. Only last week, my office received correspondence from a non-union worker on Queensland's troubled Cross River Rail project saying: 'I'm a worker employed by the Cross River Rail project in Brisbane. I saw Senator Hanson's comments about this in the Senate today and would like to reach out. We have been picketed by CFMEU members for over a month now. Myself and my fellow employees who aren't members of the CFMEU have not crossed the picket lines to go to work, from fears of intimidation. A worker who crossed was attacked at his home only a few weeks ago. Our employer have taken us to the Fair Work Commission and won a ruling, legally forcing us back to work under threats of fines. However, they released all of our names and addresses on the court documents. This has put myself and hundreds of other workers in an impossible situation. I can speak for myself here, but I'm sure I am not alone. This is getting little media attention. No comments from my employer are being made on how they intend to rectify this. It is disgraceful what has happened—that their names and addresses have been released—and they are very worried about their safety now.' That's what this inquiry is about—accountability. It's a dirty word for this Labor government, the most unaccountable in Australian history, with its litany of broken promises, NDAs and a Prime Minister who rivals Pontius Pilate for hand-washing. But accountability is a requirement of Australian democracy, and it's past time that the Prime Minister and his government and the Greens, with their unholy associations with the CFMEU, were held to account. We can start by examining the CFMEU's unwarranted and alarming presence on super industry boards. If developers can't fund political parties or candidates, then why can unions? I question the Labor Party's direct connection to unions—the funding that transfers from unions into the coffers and election campaigns of Labor candidates. If money or services have changed hands, you can be sure deals have been done. Labor refuses to distance itself from union finances. How can the Labor government not pass legislation that has been bought and paid for by unions? It's jobs for the boys. Minister Watt won't act in the best interest of Australians, but only to make sure that their union cash cow keeps giving. In that spirit, I commend this motion to the Senate. 17:42 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I indicate that we will be supporting this reference to the economics committee. We are supporting this motion because we are very concerned that there is a longstanding nexus between the superannuation funds, the unions and a major political party in this country, which is not in the interests of Australian workers. The big question is: why has the government been so quiet—almost silent—on these questions since the CFMEU scandal broke only a few weeks ago? Of course, the whole idea that the CFMEU scandal was news to Labor is actually hilarious. These are the same people who campaigned for this Labor government, who, the government members knew, were involved in corrupt activities and systemic wrongdoing. The silence on the superannuation issues is very troubling, because the government comes into this chamber and says that they are standing for strong action in relation to the CFMEU and are in fact supporting putting that organisation into administration. But what about the people that have their money invested in the Cbus fund, where they have three CFMEU trustees sitting on the board and apparently holding themselves out to be great fiduciaries? That is extraordinary hypocrisy—that you can be concerned, on one hand, about the administration of the union, but have no interest in the activities of these people who are sitting on the boards of compulsory savings schemes as enacted by this parliament back in the early nineties. So it is ridiculous that the Minister for Financial Services and the Treasurer, Mr Chalmers, have had nothing to say about these issues in this past month. The reason that they are silent is that they are beyond conflicted, because there are two key design features in the superannuation model which support the political apparatus of the labour movement: firstly, the directors on the boards; secondly, the rivers of gold which flow from the super funds into the union movement and the labour movement more broadly. It is very troubling, and it has always troubled me, that sometimes it's unclear whether a Labor senator is supporting the agenda of a trade union or is there to represent their state? The same can be said for the superannuation movement. I believe these conflicts are going to rot the core of the labour movement, which once stood for workers. It is now clear that there are huge organised elements of the labour movement which now stand for institutional power inside unions and the great wall of money that is superannuation. The first design feature is the directors of the board. In this case, I think the Australian people will be shocked that their government is prepared to put the CFMEU into administration but couldn't give a rat's about the three board members on the CBUS fund who are CFMEU officials and do not have anything to say about this—nothing, crickets. This has been left to the prudential regulator, APRA, which released a statement last week saying it is seeking a report and a review into these boards. I assume one of the questions that the APRA board will be asking is: how can it be that CFMEU officials can conduct themselves as directors on the boards of these super funds while the organisation is in administration, or soon to be in administration, and is subject to multiple law enforcement activities, including engagement in mass corruption, which is inflating the cost of construction in this country by up to 30 per cent? When young Australians say, 'I can't afford to buy a house,' one of the reasons for that is because when people go and build an apartment block in Sydney or Melbourne or Brisbane or elsewhere, they're paying a 30 per cent premium to these criminals who are inflating the costs so they can make off with people's money. So the director's issue is very serious. There are CFMEU directors, in some cases, who have been on the CBUS fund's board for more than 10 years: Dave Noonan, 16 years—extraordinary; Rita Mallia, 13 years. APRA's own guidelines say no more than 10 years is appropriate on a board, so I don't see how it can be the case that APRA can allow anyone, let alone anyone with the status of a CFMEU official, to be on the board for 10, 15, or 16 years in this case. Of course, the chair of this fund is Mr Wayne Swan. He's also the President of the Labor Party. And, again, I wonder whether or not these howling conflicts of interest are ever going to be matters of interest for the minister? Because the Minister for Financial Services and Superannuation, Mr Jones, who would have to be one of the worst ministers in the government—and that is really saying something—has said nothing about these issues, so it's been left to the prudential regulator. One of the reasons we're supporting this motion is because we think there should be the most pressure on the prudential regulator to enforce its own guidelines. How can it be the case that the prudential regulator can say, 'Our guideline is 10 years on the board,' and sit there while people sit on the board for 16 years? I think it's just extraordinary, so we look forward to there being more pressure on the enforcement of these guidelines. But this is not a new issue. There have a been multiple reviews going back more than 14 years now into the question of the governance of the super fund boards and whether or not the idea of having all these people who work at the union on the board is an appropriate model. I would say, just as the employer groups make up half the board in these funds, they are part of the problem. They are part of the IR club who work together to rort workers. The employer groups and the unions, they love superannuation because they get lots of money from it. The rivers of gold, I'm about to canvas, is the reason that the employer groups and the unions want to keep their people on these boards. The reason that they maintain the status quo or want to maintain the status quo is because that is how the money goes from the super fund into the union or the employer group. They are paid in directors' fees. Often these are inflated fees, and these fees go through to the employer group or to the union. They are paid in directors' fees—often these are inflated fees—and these fees go through to the employer group or to the union. Of course, the other way that the money flows is through inflated, bogus and rubbish commercial agreements. In fact, in the case of the Cbus fund and the First Super fund, they have massive sponsorship and advertising agreements with the CFMEU, whereby the super fund pays enormous funds, $700,000 contracts, to sponsor the CFMEU. The amount of money going from the funds into the unions reached, in the last year, $40 million. So $40 million of Australian super fund members' money is being siphoned off to the unions and all their associated lobby groups. Why is this happening? Because the law in relation to best financial interest duty, which was passed in the last parliament, has not been enforced as strongly as it could have been. I welcome that APRA has finally had something to say on this matter, in its statement on Cbus. But it shouldn't have taken for the crisis that we've seen in relation to the CFMEU for this to happen. I believe that over the last two years, as we have canvassed these issues endlessly at Senate estimates, APRA could have acted early to put a stop to these huge amounts of retirement savings being siphoned off to the unions. In the case of the Cbus fund, they have given over a million bucks in the last year to the CFMEU, and the First Super fund has given more to the CFMEU, even though it's a tiny fraction of the size of Cbus. It is true that this is the first time APRA has flagged it would invoke the best financial interest duty, but I don't think it would be wise for this parliament to vote against this motion, because this motion will ensure that there will be a separate inquiry by this parliament to look at the issues that are being canvassed, including why on earth they allowing people to be on the board for 13 years and how, in fact, they propose to enforce this best financial interest duty. I do not see how it can be in the interests of the workers for the Cbus fund or the First Super fund to be making $700,000 or $800,000 sponsorship payments to the CFMEU, particularly now that it's going to be in administration. We have to get to the bottom of this system. If I were running the Labor Party and one of my favourite achievements were superannuation, I would be taking these issues very seriously. These issues of probity, if not managed correctly, will undermine confidence in the scheme. It is a very paternalistic scheme. When Paul Keating was quizzed on it in the early nineties, he said he would be open minded to looking at the question of letting people use their own money in super for a house. These days the modern Labor Party will do anything to keep the money hermetically sealed inside super, presumably so it can be plundered by their mates at the unions. That may be a cynical view, but I think super is now at risk of unravelling, because, if people feel that CFMEU trustees like Dave Noonan and Rita Mallia are allowed to go and sit on the Cbus board for 15 or 20 years or whatever and send as much money as they want down the road to the CFMEU, then I believe that will erode confidence in this scheme, as it rightly should. What it will also potentially do is show that the parliament, if it votes against the motion, doesn't give a rat's about these people, doesn't care and is going to do the same thing that the executive government is doing, which is to say nothing. The executive government want to hide behind APRA. APRA are doing the right thing by flagging that they're going to do something, after waiting for years to do anything in relation to best financial interest. But it's not good enough, because the Australian people know that the Cbus fund is linked to the CFMEU, and, as we have read about in the Nine newspapers, there appear to be all sorts of agreements underneath the table, where the CFMEU will do a special deal for property which has been developed by Cbus. You pay 30 per cent tax if you're developing an apartment building and if you're a regular property developer, but you get exempted from that tax if you're the Cbus fund and you are developing property on behalf of Cbus and the CFMEU. So this is a very important motion, which we'll be supporting. For a long time our view has been that the model of equal representation where unions and employer groups come together to steal money from workers and sit on the board for decades like it's a holiday has had its day. This law, the equal representation law, should have been removed a long time ago. There should, at least, be a handful of independent trustees on these boards. Ultimately, the conflict of interest here, where you have Mr Wayne Swan and all his mates from the CFMEU and the employer groups sitting around the board table and working out how they can steal money from workers, is a very crooked scheme. There should be independent directors on these boards. That should be happening at a minimum. The second thing that should happen is there should be no more of these payments from the super funds to the unions for any reason. This money is supposed to be held in trust for workers' retirements; it is not there for political purposes. It is not there for the unions to use in their campaigns to help re-elect a Labor government. This is the money that belongs to the workers. It should be there for their retirement, and Labor should reflect carefully. This could be an opportunity to get some incremental reform which allows them to maintain their favourite issue, which is that they created this compulsory super scheme. They could use this as an opportunity to maintain the integrity and probity of the scheme, which I would say is now at the greatest risk since it was created 30 years ago. So we'll be supporting this motion because we believe that probity and good governance is very important in relation to a scheme which is compulsory, in that you can't get out of it. 17:57 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria On behalf of the government I just want to say a couple of words. The government will not be supporting this motion. The government is strengthening the superannuation system so that more Australians can retire with more money in their pockets and with dignity. Since coming into office, the government has also implemented a strong record on expanding transparency within the superannuation sector. We've expanded the superannuation performance test and required superannuation funds to lodge reports with ASIC in line with reporting standards for public companies, and we are working with APRA to publish a transparency report of fund expenditure data. It is of critical importance that superannuation funds make decisions that are in the best interests of their members, and that is what the law requires of them. The law also requires all trustees to operate to the highest standards of governance and performance. Trustees are required to ensure that directors and senior managers meet fit and proper requirements prior to appointment and on an ongoing basis. It is appropriate that the independent regulator, APRA, has required Cbus to conduct an independent review into recent issues. APRA has not alleged any wrongdoing that has impacted superannuation members. This process should be followed without any political interference. The government is also taking action to address allegations of misconduct, corruption and criminality within the construction division of the CFMEU. We'll no doubt deal with this later today through government legislation which will enable the minister to determine whether it is in the public interest to appoint an independent external administrator to the CFMEU construction division. The independent administrator would have the power to investigate allegations of misconduct by officials of the construction division. The government has also referred allegations to the Australian Federal Police and the Fair Work Ombudsman. Working in construction is hard and dangerous, and union members and workers in the industry need a strong, effective union. They need one that is clean and free from constant allegations of organised crime, bikies and violence. 17:59 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The CFMEU stole more than a billion dollars from members it was supposedly protecting in Australia's largest ever case of wage theft. The key to this theft was CFMEU union bosses appointed as directors to oversight agencies supposedly protecting workers. They colluded and enabled that theft from their own members. This is verified. The figures are verified in an independent report that I commissioned called Coalminers' Wage Theft, printed earlier in the year. We have seen an analysis of five enterprise agreements in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley with the wage theft varying from $41,000 per person, per year to $21,000 per person, per year. The Independent Workers Union of Australia, now getting members in the mining sector in the Hunter Valley and Central Queensland, has just lodged a number of complaints with the Fair Work Ombudsman. One of the complaints is for $211,000 in money owed due to wage theft for one person. The CFMEU drove that theft of wages, so what we can see is the former protector of miners has been their exploiter, with collusion of the regulator, the Fair Work Commission. It's been verified independently because the Mining and Energy Union, which split off from the CFMEU—it couldn't handle the CFMEU—and which looks after miners recently applied to the Fair Work Commission to negotiate a new enterprise agreement. The uptick in wages has been around $50,000. It's been verified they've been underpaid. What has not happened is that same union, the Mining and Energy Union, which used to be part of the CFMEU, will not go back and seek back pay, because they know that will expose them. There is no back pay. They will let these miners lose $211,000. They will let these miners lose $41,000 per person, per year. So now we have the Independent Workers' Union of Australia making inroads in the mining industry in the coalmines of Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley. Their union dues are less than half of the Mining and Energy Union. Why? That's because they don't pay millions of dollars in donations to the Labor Party. It is the same with the Queensland Teachers' Union. The new Red Union's dues are less than half of the Queensland Teachers Union. It is the same with the nursing union, where the dues of the new Red Union and the Nurses' Professional Association of Queensland are less than half of the Queensland Nursing Union. What we need to do in the union side of things is end monopoly unions and make sure unions have competition. That will fix it. Members can scrutinise when there is competition. Let's move to what I said earlier in my opening statement. The directors in the coalmining agencies that oversaw this theft from coalminers, the directors of Coal Mines Insurance, ignored the plight of miners. We even know of miners who failed to get their Coal Mines Insurance that they were entitled to, scrimping and saving and sleeping on their parents' garage floor in the Hunter Valley. That's what the CFMEU directors have done. They turned a blind eye to their duty to look after miners. Coal Mines Insurance is a statutory agency with the CFMEU providing half the directors. AUSCOAL Superannuation, another one supposed to look after super, has provided admin services to coal long service leave, another government entity. So AUSCOAL Superannuation, which has directors from the CFMEU, provided the administrative services for coal long service leave and that enabled the hiding of the wage theft, because the CFMEU directors were 50 per cent of Coal Mines Insurance, AUSCOAL Superannuation and Coal Services, which looks after basic things like health checks, medical checks. AUSCOAL, by the way, has been renamed Mine Wealth + Wellbeing—that's a cute little phrase!—and now Mine Super. These directors have prevented many of the benefits that they should have been overseeing going to miners. They stole the rights and entitlements of their own members. By the way, the Labor Party under Julia Gillard changed the coal long service leave legislation in 2011 to enable the use of casuals, because casuals are not allowed in the black coalmining industry award. They wouldn't have been able to get their super. So the Labor Party, to enable this scam, changed the coal long service leave legislation in 2011. The next thing: we can't rely upon the normal back stop, which is the Labor ministers, departments and agencies. I've just explained how the agencies are colluding, the departments are colluding and the Labor ministers are colluding. This wage theft would not have occurred without the deliberate collusion of Labor Party MPs in the Hunter electorate, who just hid this atrocious theft. The Senate ordered an investigation a couple of months ago into this. Two ministers since then, Minister Burke and Minister Watt—they've done nothing. They had not even reported back to the Senate—they've done nothing. That's the Labor Party. So much for looking after the workers! I wonder if it's because the Labor Party relies on millions of dollars of donations from the CFMEU? Would that be the answer? Would it? Senator Hanson BK6 Yes. Senator ROBERTS 266524 The Labor Party is wedded to donations from the CFMEU, the crooked CFMEU. Minister Watt, in section 323B(2) of his legislation, to which we have an amendment, wants an absence of a disallowable regulation. He wants no disallowance, so that he can control the whole show. Then we see the Labor Party also being tainted by John Setka. In a report in the Australian Financial Review, on 12 April this year, David Marin-Guzman, a journalist with the Australian Financial Review, said that 'the core issue here is that John Setka stood up and said he will take over the Labor Party and move members of the CFMEU into branches and then preselect various candidates, and also the Premier'. That's what we see going on here—the Labor Party in a massive cover-up and massive wrestle with the CFMEU. By the way—I think Senator Hanson mentioned it—the size of the funds in question is just short, $1 billion short, of $100 billion in funds. That is twice the Australian defence budget. That's more money than Belgium makes in a year. And we want to take it away from parliamentary scrutiny? Like hell. That's why we need this reference to the committee. Then we see more tainting, with the CFMEU being connected with bikie gangs, criminal bikie gangs. Then we see Senator Hanson's terms of reference. I must commend Senator Hanson for introducing this motion. The first term of reference that I want to highlight—I'll read it for the reference committee: … the broader impact of public allegations of misconduct within the CFMEU on the governance and trust management practices of industry superannuation funds … That's basic. These people have shown that they don't care about their members—their members' lives, their members' health, their members' workers compensation, their workers' livelihoods, their workers' wages or their workers' retirement. They don't care. They bypassed the retirement provisions. The next one I want to read out is term of reference (a): … the implications of CFMEU members holding board positions on these superannuation funds, and the potential conflicts of interest that may arise … The potential conflicts of interest are enormous. We can't rely on the Labor Party to clean it up, nor on departments and agencies from the Labor government. We see them tightly knit together. The second of Senator Hanson's six terms of reference is: the adequacy of the independent expert review mandated by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) in relation to trustees' compliance with their duty to act in the best financial interests of beneficiaries of the funds; This is absolutely essential. The CFMEU union bosses who are directors of agencies—statutory bodies charged with the responsibility to protect members—are stealing from the members or enabling their agencies to steal from members. This lot are above the law. Senator Hanson read out the note from the person from Cross River Rail who is not a member of the CFMEU. They are 'intimidated', 'frightened' and 'scared to work'—in our country, they are scared to work. We have now a proven record of the CFMEU stealing from members and workers. Wouldn't it be going on in the $100 billion of super funds they manage? I support the referral of this matter to committee, to protect members so that they can retire with security and dignity. 18:10 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia I, too, rise to speak on this very important issue. Sadly, it's a motion that should not be needed. I don't even think we need to call them 'potential' conflicts of interest, Senator Roberts; these are conflicts of interest. Whether you want to call them out or whether you want to run a protection racket for these conflicts of interest is a separate question, but these are clearly conflicts of interest. It is something, as Senator Bragg pointed out, that has been inquired into before. There is no doubt that the cosy relationship between the unions, industry super funds and some business groups is not a positive thing for Australian workers, for their retirement savings or for the economy in general. They lead to a situation where potential conflicts of interest become real conflicts of interest. As Senator Bragg pointed out, the Chair of Cbus—someone who is very well known in the Australian political environment: former Treasurer Wayne Swan—is actively campaigning for this Labor government's particular approach to the housing issue. Three members of the board were appointed by the CFMEU. You really couldn't make up the conflict of interest. If you submitted this as a plot to Hollywood, they'd laugh in your face. It's a ludicrous situation that we currently have, where these billions of dollars of savings are controlled by these small cabals, dominated by union representatives. Superannuation savings are now bigger than the entire Australian stock market—they are bigger than the entire market capitalisation of the Australian stock market. In fact, it depends on the year because it does bounce around a bit, but in 2023 superannuation controlled something like 36 per cent of shares on the ASX. Over a third of all shares traded on the ASX are controlled through superannuation. And, through their representatives, the union movement plays an outsized role compared to any fair judgement of what its level of influence should be in that sector. Unions represent less than 10 per cent of private sector workers, all of whom are contributing to superannuation. Ten in 10 contribute to superannuation; less than one in ten is a member of a union—and yet they get these privileged positions with very large remuneration attached and, behind the scenes, the ability to influence, to direct funds, to direct investments and to direct support service contracts. There are the infamous training levies that we've all heard so much about. All these things are controlled by a tiny cabal of individuals. Now it's revealed—surprise, surprise—that the CFMEU has been involved in corrupt and thuggish behaviour. But this isn't 'surprise, surprise'. There is literally no surprise. The trail of case law, of matters before the court, of CFMEU officials being prosecuted and the fines levied against the CFMEU for decades means that there is no 'surprise, surprise' here. Governments have tried to do something about this before. Senator Hanson, I think, glancing around, that you're probably the only one in this chamber that would remember this along with me. I wasn't in the chamber at the time; I worked for Senator Cormann. Early in the Abbott government, there was an attempt to legislate independent directors of superannuation funds. That had been agreed with the crossbench at the time, but guess what? The unions, particularly, as I remember it, the CFMEU, did their work in this place and they got to the crossbenches—not you, Senator Hanson, I make sure to add. They got to other members of the crossbench, and the deal that had been done disappeared under the intimidation of the union movement, acting through various bodies, but I'm pretty sure the CFMEU was part of that push at the time. I was working in the building at the time and I remember it very clearly. They have a track record here. There's nothing that the union movement won't do to protect its cushy little relationship with the industry super funds. Yes, the CFMEU has been revealed to be perhaps more thuggish, more brutal and more unreasonable in the way it behaves, but, quite frankly, this is a set of relationships right across the union movement that bears much, much more scrutiny. In fact, in a modern world, where superannuation is bigger than the entire stock market, the justifications for any of these cosy relationships to appoint board members disappeared long ago. They are a relic of a past industrial relations system that was centrally controlled. Sadly, they've managed to survive to this point, where we have a new Labor government trying to recentralise the industrial relations system and defend the indefensible in terms of these very cosy structures that Australians have to live under. Australians are forced, by law, to contribute to superannuation. Many young Australians, in their first job, are put into a super fund controlled by the union movement. Australians, being who we are, don't think about our retirement when we're young, so we stay in that super fund. So you've got millions of Australians in these super funds controlled by unions like the CFMEU that has three board members on the Cbus board. Wayne Swan, the National President of the Australian Labor Party, the former Labor Treasurer of Australia, is the chairman. These cosy relationships just should not be tolerated in this day and age. Yet, here we have, again, merely an inquiry into this clear problem area of the CFMEU and its level of influence not just over public policy and not just over the Labor Party—we've already heard of the 6.2 million reasons why they have so much influence over the Labor Party—but over the retirement savings of hardworking Australians. Why? Why do we have a system that gifts the CFMEU—I understand the Labor Party is about to pass legislation putting them into administration, but why does that union have the right to place three board members on an industry super fund? It's absolutely ludicrous given everything that we have heard. It's ludicrous anyway without everything we've heard about the CFMEU and people. It's not just this gentleman. I shouldn't call him a gentleman. It's not just John Setka; it's a raft of CFMEU officials going back decades whose behaviour has been not only tolerated but actively encouraged by the Labor Party through legislated rewards, such as guaranteed board positions on industry super funds. The benefit that they're handing to corrupt, thuggish union officials is extraordinary. Never forget what John Setka did after he was forced out of the CFMEU. What did he do? He got a tattoo, a permanent mark around his neck saying, 'God forgives. The CFMEU doesn't.' It's a direct threat. This is the person who was able to influence the appointment of board members on industry super funds managing the life savings of Australians. If it wasn't such a ridiculous scenario, you'd find it extraordinarily hard to believe that something like this could have been allowed to happen in the modern Australian society. Yet there we have it. We have it because of those opposite, the Labor government, enshrining in legislation a set of principles that reward bad behaviour, thuggishness and the institutional strengths of unions, even though they don't represent the workers. They don't. Fewer than one in ten private sector workers in this country have decided to be members of a union, yet they are given all this control. The crossbench has never been brave enough in unison to vote against that power, control, thuggishness, brutality and corruption. We need that to change. We need the superannuation industry to change. We need to see those independent directors on every single board. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that business of the Senate No. 2, as moved by Senator Hanson, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [18:28]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question negatived.

BILLS 82 BILLS Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 82

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

The Senate divided. [18:35]
(The President—Senator Lines)

39 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Darmanin, L. Duniam, J. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, D. W. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 10 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

The Senate divided. [18:43]
(The President—Senator Lines)

46 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Pocock, D. W. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 10 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

The Senate divided. [18:49]
(The President—Senator Lines)

45 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, D. W. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 10 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

The Senate divided. [18:53]
(The President—Senator Lines)

10 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 46 NOES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Pocock, D. W. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

Third Reading 95 18:58 The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the remaining stages of the bill be agreed to and the bill be now passed.

The Senate divided. [18:58]
(The President—Senator Lines)

47 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Cash, M. C. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. (Teller) Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Pocock, D. W. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 10 NOES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.
Bill read a third time.

Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024 96

Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024

Second Reading 96 19:01 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise to speak on the Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024. At the outset, I will say that the coalition support the intention behind this bill, but, as we've looked through the bill, through the committee process and otherwise, it has become clear that there is no clear rationale for why the bill actually needs to pass. The bill repeals existing offence laws that make it an offence to transmit private sexual material with intent to menace, harass or cause offence. In their place, it establishes new offences for transmitting sexual material without consent. This includes material created or altered using technology. This is a one-for-one replacement. The existing laws were introduced by the coalition in 2018 with strong support from Labor. They already deal with both revenge porn and fake sexual material, now known as deepfake material. Labor now wants to repeal and replace the existing offences that deal with deepfakes and revenge porn. In going through the process, though, Labor has given no persuasive rationale for why we should now repeal laws that it previously supported. The only explanation for the change is a reference to an unexplained legal conclusion that has been put forward by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. The issue relates to the legal definition of the term 'private sexual material'. The term refers to persons engaging in or appearing to engage in sexual activity 'in circumstances that reasonable persons would regard as giving rise to an expectation of privacy'. In parliamentary submissions—and this is very important—the CDPP have expressed concern about how that definition deals with fake images. They said: The issue that arises here is that, with certain deepfakes, it cannot be said that any expectation of privacy attaches to the depiction of a victim. For example, if an accused were to transpose an image of a victim's face onto a publicly available pornographic video, this would generally speaking, not be 'private sexual material'. This is because the creator of the deepfake uses, as source material, a depiction of a part of the victim (for example, their face) with respect to which it cannot be said there would be an expectation of privacy. The government has adopted that view but the reasoning has never been explained. Why can it not be said an expectation of privacy arises with respect to the image of one's face being attached to pornographic video? In many cases, perhaps the vast majority of cases, people would feel the dissemination of a picture that shows their face attached to a pornographic image is a huge intrusion on privacy. Why would courts not arrive at that commonsense outcome? So far as we can tell, the issue has not been tested in court. The government have cited a case authority for their conclusion. It appears to be a triumph of technical reasoning over common sense. What is worse, this conclusion appears to be directly contradicted by the explanatory materials about the existing law. The explanatory materials for the existing law make clear the term 'private sexual material' is intended to cover fake material. This is what it says: The definition for private sexual material captures material that appears to depict a person engaged in sexual activity or a sexual pose. The use of the phrase 'appears to depict' is intended to capture material that has been altered or doctored to falsely portray a person in sexual activity or a sexual pose. For example, an image of a person's face taken from an innocuous image may be transposed onto an image of another person's body in a sexual pose. In other words, the very example that the CDPP uses to show why there might be a gap the in the law is the same example used in 2018 to explain what the laws do cover. This direct contradiction has never been resolved, and that is a problem because, quite frankly, on a side-by-side comparison—that's something we've done—if you look at the existing law and this particular bill, there are significant drawbacks to the model we're now considering. I will just take you through those drawbacks. It is worth reiterating the coalition fully supports the policy intent of this bill. Our object is to improve the legislation so we get the best outcome for Australians and we will move amendments in that regard. There are at least five downsides, though, to the replacement of this law. First, the new offence is inconsistent with other laws. Right now, when we use the term 'private sexual material', it has the exact same meaning in both the Criminal Code and the Online Safety Act. The bill removes that consistency, so the civil regime now deals with a different thing to the criminal regime. This means there is now an obvious risk of gaps between our civil and criminal laws when it comes to revenge porn deepfakes and other forms of image based abuse. Secondly, the new offence is drafted in an exceptionally broad way that risks capturing innocuous behaviour and then reverses the onus of proof, which is of serious concern. We're unable to say with clarity precisely what types of behaviour are criminal offences under the bill because there is no reference to objective standard. This problem is created because the new offence will no longer be based on using a carriage service to menace, harass or offend. By losing that objective reference point, we risk criminalising things like material distributed for educational purposes, material that was consensually distributed in the past, as well as restricted political and satirical speech. There is a clear risk they will be captured by this new law. Thirdly, even though the government has framed its new offences around the concept of consent—this is something we do need to explore in the committee stage—it is repealing the definition of 'consent'. At present there is a definition of 'consent' in the Criminal Code, which is used in relation to the sharing of private sexual material. The law currently says consent means free and voluntary agreement. But, in redesigning the existing criminal offence, this bill adopts a bizarre and contradictory approach. Even though consent will be the central element of the new criminal offence, the bill repeals the definition that explains what consent means. The explanatory memorandum says consent takes its ordinary meaning. But there is only one sentence explaining what the ordinary meaning is, and that explanation is limited to a single specific circumstance. Courts will now need to decide what consent means, so the courts and not the parliament will decide the scope of the conduct that is now criminal. This introduces uncertainty into the law, which is not where we want to be. As it stands, it would appear that, based on the drafting, we can't clearly outline the circumstances in which this new offence will apply. The fourth issue that we need to explore in committee is that the government, for some unexplained reason, has changed the definition of 'recklessness' for this offence. Recklessness is one of the fault elements of the offence. One of the core ways that this new offence will be proven in court is by showing that an accused was reckless about whether a victim consented to sharing an image. If a person meets the standard of recklessness, they will be morally culpable—in other words, they can be punished by law. But, in just about every other part of the Criminal Code, recklessness has a standard meaning. This is by design. The Criminal Code is meant to be consistent. It lists just four standard fault elements: intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence. For some unexplained reason, however, for this offence, the government has given 'recklessness' a different meaning. We've seen now that new words have been added which change the way the fault element applies. This is untested and inadequately explained, and, once again, we're going to have to explore this because we don't know what the consequences will be. The fifth downside is that we increase the risk of negative experiences for victims. Under the existing offences, you don't need to prove consent or a lack thereof. This means there is far less need to cross-examine a victim about the material which shows them engaging in sexual activity, whether it's real, as with revenge porn, or fake, as with AI generated deepfakes. However, under this new legislation, the prosecution will need to prove consent as an element of the offence. The obvious consequence is that you will have the defence challenging the prosecution on the issue of consent. In practice, this will likely mean that you're going to have victims—and they'll be overwhelmingly women—being cross-examined about the ins and outs of whether and how they consented to particular material, and this risk arises both in relation to deepfakes and also in relation to revenge porn. One of the other things that we need to actually explore is: Who was crying out for this? Who was saying that we need to replace an existing law that deals with these issues adequately with one that is now more likely to result in victims being dragged through the justice system? Again, we need to explore what the reasons are for this. In short, instead of a clear workable offence that covers both deepfakes and revenge porn, this bill gives us now, particularly for the victims, an uncertain mess. There are two pathways forward to deal with this legislation. The first way is to deal with this and accept the government's legislation as is. This means a complete redesign of laws that are already on the statute books, even though the rationale has never been clearly explained and there are clear disadvantages. The second way forward—and I would hope that this is what the Senate reflects on—is to improve the legislation. This means acknowledging we have legislation on the statute books right now to deal with both fake material and so-called revenge porn. It involves adding clarity by directly addressing the concern that the existing laws might not apply to deepfakes. This means adding short provisions to expressly make clear the existing laws cover both deepfakes and so-called revenge porn. It is a simple matter of removing all doubt that the current laws do what they were always intended to do. The second option is the coalition's preferred approach. It's the option that we've put on the table. As we've said consistently, we support the intent of this legislation. We will work constructively to ensure that deepfakes can be addressed, as we have been doing since 2018. We support and will not stand in the way of the legislation, but, as I've outlined, we have some serious concerns and we will move amendments which we think will improve the bill, given the very legitimate concerns that I have raised, particularly in relation to the cross-examination of victims and potentially dragging them through the courts. The obvious consequences, as I said, of the way this legislation has now been drafted is that you will have the defence challenging the prosecution on the issue of consent. In practice, this will likely mean that you are going to have victims, overwhelmingly women, being cross-examined about the ins and outs of whether and how they consented to particular material being transmitted. As I said, there is a way forward. We will be putting amendments up to address these issues, and I certainly ask the Senate to give consideration to the coalition's approach to addressing the legislation, which will minimise the impact, in particular, on victims. 19:16 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I rise to speak on the Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024. The Greens welcome this bill, which responds to the online harm caused by deepfakes and other artificially generated sexual material. However, it does nothing to stop the creation of those images in the first place. It's well and good for legislation to be updated to make sharing deepfake or AI image based abuse a crime, but it would be better that the images weren't so easy for anyone with internet access to create and then share. Dr Rachael Burgin of RASARA, the Rape and Sexual Assault Research and Advocacy organisation, said during the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into the bill that the creation of deepfake images: … whether or not they are distributed, is a significant harm and, commonly, threats to circulate … deepfakes, is a tactic used by an abuser to instil fear and exert control and power over another person. A failure to criminalise the creation and the threat of the creation of this type of material accepts a culture of gendered violence. This bill doesn't come close to addressing how image based abuse is contributing to gendered violence. Image based abuse is deeply gendered. Women, girls and gender diverse people are most commonly targeted and, much like revenge porn, it is overwhelmingly used by men as a tool to harass and degrade. In fact, 99 per cent of victims of deepfake pornography are women, according to a 2023 study by Security Hero. Deepfake material may be fake, but the impacts are very, very real. We heard heartbreaking evidence during the inquiry into this bill about the harm of deepfake abuse on individuals. Noelle Martin, a victim-survivor of deepfake abuse, said: … it is life-destroying and shattering. It is something that impacts every aspect of a person's life. It impacts their being able to find work and their employability to being able to manage and control their reputation. It impacts a person's dignity, autonomy and agency. It compromises and threatens people's capacity to self-determine, to flourish and to exercise their sexual agency. I completely agree with her remarks. The federal government can and must do more to stop the harm of deepfake abuse by stopping their creation. During the inquiry into this bill, the federal government said that the Commonwealth can't stop the creation of deepfake material and that it's the states and territories who would need to do any criminalising under their own state based criminal codes. I note that they mentioned that it was on the Standing Council of Attorneys-General agenda, which I welcome, but they insisted that the Commonwealth could not act. I beg to differ. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women is an international treaty that Australia has ratified. In my view, as a lawyer—and I'm sure many minds will have views on this—there's a clear case that the federal government could use this external affairs power, based on the fact that we ratified that treaty, to enact laws that stop the creation, as well as the associated threat of creation, of deepfake sexual material. So I'd like to foreshadow a second reading amendment in my name to that effect, and I'll move that properly towards the end of my contribution. It's pretty clear, in my mind, that the Commonwealth could legislate to stop the creation of this deepfake abuse if they so chose. I think it's unfortunate that they waved away the suggestion that there's no constitutional barrier to them doing so and, instead, that it's up to somebody else to tackle what is actually the real problem, and they're leaving that to the states and territories. I hope the states and territories do prioritise that work and do come on board and attend to fixing the state and territory based criminal codes in that respect. Let's hope they take a harmonious approach; otherwise, you'll have a patchwork of approaches where you could have had the Commonwealth simply step in to criminalise the creation of that material as well as just the mere dissemination of it. Let's stop playing catch-up with technology and, instead, show leadership in preventing this harm from occurring in the first place. With all of that said, we know that criminalisation is not the sole way to prevent image based abuse from occurring. Education and primary prevention are much needed, and they're definitely needed to drive cultural change in this regard. That's why the Greens are calling on the Albanese government to include education on the harms of deepfake sexual material and on the weaponisation of artificial intelligence in consent education and respectful relationships education as they're currently rolled out, albeit patchily and albeit without enough funding, in our secondary school system. It's also imperative that frontline service providers who specialise in both preventing and responding to this kind of abuse receive the funding that they need. These crimes can have a number of victims, and they can impact a number of victims-survivors. Ultimately, those people will seek assistance and support through specialised sexual violence services, which, at the moment, are underfunded and are having to turn people away or condemning them to obscenely long waitlists. Sexual violence support services are even more underfunded than family and domestic violence frontline support services. The wait times for all waiting lists for support after experiencing sexual violence, for counselling, for justice and for healing are unacceptable and will compound the harm that is done. We need those frontline sexual violence service providers and support organisations fully funded so that you don't have waitlists that are months and months long for people to start that process of healing. Explicit deepfakes are becoming prolific, but, with widespread and easy access to artificial intelligence apps in every single smartphone, I might note that deepfakes are already wreaking havoc on political communications and on election outcomes. Deepfakes present inherent risks, including the spread of misinformation and threats to privacy and security, altering election outcomes and misleading and deceiving voters. I note that my colleague Senator Shoebridge will have a second reading amendment to address that issue, and he also has a private senator's bill. I urge the Albanese government to take immediate action to extensively ban the creation, as well as the transmission, of deepfakes to address the harm that deepfakes present to our democracy and to address our culture of gendered violence. Just to recap the existing rules, despite the rather lengthy contribution from Senator Cash, it's pretty clear to those of us that sat on the committee that deepfakes generated by AI were not covered by existing laws, and it's important that they be covered. This bill would do that, but it would only address the distribution of deepfakes. It wouldn't address the creation. It actually needs to stop them from being created in the first place. We took some incredibly disturbing evidence that some of these apps—Nudify was one example that was often referred to—are not only freely available for download on any smartphone but have been categorised as acceptable for age 4-plus. My jaw hit the floor when I heard that evidence. There is something deeply wrong when the Commonwealth says they can't fix that. I don't accept that they can't fix it. I wish that this bill were going to fix the problem. I think it's a good step forward, but we need to actually take that next step and make sure that those apps can't run riot and provide material that is so deeply unhelpful and in fact so traumatising and can so easily be turned into a tool of violence predominantly against women. We need the government to do more in this space. They have the power to legislate, and they should. The videos might be fake, but the harm is real. As I said earlier, 99 per cent of victims are women. Overwhelmingly, this sort of abuse is used by men as a tool of violence, as a tool of power and as a tool of control. We desperately need that education and that primary prevention. That is not just a change to our criminal laws; we need to make sure that a culture change and a message are sent particularly to young people that this is not the appropriate way to be relating to your peers or to other people that you might be subjecting to this AI generated abuse. With that said, I note that it's time for this government to put the rights of women and girls ahead of the profits of big tech. I move: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that Australia, having ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, has an international obligation to make the creation of, and associated threat of the creation of, deepfake sexual material an offence." 19:26 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I'm really pleased to rise to speak on the Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024. I chaired the inquiry into this bill. I want to thank all the witnesses who came forward during the inquiry's hearing. This is a crucial piece of legislation that is going to change and protect lives. I'm going to talk about the bill and the evidence that we received throughout the hearing. I will come back to the previous contributions because I think it is worth responding to claims from those opposite that this offence and this Criminal Code amendment should be watered down in any way or that, in some sort of way, per the Greens' position that they've put forward, we should ignore the Constitution. I seek to come back to those issues. The rise of deepfake AI represents a growing problem that we can no longer ignore. Our technology is rapidly advancing, and it is our responsibility to ensure that our legal frameworks evolve with new crimes of the digital age. The bill before us will pave the way for our stance on technology abuse within Australia by imposing serious criminal penalties on those who share sexually explicit material without consent. These reforms will include material which is created using artificial intelligence or other technology. This bill could not arrive at a more crucial time. The eSafety Commissioner provided evidence to our committee that sexually explicit material has increased 550 per cent every year since 2019. Approximately 90 per cent of deepfake images are sexually explicit and 95 per cent of them are targeted material of women and girls. It is prolific, it's horrific, and it destroys lives. The public hearings on this bill revealed that, in October 2022, research shows that a new AI bot created and shared 680,000 fake nude pictures of women without their knowledge. These statistics expose a distressing truth for our country, that deepfake and AI sexually explicit content is being weaponised against women. It is rooted in misogyny, and its presence is only going to expand as technology improves. Digitally created and altered sexually explicit material is a deeply damaging form of abuse used to degrade and humiliate its victims. It has the potential to cause life-lasting harm, with this fabricated explicit material often indistinguishable from real life. It is also predicted that deepfakes will only become more advanced in the future, with technology being able to swap people's heads from their bodies and voices in photos and videos and images that are received on phones. This material impacts its victims in all areas of their lives, with survivors left traumatised often personally, professionally and emotionally. This is why the Albanese Labor government is strengthening the Criminal Code, imposing a penalty of six years imprisonment for those who share non-consensual deepfake sexually explicit material and an aggravated offence and a higher penalty of seven years for those who created the non-consensual deepfake. This new law is an extension of our government's commitment to ending family, domestic and sexual violence within a generation. We are keen to take these steps to protect women and girls, given that they exist as 99 per cent of victims of this harmful material. As chair of the committee, I was privileged to hear from experts, stakeholders and victims on the impact that this type of material has on our community. It was clear from the very beginning of the hearing that this type of material is pervasive and unprecedented in its nature. The creation and sharing of non-consensual deepfakes has reached a phenomenal scale in terms of how many people can be targeted, how easy it is to target individuals and the sheer number of websites and apps that are dedicated to this type of abuse. Ms Noelle Martin, a global activist and Young Western Australian of the Year in 2019 spoke to these issues. Not only did she emphasise that billions of people have viewed the top 30 non-consensual deepfake websites; she also explained that this is not just an issue that affects celebrities and people in the public eye. This is an issue that continues to target everyday women and girls. With more and more apps emerging that allow people to upload photos of women and churn out sexually explicit material, we are seeing lives destroyed overnight. Websites and apps of this nature are causing women to become bullied in their school grounds and their workplaces. It is destroying their ability to find work and compromising their employment. This strain of abuse threatens people's ability to control their reputation and uphold their right to dignity, autonomy and agency. As one can imagine, those who experience this type of abuse, of digital material being non-consensually created and distributed of themselves, often witness an extreme decline in their physical and mental health. Everywhere these victims go they are worried. They are worried that their family members, grandparents, coworkers and friends have seen the non-consensual material, and some are unable to make eye contact with others as they think, 'Have they seen it too?' Our hearing revealed stories of individuals who would have the images replay over and over in their nightmares, stories of women experiencing an all-consuming feeling of dread or afraid to leave their homes due to the overwhelming feeling of shame and fear. We know that gender based violence is all too common within Australia, with one in five women having experienced sexual violence since the age of 15. It manifests in various forms, whether it be physical, emotional, economic or social. But, with AI available to everyone with the click of a button, the scope, severity and type of violence against women is only going to grow if we do not act. If our country wants to address the culture of gendered violence, then it needs to be made clear that women and their bodies are not property to be non-consensually manipulated, distributed and ridiculed. Now, of course, this work does build on the work our government is doing around making sure that we are improving our laws around consent and ensuring that we have the proper type of education and training for young people about what consent means. The Albanese government is providing $76 million to states and territories and the non-government school sector to deliver age-appropriate, expert developed respectful relationships programs, and this funding goes hand in hand with types of legislation like this. As we will see, this program ensures that we are facilitating healthy interactions between girls and boys. This action is also complemented by the Stop it at the Start campaign, which has been designed to combat misogynistic attitudes and influences online. But I want to go to a very important point. It was raised by Senator Cash in her contribution. It is this notion and idea from those opposite, which has been said many times—I think the shadow minister said it today, and we've seen other shadow ministers say it in the media—that we don't need this bill. It is clear that anyone who would say that today didn't listen to the victims who were at the hearing and hasn't been listening to the women who have been coming forward and talking about this for years. Those women said at the hearing that they spoke to the previous government and weren't listened to. Now they are being listened to, and this type of material is being criminalised. Failing to amend the criminal framework to address new types of technology poses a real risk to our future. It also just ignores what the victims have been telling us. Those at the deepfake public hearing warned against a future without a bill such as this. Professor Asher Flynn said: There is a real risk, without taking serious steps like criminalising deepfake abuse, that we will see backwards efforts in our attempts to address and prevent sexual harassment and abuse. That's what I want those opposite to consider before they walk in here and talk through Senator Cash's talking points on this bill, because the evidence we received at the hearing does not support the position that Senator Cash put forward. This deepfake bill, we know, will ensure that the laws send a very clear message that this type of behaviour is not tolerated by our country, by our parliament, and that we recognise the harm of deepfake abuse within our country. That's what this bill does. This bill also recognises that we want to do as much as we can to create safe online environments for women and young people. It recognises that, as a government, we reject the idea that it is acceptable to dehumanise and degrade others by using technology. Saying that this bill is not needed is insulting to the victims who came forward and it doesn't recognise the very real propositions put forward by the CDPP about the lack of legal protection, for women, in this case, when it comes to crimes like this. It's important that we set the standard; it's important that we give victims the legal right to pursue justice; and it's important that we don't mislead the Senate by suggesting that this type of bill or this type of law is not needed. I want to be very clear about that. The Albanese Labor government is committed to making sure that our communities are safe for our current generations and the next generations of women—and that is what this bill is. That's what protecting women looks like: this bill. It looks like delivering respectful relationships and consent programs across the country, to ensure that we're fostering healthy in-person and online relationships. It looks like criminalising deepfake abuse, to send a clear message that dehumanising and degrading behaviour is unacceptable in our nation. It looks like making sure that men and women feel protected in their schools, their offices, their homes or in online spaces, in their experience—particularly if they experience deepfake sexual violence. This is what it looks like to protect women and girls. It's taking action like this and bringing forward legislation that will protect them. I know that women are watching what this parliament does on this bill, because they are very fearful, if they have been the victims of this abuse, that they won't have legal justice. They understand that the problem is being propelled by the technology that is out there. So this is a crucial time to take action on this type of crime. The future of technology has a lot of unknowns—I think we all recognise that. But what we do know is that the use of deepfake and AI for the creation and sharing of sexual material is only going to become worse if we don't act now. I really commend the Attorney-General for bringing forward this important piece of legislation. I also want to thank all of those who spoke at the public hearing on this bill. It really was clear from the experts, victims and members of the public who spoke that strengthening the law against deepfake sexually explicit material is an excellent step towards addressing gendered violence within our country. Those experts and victims and members of the public who spoke out during that hearing, and all of the people who've called for this type of legislation, are listening to this debate, and what they don't want to hear is some sort of word salad from those opposite about how this bill needs to be watered down. What they want to see is a parliament and a government who are willing to take action and step up and protect women and girls from what is incredibly corrosive behaviour and to set a community standard about what this parliament thinks is acceptable. That's what we're talking about today. I really hope that the Senate sees through the attempts from those opposite to weaken this legislation, and I really hope the Senate sees that this is an urgent piece of legislation—that there are women and girls out there who need this protection right now, who will get it when we amend this legislation. We heard evidence that the legislation we have right now is not enough. It doesn't go far enough. It doesn't cover the field. That is quite clearly evident from the evidence that we received. I know that those women who are listening want to see this action taken because they understand the real threat that AI technology presents to them. Finally, I want to say thank you not only to the Attorney-General but also to members of our government for bringing this legislation forward as quickly as possible. The evidence received at the committee inquiry showed us how urgent it is, how important it is and the difference that it will make to protecting women and girls, which this government—members on this side of the Senate—are committed to. 19:40 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I rise to speak on the Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024. Most of the points have been covered in the debate up to date by other speakers. I, too, sat on the inquiry and heard the absolutely appalling evidence. We heard about the explosion in this sort of activity, which is deeply, deeply concerning. I must say, one point which perhaps hasn't been touched upon thus far is the totally underwhelming response we got from some of the big tech companies. Senator Waters touched upon it. But I must say that I found their submissions completely underwhelming and, from my perspective, they demonstrated a lack of focus in combatting the issue. That is very, very concerning and I think that there should be some reflection on their part. In relation to the process, I've made the point in this place on a number of occasions the importance of making sure that we hear from key stakeholders in a timely fashion. It was disappointing in this regard that the process was abbreviated such that the Law Council of Australia's submission wasn't received until after we had the public hearing. I would have thought, with legislation dealing with criminal offences of this nature, with terms of imprisonment attached, it would be important that we hear from the peak body representing the legal profession in this this country and consider their perspectives at a committee hearing as opposed to receiving the submission afterwards. I'll put on the record what the Law Council of Australia submitted: Because of the limited time available between the referral of this inquiry for review by this Committee and the deadline for public submissions, our Constituent Bodies and expert advisory committees have not been able to consider completely all the issues raised by this Bill. As a general point, we reiterate the importance of appropriate consultation timelines to enable informed scrutiny of what are important changes to Australia's criminal law frameworks. Additionally, as we have explained below, the explanatory materials have been of limited assistance in understanding the rationale for certain unusual drafting choices. And that's from the submission of the Law Council of Australia. I note that this isn't the first time in this parliament that we received submissions on this committee from the Law Council of Australia decrying the fact that they were provided insufficient time to provide the benefit of their expertise. We've heard similar comments in relation to the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023, the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 and in the Identification Verification Services Bill 2023. So I would hope that the government can manage its legislative program in a somewhat more efficient way to ensure that important stakeholders like the Law Council of Australia actually have the opportunity to provide their expert perspective. The second point I would like to make is in defence of my colleague Senator Cash. I listened to Senator Cash's speech. I didn't interpret anything Senator Cash said as 'watering down' the bill. Senator Cash raised a number of technical issues in relation to the bill, but certainly, as Senator Cash indicated, we're all on the same page in this space in protecting in particular women, girls, from this sort of behaviour. I think we're all in the same space, but there were some technical issues raised and it's our obligation to ventilate these issues in this, the house of review. We are a house of review. Again, I just want to quote from the Law Council of Australia's submission: While we agree that the existing aggravated offences in the Criminal Code may not apply to deepfake material, for the reasons explained below we consider that this Committee should keep in mind the advantages of the framing of the existing primary offence in section 474.17, noting that this provision is likely to be engaged for such material. In our view, there are certain features of the framing of the existing … offence in section 474.17 that promote certainty. That's the Law Council of Australia saying that the existing offence, in certain aspects as it's currently framed, promotes certainty. So it is a concern if we are moving away from the features of the existing framing of the offence. The Law Council says: These features should be considered by the Committee in considering improvements to the new offences contained in the Bill. That's from the Law Council of Australia, so some of the characterisation of Senator Cash's position, and of the coalition's position, in this regard is somewhat unfair and perhaps should be reflected upon. The last point I wish to touch on is in relation to the aggravated offences. One of the particular aggravated offences that hasn't been touched upon in this debate yet is the aggravated offence that applies where certain civil penalty orders have been made. The first proposed aggravated offence would be established when a person commits the underlying offence and has three or more civil penalty orders made against them in relation to contraventions of the OSA. We were informed by the eSafety Commissioner that there's hardly any prospect of anyone receiving three civil penalty offences. The concern with respect to this particular aggravated offence is that because there's little prospect of someone receiving three or more civil penalty orders, it means there's little or no prospect of the aggravated offence itself being triggered. That is of concern. We sat in the inquiry and heard that put consistently by all of the witnesses who spoke to the issue before the committee. The response to that from the Attorney-General's Department was, 'Well, it means it's consistent with the other provisions elsewhere in the act.' I don't think that answers the question. If we're being told that there's an aggravated offence being proposed, and the evidence being provided by the eSafety Commissioner and others is that the specific act which triggers the application of the aggravated offence is never going to be triggered because people don't get, in particular, three or more civil penalty orders, then one must reflect upon whether or not we should be proceeding down that path. The way that's been addressed in the majority report from the committee is to suggest that a statutory review be conducted into that particular aggravated offence. I don't think that we need a statutory review in relation to that particular aggravated offence, because the evidence was quite clear—in all likelihood it's never going to be triggered because that's just not the way the system works. I suspect we'll get to the end of the statutory review period and that's not going to change, nothing in that respect would change. Given the concerns that have been raised by the Law Council of Australia with respect to the fact that, under the existing offence provisions, there's better promotion of certainty in some respects, what would be useful under the offence which is proposed to be inserted is that in itself presents a pretty strong argument, from my perspective, that there should be a statutory review of the operation of the bill in its entirety and related matters after two years of operation. The preparation of the terms of reference for that review should be informed by, amongst other things, the issues raised during the course of the inquiry we had. That constituted recommendation 3 of the additional comments I provided. Having said that, this is absolutely a very important piece of legislation. This Senate must act to protect, in particular, women and children in our community who are the subject of this vile phenomena. 19:50 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I rise to speak in support of the Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024, which represents a step in the right direction in regulating the use of generative AI in Australia. Deepfakes and generative AI are reshaping the nature of communication. The technology has already completely undermined the faith that Australians have in text, image, video and voice recordings. Fakes are not new, of course. There's a long history of images and videos being created to mislead and deceive. Photos alleging to capture the Loch Ness monster were created in 1934. Air bushed photos of Mussolini and Stalin were distributed to mislead citizens in the 1920s and 1930s, and the Roswell alien autopsy video sparked conspiracy theories in 1995. But clearly the ease at which these images, and now videos, can be altered or just plain manufactured using generative AI is completely unprecedented, and it seems to speed up month to month. Advancements in the technology have made it infinitely easier to create realistic fake content. What used to demand significant time, skill and resources can now be done instantly with minimal effort or expertise—worse, the results are often indistinguishable to the naked eye. The use of generative AI to produce deepfake pornography is a particularly heinous use of the technology, but even this technology is not new. It's been five years since the release of the DeepNude app, which allowed users to generate nude images of women by inputting clothed photographs. Since then, we've seen an explosion in the creation and distribution of deepfake pornography. At times, it has been used to target celebrities like Chris Evans and Emma Watson. More recently, it is increasingly used to undermine the credibility of public figures and politicians, usually women. In 2020, an Indian politician was targeted with a deepfake pornographic video that was circulated to discredit her election. In 2021, an American congresswoman was targeted in an attempt to undermine her credibility, and, in 2022, a woman running for the Senate of the Philippines had a deepfake porn video shared across social media in a bid to diminish her standing. Even more worrying, deepfake pornography is now being created and distributed by children and young people. Just a few months ago, we heard media reporting of the creation of deepfake pornography by school students here in Australia. It's been more than half a decade since the release of the DeepNude app, so it's well beyond time for the distribution of deepfake pornography to be criminalised. The urgency of this is revealed in the statistics on deepfake pornography. Of online deepfake videos, 96 per cent are pornographic. Of deepfake pornography, 99 per cent targets women, and there was a 2,000 per cent rise, in 2023, in the number of websites generating non-consensual sexual material using AI. I welcome the provisions in this bill and, in particular, the creation of new offences around non-consensual deepfake sexual material. A person's identity is theirs alone and must be safeguarded. Non-consensual sharing of sexual content is a cruel and damaging abuse. It shatters reputations, devastates relationships and inflicts deep emotional wounds, often leaving victims with anxiety, depression and a haunting sense of violation. The psychological and social toll of deepfake pornography is immense, and the most effective way to mitigate against it is to criminalise the behaviour. But, while deepfake sexual material is a particularly heinous use of emerging AI technology, it is far from the only one. Generative AI is being used to create deepfakes to mislead and deceive people for a variety of nefarious reasons, and this bill does not go to many of these uses. Deepfakes are increasingly used in scams which are reported to have cost Australians some $8 million last year. They're also used to impersonate experts to provide misleading advice or information to consumers. But, to me, one of the most worrying uses of deepfakes is in the context of our democracy. The use of deepfakes to mislead or deceive voters is exploding in democracies across the world. In the 2022 US mid-terms, AI generated profiles on social media platforms used deepfakes to spread misinformation, amplify divisive content and create the illusion of grassroots support or opposition for certain candidates or policies. A particularly worrying example was a deepfake robocall purporting to be from President Biden to thousands of New Hampshire residents discouraging them from voting. In the Indian election held earlier this year, deepfakes were used to impersonate candidates, celebrities and even dead politicians, serving up mis- and disinformation to millions of Indians. The election was described by academics at the John F Kennedy School of Government as being awash with deepfakes. In the last month, we've seen deepfakes of Australian politicians emerging from both sides of politics. The Queensland Premier has fallen victim to a deepfake created by the Liberal Party, but Labor does not have clean hands after posting an AI generated video of the opposition leader. These videos could be described as awful but lawful, but we can surely do better than that. Deepfakes used without consent threaten our democracy and should be banned in the context of elections. Australians deserve to know that the information they receive from parties and politicians is genuine. The coming elections in Queensland and the ACT and the upcoming federal election will be impacted by deepfakes. So, while this bill is a positive step forward, there is much to be done. Unfortunately, the lag between technological change and regulation response threatens to undermine our democracy. But that's no excuse. The government must be proactive in catching up to change and getting ahead of what we know is coming. We're being warned by experts, academics and even the AEC. Other jurisdictions—the US, the UK, the EU and even China—are already out in front in combatting and regulating against the use of non-consensual deepfakes. I've circulated a second reading amendment in my name that calls on the government to act swiftly and decisively to regulate and protect Australian voters and Australians generally from the danger of deepfakes. In moving the amendment, I recognise the work done on this topic in the lower house by the member for Warringah, Zali Steggall, and I join her in calling on the government to act in providing Australians protection against the potential harms of deepfakes in elections. I move the amendment. At the end of the motion, add ", the Senate: (a) notes that: (i) deepfakes present inherent risks including the spread of misinformation, threats to privacy and security, altering election outcomes and misleading and deceiving voters, (ii) Australians have lost over $8 million to scams linked to online investment trading platforms, often using deepfakes, (iii) the Australian Electoral Commissioner has warned that Australia is not ready for its first artificial intelligence election that is coming within the next 12 months, (iv) deepfakes of Australian politicians have already been used, and (v) the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Voter Protections in Political Advertising) Bill 2023, introduced by the Member for Warringah on 13 November 2023, would ban the use of deepfakes in political advertising; and (b) calls on the Government to: (i) ban the use and transmission of deepfakes in political advertising prior to the next federal election, and (ii) further regulate the use and transmission of deepfakes to address the risks they present". This is critical. We must protect our democracy, and I urge the government to move before the next federal election. 19:57 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania The Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024 is a fundamentally important bill tackling the exploitation and the targeting of mostly women within our society. The bill strengthens existing Commonwealth criminal offences and creates new offences to respond to the online harm caused by deepfake pornographic material and other artificially generated, sexually explicit material. Digitally created or altered sexually explicit material is more and more common in our digital world. It refers to content which is shared without consent. This behaviour is a damaging and deeply distressing form of abuse unfortunately suffered by too many Australians. It can only be described as insidious behaviour which is degrading, humiliating and dehumanising for victims, especially for women and girls. As a mother and a grandmother, I'm appalled at those who try to do such harm to another human being. It is hateful behaviour which must be stamped out, so the Albanese government is fully committed to doing so. The creation of these images has significant and lasting effects on a victim's mental health and forever changes their lives. Young people who are the targets of deepfake images being created are robbed of their childhood. The perpetrators of these disgusting and disgraceful acts do not have the right to steal the innocence of girls and young women, yet it is unfortunately happening too often—several examples of which I will discuss shortly. Stamping out child— Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 104 ADJOURNMENT Energy 105 20:00 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia I rise today to speak about the huge potential for a future made in Australia that is being tapped into in the upper Spencer Gulf in South Australia. This is a region that is already starting to play a vital role in our green industry future as we strive to net zero emissions in Australia by 2050. The Albanese Labor government, along with the South Australian Labor government, is working side by side and with a deep engagement with the communities and the industries in that region, as well as with the industries that are aiming to develop in that region. In May, myself and the South Australian Deputy Premier, Susan Close, had the pleasure of welcoming the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, and the environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, to Port Augusta. Port Augusta is a central node of the upper Spencer Gulf's industrial triangle, which includes Whyalla and Port Pirie, and we saw the announcement of $65 million from the Albanese Labor government for South Australia's Northern Water project—a project that the South Australian government has been working on for some time. The project will see the establishment of a desalination plant and a water pipeline that will provide water to the industrial north of our state, feeding the industries of critical minerals and green steel production as well as the towns along the west coast and into the far inland of South Australia. Water is scarce in those parts, and this project will make a fundamental difference to our ability to develop and grow. Northern Water has the potential to unlock $5 billion in investment and to lift South Australia's GDP by $150 billion over its lifetime, creating 4,200 jobs in resources, renewables and the net zero transformation on average each year. This is just one of a myriad of projects that will bring prosperity through green industries to the upper Spencer Gulf. The Spencer Gulf Cities alliance of councils has identified the potential for more than $30 billion in investment over 70 projects, demanding a workforce of over 25,000, in the coming decade. Planning for these opportunities is well underway, as we saw at the Upper Spencer Gulf Workforce Summit last month, because there is so much to do to ensure that that development, that investment and that potential are brought to fruition, but, for that, we must have the planning and the vision in place for that. Certainly, the Albanese Labor government does and, certainly, the communities of the upper Spencer Gulf do as well. At the Upper Spencer Gulf Workforce Summit last month, we had the joy of an address from the Assistant Minister for a Future Made in Australia and the Assistant Minister for Trade, Tim Ayres. The Future Made in Australia plan is all about attracting and enabling investment. It's about making Australia a renewable energy superpower, value-adding to resources and strengthening our economic security. It's about backing Australian ideas in innovation, digital and science and investing in people and places. This is a vision for the future, and Port Augusta has indeed come a long way to become a green industry of renewable energy since the closure of its coal-fired power station in 2016. Just a quick note to Peter Dutton and the Liberals: it closed in 2016, so your idea of transitioning it to become a nuclear power plant is probably a little out of date and a little behind the times. What we do see in Port Augusta are resilience and perseverance. Times have been tough, but the future is looking really, really bright, and the opportunities in front of us are immense. The Future Made in Australia plan is about investing in people and places, and we will be making important investments in skills, training and education and providing support for communities and regions that are most impacted by the net zero transformation and those that are best placed to become involved in that transition. We are investing over the next five years to accelerate the development of the clean energy workforce through expanded access to a new energy apprenticeship program, and through investments in vocational education and training, and in clean energy courses. We are expanding supports for women training in male-dominated industries and supporting diversity in science, technology, engineering and maths. The future is bright, and the Upper Spencer Gulf is at the centre of it for South Australia. Hall, Mr Raymond Steele 105 20:05 Senator McLACHLAN 287062 South Australia Last week the Senate moved a motion of condolence for Raymond Steele Hall. It was an honour to preside over contributions of my fellow senators, especially with his wife, Joan Hall, joining us in the chamber. As I was presiding, I didn't have an opportunity to say a few words to the motion. I take that opportunity now. I wish to acknowledge his great leadership of my state of South Australia as its premier and also his service to this chamber. Ironically, despite his service in this chamber, at his heart, Steele was a man of the green. A lower House man, Steele was never enamoured with houses of review, especially after his famous battles with the South Australian Legislative Council. Nevertheless, he was generous with me and advised me greatly when I was taking my first steps in the Liberal Party and contemplating life in the upper House. I remember with humour he queried why I would the contemplate life in the chamber which should not exist. He considered the destruction of the Legislative Council unfinished business. We enjoyed a longstanding and healthy debate over the value of state of upper houses. Steele had a remarkable clarity of thought and great wisdom. He saw issues not only in the context of their time but, importantly, whether they would stand the test of time. I suspect his deep understanding of the march of history led to him adopting many positions which were contrary to the wider held views in the Liberal Party at the time. He was not a follower. In his thinking and views, he was a leader. His leadership on the issues of the day were underpinned by his courage and his convictions. I am pleased that, in honouring his life, his key role in founding the Festival Theatre was acknowledged. There was a time when his vision and support for the arts in South Australia were overlooked. Steele was a force of nature, driven by a strong sense of public duty. I thank him for his service to South Australia and to this chamber. I thank him for his generosity and kindness to me. It was a privilege to know him. My thoughts and prayers are with his family. Asylum Seekers 106 20:07 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Last week I had the honour of hosting three women poets from refugee backgrounds in Parliament House to share their writing. The event was made possible by Red Room Poetry's Writing in Resistance Program founded by academic and journalist Dr Saba Vasefi, to foreground the voices of women and girls marginalised by this country's racist and violent asylum regime. The three poets provided me with some words they want me to put on record. Setayesh was three years old when her family arrived in Australia. Setayesh spent two years incarcerated in an offshore detention facility. She says: Taekwondo means a lot to me. It gives me passion in life but with the visa problems there is a lot of challenges that come with it. I always have to work twice as hard as my peers just for the smallest things. All I'm asking for is a travel document just to compete oversees to help me reach the Olympics at the end of the day. I will be competing under the Australia flag. Whenever the topic of childhood gets brought up, all my friends get all happy but I freeze. Not only does my body mentally shut down, but mentally my childhood was very traumatic and at one point I didn't even know my name; I was known as a number. Today at 14, Setayesh is one of Australia's most promising young talents in taekwondo, but the cruel immigration system is crushing her dreams. Aida completed her HSC in 2023 and hopes to go to university study industrial relations and political science but she does not have the right to higher education in this country. Aida says: I was never really released from that detention centre. I am still there in my mind. The rough conditions that I was put through as a child still apply to me now as an 18 year old adult. The only difference is that those torturous conditions and barriers have evolved. I now do not have study rights on my bridging E visa…. After all that I've been through and have been made to go through by the government. It pains to even have to ask to be given the bare minimum at least.watching every friend I have had move on with their educational pathway whether that is university or tafe. But I now ask for the right to study, a basic human right .So that I can even have the chance at a better life rather than the one that is forced upon me by the government and its outdated dreadful policies. Finally, this is from Hodan, who says: I arrived in Australia in 2013. Then Australian immigration officers deported me to Nauru by force. Then I couldn't handle the situation. That I faced in nauru, Because how horrible it was. Then I suffered and got PTSD. I had a motorbike accident. Which caused injuries to me. Then they transferred to Australia for medical treatment. And they didn't give me enough treatment in Australia. And they had to deport me back to Nauru again in the middle of the night and handcuffed me like a criminal. That puts pressure on my brain. And lost my feelings and control. And then put fire on myself. Burn 75% of my body. Hence I am a fully disabled person now. And I have no basic rights at all. Australia made me disabled person. And denied my rights as human beings. I am really so broken. And have tremendously traumatised. Now I need to get NDIS access. Without them I can't survive. And do stuff independently. Second, I seriously need to see my mother as she has never seen my injuries. Please. I need travel documents. To see my mother. If you truly believe in humanity, help me. These are all the words of these three courageous young women. These three young women are all survivors of this country's brutal, punitive, offshore detention system—one that locks up people, puts them in a state of limbo and uncertainty and separates them from their families and loved ones. Labor and the Liberals should be ashamed of their disgraceful cruelty. These women deserve much better. Empowering Migrants Expo 106 20:12 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I would like to congratulate my friend and colleague Senator McLachlan for the comments he made in relation to the late Hon. Steele Hall. I thought that was a terrific contribution. You're certainly a man of the red rather than the green in many respects. I would like to congratulate Bhartiya Samaj for their very successful Empowering Migrants Expo, held on Sunday 4 August 2024. There was probably no better place for the expo to be held than at Brisbane City Hall, a location where thousands and thousands of new Australians become citizens every year. I would like to congratulate warmly and sincerely Mr Abhishek Sharma, who's the president of Bhartiya Samaj, for all the work that he and his team did in putting on an extraordinary event. There were cultural displays, inspiring speeches, information sessions and invaluable information, all of which helped to empower the new Australians, the migrants who were in attendance. There was so much energy, vibrancy and passion on display at the event that it was very uplifting to actually be there. I'd like to thank all of the stallholders who were there. There were stalls representing the Pakistani culture, Taiwanese culture, Zimbabwean culture, Indonesian culture and Vietnamese culture—I could go on and on and on—as well as a whole range of government organisations, from Queensland Health to TAFE, the Office of Fair Trading, Logan City Council et cetera. ECCQ and MCCQ were both there, as well as the NDIA—many, many valuable information sources. It was a very successful event. I'd like to quote some of the recipients of some of the awards that were presented on the day. It was great to be part of that process. My good friend Mr Edward Lin, CEO of the Australia Taiwan Culture Foundation, was the winner of the Harmony Ambassador Award. He's just an outstanding individual. He's a teacher of physics at one of Queensland's premier high schools. I think he's also doing a PhD at the moment and, at the same time, he's heavily involved in the community. Everything that Mr Lin does is quite amazing. He said: 'I'm a true believer in Australian multiculturalism, which deepens our commitment to universal values, freedom, human rights and democracy. Thank you to all who support our multicultural Australia.' You can see, with those sentiments, why Mr Edward Lin was the rightful winner of the Harmony Ambassador Award. My good friend Aunty Peggy Tidyman, a Gunggari elder, was winner of the Indigenous Partnership and Harmony Award. Aunty Peggy said: 'I'm honoured to be recognised for my work with the migrant community and will continue to support them.' Finally, Mr Yusuf Khatree, an outstanding leader in our Muslim community in Queensland, received the Community Leadership Award. Yusuf is President of the Muslim Charitable Foundation, and this is what Yusuf said: 'I'm grateful and humbled to receive this award. Migrants are integral to Brisbane and Queensland. With support and determination, we can succeed.' Once again I give my sincere thanks to the President of Bhartiya Samaj, Abhishek Sharma. Thank you so much, Abhishek, for all the work and effort you put in. I know you've booked the city hall for next year already. It was such an outstanding event and I look forward to attending next year to see a display which, in my view, represents the very best of Australian values. Wages 107 20:16 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I rise to express my unwavering support for the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, known as the SDA, a union who have a pivotal campaign on the way to address and rectify the wage discrimination faced by young Australians. In our nation, reaching the age of 18 signifies full adult status. At this milestone, individuals gain the right to vote, the right to consume alcohol and the right to serve in our military. But, despite this acknowledgement of their adulthood, young workers continue to be paid significantly less than older counterparts for performing exactly the same job. This wage disparity is not only unjust but fundamentally inequitable. If someone is legally recognised as an adult, they should receive a full adult wage for their labour, regardless of their age. Young Australians are subject to the same cost-of-living pressures as their older colleagues. They do not receive discounts on essential expenses such as rent, groceries, petrol, insurance or utilities. They're eligible to apply for credit cards and mortgages under the exact same conditions as anyone else who is an adult in Australia. In every legal and financial sense, these young people are treated as adults. Therefore, it's incongruous and unfair to continue paying young workers a reduced wage solely based on their age when they are, in fact, full adults at age 18. The reality is something of a shock to many Australians who don't operate this way in their small businesses, where they know they're dealing with an adult and pay the same wages to people doing the same job. Currently an 18-year-old worker, according to the rule—and this is applied in far too many places—is paid only 70 per cent of the adult award wage. Imagine the challenge of managing basic living expenses on 30 per cent less than the minimum wage. This discrepancy is inconsistent with the principles of fairness and equity. These values we hold as fundamental values to our country. Ignoring this issue only exacerbates the difficulties faced by young people, who are already navigating a rapidly evolving and challenging world. Yes, they too are facing the challenges that we all face regarding the cost of living. Recent stories from young people have highlighted the very real struggles faced by teenagers—18-year-olds—who, despite encountering really significant life changes, lack the financial support that's provided to older workers. While some 18-year-olds may benefit from parental support, that is not universally the case. Many young people must shoulder adult responsibilities, including supporting their families, and they deserve fair compensation for their contributions. I want to acknowledge the presence in the parliament just last week of a group of young people. Amongst them was a young man from Victoria by the name of Cooper, who was doing incredible service to his family—dad and a couple of other kids—in trying to make ends meet. He has left school. He is working. He can't get the full adult wage because he is not eligible for it under the current conditions in his place of work, yet he is very much adulting in the world. I know that, in recent weeks, some negative attention has been directed at unions which might overshadow the essential role that unions play in advocating for workers' rights. Such instances are anomalies, rather than the norm. The union movement has historically played a crucial role in advancing workers' rights in Australia, including by securing fair working conditions, championing human rights for Indigenous Australians and establishing universal health care, among other significant achievements. It's important to address instances of misconduct, but it's important to stand up for fairness. I strongly urge the Senate to support the SDA's campaign against wage discrimination. It's time to ensure that all workers, especially those who are of adult age, get an adult wage. Senate adjourned at 20 : 21