DOCUMENTS

2024-08-21 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Wednesday, 21 August 2024

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

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 09:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 If there is no objection, the meeting is authorised. BUSINESS 1 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 1 09:01 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That general business order of the day No. 47, Migration Amendment (Overseas Organ Transplant Disclosure and Other Measures) Bill 2023, be considered at the time for private senators' bills today. Question agreed to. BILLS 1 BILLS Migration Amendment (Overseas Organ Transplant Disclosure and Other Measures) Bill 2023 1

Migration Amendment (Overseas Organ Transplant Disclosure and Other Measures) Bill 2023

Second Reading 1 09:02 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Before the Senate at the moment is a very necessary, timely, practical and least intrusive method to improve Australia's ability to interrupt the illegal organ harvesting trade throughout the world. Many in this place, including government senators, pride themselves on their commitment to advancing human rights throughout the world. As someone who's been in this chamber for 12 years now, I make this observation: human rights issues are canvassed, supported and advocated for more broadly across the Senate than they have been for a long time. Senators from the Left and senators from the Right now make advocating for the improvement of global human rights issues part of their business. As we heard from Senator Scarr and other senators in their contributions last week, we have the most grievous abuse of human rights happening not just in our region but throughout the world—that is, taking ethnic and religious faith minorities and taking political prisoners of conscience and forcibly removing organs for trade from them. Once upon a time, this would have been unbelievable, but, as the United Nations and government's own Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has said, there is now credible evidence that this illegal activity—the most egregious attack on someone's individual liberty—is happening and is increasing throughout the world. This parliament can sit idly by and do nothing, or it can embrace, like I said, a practical, timely, necessary and least intrusive way of starting to collect some valuable information, anonymity protected, that will allow Australia to do its part to disrupt the trade. The government had two points of opposition with regard to this bill. One was that people might lie on the incoming arrival card. Actually, unfortunately, people might lie on a whole range of issues that they're asked to disclose on the existing passenger arrival card. I suspect that concern is actually not very real. Secondly, the government's objection was that it thought that schedule 2 of this bill was unnecessary because the character test arrangements, requirements and powers that already exist in the Migration Act will be sufficient. That's a fair point, and it's a point that I have listened to. That's why, in the committee stage of this bill, we'll be asked to deal with two amendments—just two. One is to follow Senator Scarr's advice about a statutory review mechanism that would be in place that will allow an independent person to report to the minister on the operation of the scheme after three years. That is just good public policy. That's not revolutionary. But, having looked closely at the evidence that was provided to us in the Senate Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, and having listened closely to Senator Ciccone's contribution in the second reading debate just recently, the second amendment will be to remove schedule 2. The existing arrangements in the Migration Act more than adequately deal with matters around character and cancellation. So, after a long time, after having people visiting this parliament, talking about this issue—Uighurs, Tibetans, the Falun Gong, just to name a few—the Australian parliament in the next short while might be able to put its hand up and say that it doesn't just talk about these things; it also acts in a responsible way. I'll leave my remarks there. As I said, I foreshadow that I'll talk to two amendments. I understand that arrangements have been made so that other senators might make a contribution before the committee stage. 09:07 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales by leave—I rise on behalf of the Greens, and I do this together with my colleague Senator Steele-John, from both the Migration and the Health portfolios, to indicate that we will be supporting the Migration Amendment (Overseas Organ Transplant Disclosure and Other Measures) Bill 2023 as amended. This is a bill to amend the Migration Act to require people who are entering Australia to respond to specified questions in relation to organ transplants outside Australia. It will also provide for the annual publishing and analysis of that information. There's a second schedule to the bill, seeking to amend the character test. That isn't an aspect of the bill that we support. We think it is unnecessary, and we are also on the record as raising our concerns about the expansive use of the character test. But I am pleased to see that the mover of the bill, Senator Smith, will be moving amendments in committee to remove that schedule, and we will support those amendments and then, in due course, support the bill. The proposal in the bill to amend the incoming passenger card is to include three additional questions on the incoming passenger card that is provided to everybody entering Australia. The first question is: Have you received an organ transplant outside Australia within the last 5 years? The second question, if the answer to that question is affirmative, is: For each organ transplant you received outside Australia within the last 5 years, what is the place (the country, and the town or city) of the medical facility at which you received the transplant? Further, if the first answer is affirmative: For each organ transplant you received outside Australia within the last 5 years, what is the name of the medical facility at which you received the transplant? There's a reason we're supporting this. In the last two decades, there has been a significant rise in the international transplant tourism industry, if you could call it that. It's a matter that I have worked with doctors, ethicists, community organisations, religious organisations and spiritual groups on for over a decade, first in the state parliament, where I sought to introduce legislation that would make it a crime on the statute books of the New South Wales parliament for people to engage in unethical organ transplants anywhere in the world, if they were ordinarily resident in New South Wales, to provide extraterritoriality for the offence. I know that many medical ethicists and community groups continue to press for this parliament to pass extraterritorial laws to make it crime for any Australian resident or citizen to engage in unethical organ transplants around the world and to equate the unethical organ transplant industry with other grossly exploitative industries such as slavery or child exploitation. I remain of the view, personally, that there are powerful reasons for this parliament to do that. This bill takes us one step further towards being a good global citizen so that Australian citizens and residents do not travel the globe and take advantage of poor, exploited peoples or take advantage of people without political power whose governments either consciously or with indifference are permitting them to be exploited for their organs. This is a matter that the Falun Gong practitioners have raised repeatedly with parliaments around the world, and they have sought to have the evidence of their exploitation by an authoritarian government acted upon. This isn't the space to detail that evidence, but there is disturbing evidence in that regard. It would be wrong to paint this as being against just one country. We know that unethical organ transplants happen in a variety of countries around the world, including in other countries in our region, where poverty is used to exploit people, often for a tiny sum of money, and where a kidney will be taken, often with lifelong impacts, sometimes death, for the person whose poverty was exploited so a kidney could be provided so an Australian could jump the queue and have their health protected. But we know it's not just countries in our regions but countries across South Asia and countries in the Middle East, and, indeed, there is also some concern for countries in South America where unethical organ transplants are notorious. They're so notorious that the Australian government has recently amended its Smartraveller advice to deal with transplant tourism. I will read from that advice: The need for organ transplants in Australia is more than the availability of donor organs. Some people may look to travel overseas to get a transplant.  'Transplant tourism' is a term sometimes used when you go to another country and pay for an organ transplant.  Kidney transplants are the most common organ transplant people travel for. And then it says this on legal and ethical issues: Be aware of transplant tourism's legal and ethical issues before considering it.  Transplant tourism can undermine a country's transplant program. People who can afford to pay can 'jump the queue'. This means someone who has a more serious medical need for an organ may miss out.  You might unknowingly get an organ through illegal or unethical means without the consent of the donor. The lack of available organs has created an illegal black-market trade. In many cases, the donor is unknown. They are quite possibly poor, exploited or forced to donate.  The unethical or illegal trade of human organs for transplantation is called organ trafficking. Organ trafficking is a form of modern slavery. It's a crime in Australia and many other countries.  You'll be subject to the laws of the country you travel to. These may include severe penalties for transplant tourism or related acts, such as: trafficking in organs trafficking in persons for organ removal.  Australia's Criminal Code criminalises the movement of people into, from or within Australia for the unlawful removal of their organs. There are penalties of up to 25 years imprisonment. That's the context admitted to and acknowledged by the government, and that's the context within which this private member's bill has been moved: to gain the information about where Australians are travelling to, and whether they are travelling repeatedly to one, two or three countries to get organ transplants, so that, at a minimum, Australia could work cooperatively with countries where it's unlawful, to seek to address that. In countries where it may be lawful and, indeed, promoted to have unethical transplants, we would have a further body of information to determine what, if any, further work this parliament should do to consider, amongst other things, an extraterritorial offence for Australians who engage in unethical organ transplants. It is hard to imagine a more exploitative practice than a wealthy country which doesn't have sufficient organs through the donation system that it has established permitting its citizens to use their wealth and privilege to travel to third countries and use that wealth and privilege to jump the queue and take organs from that country, even if they were supplied in a voluntary system. It's even more so where there isn't a genuinely voluntary system—where it is about economic coercion, economic power and a lack of real consent or, worse still, about state oppression against oppressed peoples. Of course we should be moving in this direction. I want to thank Senator Dean Smith for bringing the bill and taking it to the committee. It's unfortunate that a majority on the committee didn't find a basis to support the bill. I can indicate, on behalf of the Greens, that we think this is a step forward. We think it's an act of global decency. We think it's the kind of action that Australia should take. The argument against it that not everybody will honestly fill in a passenger card is hardly a reason not to support this, if for no other fact than it's an offence to falsely fill in a passenger card. If that is the only basis upon which we can hold people to account for unethical organ transplants, well that, too, is a step forward in accountability. 09:17 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Rather than proceeding to a division, I might ask that it be noted that the government opposes the bill as a whole. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 It will be noted. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee 3 09:18 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I move the amendment on sheet 2830: (1) Page 2 (after line 11), after clause 3, insert: 4 Review of operation of amendments (1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of the amendments made by this Act. (2) The review must commence as soon as practicable after the end of the period of 3 years after the commencement of this Act. (3) The persons who undertake the review must give the Minister a written report of the review within 6 months of the commencement of the review. (4) The Minister must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the report is given to the Minister. Simple in its form, it establishes or inserts in the bill a requirement that there be undertaken an independent review of the new reporting arrangements after the first three years of their operation. The minister would determine who would undertake the review. That review would be then made available to the minister in the form of a written report within a six-month period. That report, following its delivery to the minister, would be made available to the parliament. This is a very, very simple, prudent public policy initiative that seeks to ensure that, where there might be concerns about the operation of the scheme, where there might be suggested improvements or refinements to better support the purpose of the scheme, they can be undertaken, observed, reported on and contested, where necessary, in a very, very structured way. This amendment was suggested by Senator Scarr in his contribution to the second reading debate on the bill last week. 09:20 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales The Greens support the amendment. I think keeping the Migration Amendment (Overseas Organ Transplant Disclosure and Other Measures) Bill 2023 focused on the incoming passenger card, which is a very achievable outcome and incredibly important, is perhaps the most useful way that we can hopefully persuade a majority in the other place to support the bill. I also think the review is a useful step forward. Again, I thank Senator Smith for the way he's approached this. 09:20 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales The government won't be opposing this amendment. We have no concerns with the proposal to review the operation of this legislation if it passes the parliament. It's a sensible amendment, but it does not change the government's position in relation to the bill as a whole. 09:21 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales I want to rise to commend Senator Smith for introducing the Migration Amendment (Overseas Organ Transplant Disclosure and Other Measures) Bill 2023 on an incredibly important issue and taking forward elements of the recommendations of the recent joint standing committee report. As that report notes, there's evidence of the growing incidence of organ trafficking and harvesting around the world. It's becoming more preponderant, and there is increasing evidence of growth in the black market of unethical organ transplants to around 10,000 per year. As Senator Shoebridge said, it's hard to think of a more exploitative practice than the harvesting and trafficking of the organs of someone who's in a position of power imbalance, financial disadvantage or poverty. That's why it's important that this market is regulated and that Australia does all it can to strengthen its own safeguards in this area. I think the amendments to the Migration Act that are provided for in this bill—the requirement to disclose, on the incoming passenger arrival card, if a person has received an organ transplant outside Australia within the past five years; and amendments to the character test to provide that someone will not pass the test if the person is reasonably suspected of having been involved in an offshore offence involving trafficking human organs—are both sensible amendments. I note that members on the committee had the view that disclosure on the incoming passenger card was not a particularly robust method for enforcing the intent of the government in this respect, but I would point out that on the incoming passenger card we ask people to answer a number of questions honestly, and that provides valuable information to the government. There are offences attached to not providing honest answers to that. Senator Smith, as the person who's moved this bill, what offences are likely to attach if someone provides a false disclosure, on the incoming passenger card, about receiving an organ transplant outside Australia in the past five years? And how might that act as a deterrent to make sure that people do provide an honest answer in that regard? 09:23 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia While the matter of the independent review mechanism wasn't canvassed in the Senate committee report, nor was it a feature of the original bill, in Senator Scarr's contribution to the second reading debate last week he proposed a safe and prudent mechanism, one that I think enjoys the support of the chamber. On that basis we thought it a good idea. Most importantly, it's so that those people who are not convinced that the scheme is worthy or will work can satisfy themselves that various concerns are properly captured and contested. We would hope that this scheme would work very well in its first application of that initial three-year period. But we would not be opposed to better ideas or improvements that might respond to changing international circumstances. Question agreed to. 09:25 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 2831: (1) Schedule 2, page 5 (lines 1 to 29), to be opposed. This amendment seeks to remove schedule 2 of the existing bill. As an act of abundant care and caution, this bill currently has a schedule 2 which reinforces the character test and cancellation requirements that already exist in the Migration Act. During the committee inquiry process—and I'll read an extract of that shortly—and, indeed, through Senator Ciccone's own contribution on behalf of the government, attention was drawn to the fact that schedule 2 may not be necessary. For senators, I'm going to read part of the coalition senators' dissenting report in the final report on this bill. Under the heading 'Options regarding Schedule 2', it said: 1.38 Coalition Senators acknowledge the informed comments of Professor Burn, Director of Anti-Slavery Australia, who submitted specifically on the matter of Schedule 2 of the Bill. 1.39 It was noted in particular that insertion of subparagraph 5C(1)(bc)(ii) and subparagraph 501(6)(ba)(ii) may not necessarily be based on the very broad existing provisions under subparagraph 5C(1)(c)(ii) and subparagraph 501(6)(c)(ii) regarding the 'non-citizens past and present general conduct'. 1.40 It was also suggested the existing subparagraph 5C(1)(c)(ii) dealing with 'non citizen of character concern' may already capture a person who engages in the act of trafficking in human organs and therefore result in that person failing the character test requirements of the Migration Act 1958. 1.41 Coalition Senators remain open minded about the best way to resolve issues identified with Schedule 2 of the Bill, are supportive of discussion and debate, and open to amendments proposed by other Senators. Long story short, in the period since the release of that legislation report by the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, in conversation with other senators around the chamber and, indeed, after Senator Ciccone's own contribution on behalf of the government drawing out the fact that schedule 2 may not be necessary and after further inquiry and deliberation, I've came to the decision that schedule 2 is not necessary. So this amendment seeks to amend the bill to remove schedule 2, but it in no way changes the application of the existing character test et cetera that exists in the Migration Act of 1958. 09:28 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I think, primarily for the reasons I indicated in the second reading debate, we support this amendment. We also think it's probably already covered in the character test. To give you some idea of why we think it's covered in the character test, I recall having a discussion with a urologist on this issue—about people travelling to and from Australia for the purpose of organ transplants. And it has stuck in my mind since. He said a colleague of his phoned him up for some ethical advice, and the request for the ethical advice was she wanted to know what her obligations were because she said the patient had called and cancelled the dialysis treatment for the following week. In cancelling the dialysis treatment she'd said, 'I'm about to go overseas. They're going to shoot my donor.' There was no pathway to report that. There was no clear way in which that information was being captured anywhere in the system. That's a compelling reason to support the substantive elements of the bill, but it also gives you an understanding of the nature of the decision-making being taken in this space. If that doesn't meet the character test concerns, then what does? 09:29 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales I just have a question for Senator Smith, if I may. Is the understanding correct then that someone who has been involved in organ trafficking or harvesting would fail the character test with the words as they are currently written in legislation? Have we or the committee heard evidence of people having visas denied to them on the basis of character grounds because of their involvement in organ trafficking and harvesting? Have Home Affairs or the department of immigration provided any evidence that they're actually taking action with the law as it stands on this basis? 09:30 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia On the first point, the evidence to the committee was absolutely that the existing arrangements under the Migration Act 1958 are more than sufficient and that it would be better to have consistency across migration character test matters across various bills. We agree with that point. Second, there had been no evidence provided to the committee that anyone had yet had their visa cancelled as a result of illegal organ harvesting trafficking crimes. That was identified by some witnesses as sufficient evidence that perhaps Australia was not doing enough in this particular area. We know that the activity exists. We know that unscrupulous people travel to promote and to support the trade. No evidence was provided that anyone had had their visas cancelled, but that might in fact be a matter that the independent ministerial review mechanism might choose to report on or disclose over time. 09:31 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales I indicate the government's approach to this amendment. The government won't be opposing this amendment. We made it clear from the outset that it was the view of the government that the proposed cancellation power in the bill was unnecessary, as the Migration Act already provides the minister and departmental delegates with a range of cancellation powers in circumstances where the visa holder is of character concern. I think the debate, as we've heard, reflects some of that approach as well. The amendment, however, doesn't change the government's approach to the bill as a whole. As I indicated earlier, the government maintains its position that amending the incoming passenger card will be largely ineffectual and that recipients and organisers are highly likely to conceal and fail to declare accurate information. That was set out in much more detail by my colleague Senator Ciccone, and I'll rely upon his more detailed outline rather than trouble the chamber with it again. The CHAIR 287062 I put the question that schedule 2 stand as printed. Question negatived. The CHAIR 287062 The question is now that the bill, as amended, be agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. 09:33 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales by leave—rather than proceed to a division, I ask that the government's position in relation to the bill be noted. Bill reported with amendments; report adopted. Third Reading 6 09:34 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. 09:34 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales by leave—Again, rather than proceed to a division, I request that the government's position be noted. Bill read a third time. BUSINESS 6 BUSINESS Rearrangement 6 09:35 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That on Thursday, 22 August 2024: (a) the questions on all remaining stages of the following bills be put at the conclusion of formal motions: (i) National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024, (ii) Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024, (iii) Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Declared Areas) Bill 2024, (iv) Telecommunications Amendment (SMS Sender ID Register) Bill 2024, and (v) Customs Amendment (Strengthening and Modernising Licensing and Other Measures) Bill 2024 Customs Licensing Charges Amendment Bill 2024; (b) paragraph (a) operate as a limitation of debate under standing order 142; and (c) divisions may take place between 1.30 pm and 2 pm until consideration of the bills has concluded. And I move: That the question be put. 09:35 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Deputy President, I seek your guidance in terms of process. The minister's just moved that the question now be put. We have circulated an amendment to this motion, and I want to move the amendment. The minister did not move that the question be put without amendment, so I submit to you that our amendment is in order and may be moved. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I don't have the amendment in front of me. I'm advised that I have to put the question that it be put. The question before the Senate is that motion moved by Minister Gallagher be put.

The Senate divided. [09:43]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

27 AYES Askew, W. Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Birmingham, S. J. Brown, C. L. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. (Teller) Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. Paterson, J. W. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Walsh, J. C. 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.

09:46 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I understand that you will now be putting the question on the Government Business Notice of Motion No. 1. Could I please ask that the question be put separately on (a)(i) and (a)(iii)? Just to be clear, we are asking that the question be put separately on the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill and the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Declared Areas) Bill 2024. I can inform the Senate that that request is based on the fact that the Greens will be voting differently on those two bills as to the rest of the motion. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I am splitting the question. The first question will be whether the motion effectively applies to the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Declared Areas) Bill. I am indicating Senator McKim will be voting differently. The Greens will be voting against that. Those that wish those to be included in the substantive motion will be voting in the affirmative. The question before the Senate is that the two bills, the National Disability Insurance Scheme bill and the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Declared Areas) Bill, will remain in the motion?

The Senate divided. [09:48]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

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

Question agreed to.

09:50 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory by leave—I ask that it be recorded that I support paragraph (a)(i) being excluded but paragraph (a)(iii) being included. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 It will be recorded. The question now is that the remainder of the motion be agreed to. Question agreed to. 09:51 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I seek leave to make a five-minute statement. Leave granted. Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 What the Labor Party, together with the Liberals have just done, is gag debate on the NDIS bill. They have prevented this Senate from considering in detail the amendments which are brought to this place by the Greens to ensure that critical safeguards and protections for disabled people and our families are retained and that the unique supports that we need to live our lives are still available to us. I want to state clearly to the community exactly what the Labor and Liberal parties just combined to do to prevent us from discussing. This Labor bill removes a core principle from the National Disability Insurance Scheme—the principle of 'reasonable and necessary'—and instead creates government prescribed lists of what people can and cannot receive through the NDIS. This bill grants to the minister and to the CEO of the NDIA the power to make up new rules, conditions and circumstances surrounding what can and can't be funded, without any oversight from the parliament. Labor is seeking in this legislation to make a new rules based series of classes of disabled people. In 2024, the Labor government brings to this Senate a bill that would divide disabled people into classes. It would empower the federal minister for disabilities to divide us into classes. It is disgusting! Within this bill is granted to the NDIS and to the government the power to reassess an individual's plans in the coming years. Part of that assessment process will be undertaking a needs assessment which will be mandatory but which the government is able to make you pay for. This is an application fee for the NDIS, and it is a serious breach of trust with not only disabled people and our families but the entire Australian community who believe now, as they have believed for the last 10 years, that the National Disability Insurance Scheme should be a universal system of support, without an application fee for entry. This bill contains a series of additional powers granted to the CEO that will enable them to require a participant to undergo very specific and often expensive assessments and procedures if they demand more information from that participant in order to grant them access or for any other reason. If the participant can't pay, or if the wait time for the assessment, in addition to all of the other government mandated assessments, is too long, the CEO can kick you off the scheme. That is what is in this bill. That is what our Greens amendments remove—these amendments that the government is now gagging debate on, not only preventing discussion but also saving themselves from the requirement to detail to the chamber precisely why they oppose these amendments. That is what they are doing here today: they are gagging this debate, and I am stunned, to be quite honest. There are two amendments brought forward by the Greens which we will now not be able to discuss which should have received the entire chamber's support. One extends basic whistleblower protections to all of those who work within the disability service sector, so that they can report fraud, abuse or neglect. The other addresses the fundamental reality that Labor's bill enhances the ability of the NDIA to reclaim what they consider to be debts. Under the processes in this bill, debts are issued immediately following the identification of an invalid payment. This process does not afford procedural fairness, and there are insufficient protections where a debt has been raised against a participant when they are not responsible for the creation of that debt. Our amendments, which we will no longer be able to discuss in detail, would ensure that a participant would not be responsible for a debt if it were created by a third party—meaning that, if a dodgy service provider were to defraud a participant or the scheme, we would be able to guarantee that the disabled person themselves would not have to pay. I beseech the opposition and crossbench: at least support these basic protections to the basic substance of procedural fairness. (Time expired) BILLS 9 BILLS Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Declared Areas) Bill 2024 9

Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Declared Areas) Bill 2024

Second Reading 9 09:57 Senator PATERSON 144138 Victoria I rise to make a contribution on behalf of the coalition to the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Declared Areas) Bill 2024. On 5 August 2024, the Director-General of ASIO returned Australia's national terrorism threat level from 'possible' to 'probable'. The Director-General stated that politically-motivated violence, of which terrorism is an element, had now joined espionage and foreign interference as one of our principal security concerns. The Director-General's warning was a sobering reminder that we live in precarious times. And, unfortunately, that comes as no surprise. Increasing social division and threats of violence in our communities have escalated dramatically since the 7 October attacks by Hamas on Israel. We've seen teenagers charged with offences that police allege are motivated by terrorism; a shocking increase in antisemitism; and some individuals even proudly displaying symbols of terrorist organisations on the streets of our cities, in contravention of the prohibited hate-symbols legislation that the parliament passed last year. This bill is a straightforward proposal to extend for a further three years the declared area offence in section 119.2 of the Criminal Code Act that is currently scheduled to sunset on 7 September 2024. The bill would also provide that section 119.3 of the Criminal Code Act, the provision under which the minister for foreign affairs can declare an area for the purpose of the offence in section 119.2, ceases to have effect on 7 September 2027. Introduced by the former coalition government as part of the foreign fighters counter-terrorism legislation amendments in 2014, the declared areas offence fulfils a crucial role in the disruption and prosecution of returning foreign terrorist fighters and their associates. The legislation allows for the prosecution of suspected terrorists in circumstances where it is challenging to collect evidence relating to the intention elements of more serious terrorism offences, including in conflict zones. Where there is a declared area—declared by the minister for foreign affairs—it is an offence to enter or remain in that area without a legitimate reason. A declared area is a place where terrorist organisations are engaging in hostile activity. There are very few legitimate reasons for entering these areas, and the offence recognises this by providing targeted exemptions. There have been only two declarations made using these provisions to date: Mosul district in Iraq in 2018 and the al-Raqqa province in Syria in 2014. Four Australians have been charged under the declared area offences. There was a significant reduction in Australians travelling to Syria and Iraq in that conflict zone in the ISIS period after these declarations were made. The provisions likely discouraged people who might have otherwise considered entering Mosul or al-Raqqa while their respective declarations were in effect and discouraged parents from taking their children into those areas. Declarations have only been used in the context of the Islamic State because, until recently, this has been the only conflict since the commencement of the declared areas framework which warranted the use of that power. However, the framework was designed in such a way that it could be used in response to current and future conflicts. In the wake of the October 7 attacks, we have seen Hizballah continuing to escalate cross-border attacks against Israel while they refuse to withdraw north of the Litani River as required under the unanimous United Nations Security Council Resolution 1701, which was passed in 2006. As the threat of escalation looms, the coalition has previously called on the government to discourage Australians from going to Lebanon to engage in hostilities by declaring the area in Southern Lebanon to make it an offence to enter or remain in that area without a legitimate reason. I'd like to reiterate that call today. We must not wait for an outbreak in war to take decisive action to deter Australians from travelling to Hizballah strongholds in Southern Lebanon and taking up arms against Israel. The coalition, of course, will always support sensible changes which ensure our legislation is fit for purpose to enable our intelligence and law enforcement agencies to protect Australians from terrorism, which is why we'll be supporting the passage of this bill. But the passage of these laws is not just something to be done for effect. It is not to be done just for the laws to sit on a shelf and be admired; they are there to be used. If the government is not willing to use powers like these, granted to it by the parliament, then there is a very real risk that Australians will continue to travel to conflict areas including Southern Lebanon. It is highly significant that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in a bipartisan, unanimous report encouraged the government to seek advice from our security agencies about whether or not the region of Southern Lebanon, south of the Litani River, should be a declared area for the purposes of these powers. The government has been very clear for some time in travel advice through the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade that Australians should not be travelling to Lebanon at all, let alone Southern Lebanon. They have been urging Australians to leave. Unfortunately, we know based on media reports that there are many Australians in Lebanon who have not followed that advice. Tragically, two Australians have been killed in Southern Lebanon in an Israeli strike against Hizballah. One of those appeared to be a long-term resident of Southern Lebanon, an Australian citizen who was associated with Hizballah, and another appeared to be an innocent Australian visiting family in the region. We do not want to see anymore Australians killed if conflict does escalate in Southern Lebanon. We do not want to see any further Australians travelling, particularly to Southern Lebanon, where they put themselves at grave risk of being in the crossfire of any conflict between the IDF and Hizballah, which threatens to escalate at any moment. So we again call on the government to very carefully consider whether or not these powers should be used as a means of deterring Australians from travelling and being in this region. There is no good reason to be in Southern Lebanon right now. No Australian should travel there. The Albanese government should use the powers that the parliament is now shortly about to extend for them to discourage Australians from putting their lives at risk and going to that region. 10:03 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I rise to indicate the Greens won't be supporting this extension of the sunset clause for the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Declared Areas) Bill 2024. We've seen—I can't remember how many—occasions where the parliament was rushed to push through counterterrorism legislation and additional security provisions, often in a moment of heightened political anxiety, and then the parliament, often to salve the conscience of rushing through legislation that hadn't properly been considered, attached a sunset clause to it. The problem is that the sun never sets. Again, we have more legislation where the sunset clause was put on and, again, the sun is not setting. In fact, I can't think of a piece of legislation where the sun has ever set. It's a mock restraint on this parliament. This is legislation that has gone through quite a process. It has gone to, on repeated occasions, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, and that committee repeatedly raises very extensive concerns about the human rights implications of legislation such as this. In its most recent report, it said, amongst other things, this: The committee has previously found that while the provisions likely pursue a legitimate objective (namely, that of seeking to prevent terrorist acts), there were questions whether the provisions were necessary, and, in particular, the measures did not appear to be proportionate, and therefore were likely to be incompatible with a range of human rights … It goes further to say: As such, the committee considers that it has not been demonstrated that the extension of these provisions is compatible with human rights … That's from the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security completed its review, I think, in 2021, when the sun was about to set, but then, of course, the extension happened. It expressly said there should be an expansion of the exemptions to travel to a declared area for reasons that aren't currently listed in the Criminal Code and there should be as well an ability for a citizen to seek a request to travel and an exemption from the code if they have a legitimate reason to do so. The government ignored that recommendation. They ignored the recommendation of the PJCIS in 2021. The PJCIS, in its most recent review, reiterated that recommendation—recommendation 1, again, called for the government to review the list of legitimate purpose exemptions for entering or remaining in a declared area. Indeed, the review suggested that there should be a regulation-making power to increase the number of legitimate purposes. At the moment, the legitimate purposes are found in section 119.2(3) of the Criminal Code. They include: providing aid of a humanitarian nature; legal obligations; official duty of an Australian government; official duty for the government of a foreign country, where that duty would not be in violation of the law of the Commonwealth, a state or a territory; official duty for the United Nations or the International Committee of the Red Cross; news reporting; and a bona fide visit to a family member. That's the list. There are, of course, other reasons. The world is complex. Human relationships are complex, and family dynamics are complex. There could be any other reason—a large number of other legitimate reasons—why individuals may want to travel to areas even if there is conflict there. We've just had the opposition say that they would like a declaration in relation to Lebanon while pointing out in the same contribution that there are Australian citizens who are permanent residents in Lebanon—across Lebanon; in the south of Lebanon, in the middle of Lebanon and in the north of Lebanon. Yet the coalition is urging for a declaration to make it a crime to reside in Lebanon. Has there been any consultation between the coalition and the Lebanese diaspora, the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of Australians who have family connections and often work connections—they might have family who are Australian citizens residing there—in Lebanon? Was there any effort at all to talk to the Lebanese diaspora before these kinds of statements were made by the coalition? I don't think so. It seems to be an ideological attack on Lebanese Australians and the Lebanese-Australian diaspora. It wouldn't be the first time. What we just heard from the coalition then is an echo of what Mr Dutton has said previously about Lebanese-Australian migration to this country. We got another echo of it just then from the coalition. This legislation seriously impacts some pretty fundamental human rights, including a series of rights recognised by international law under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—the right to freedom of movement; the right to equality; the right to non-discrimination; the right to a fair trial; the right to liberty; and the right to life. All of those rights are impacted by this. Yet the government and the coalition together just want to give this discretionary power to the minister. It's been used on only two occasions, and its ongoing utility is seriously in question, and there's the ability for it to be abused. We just heard the coalition talking about wanting to use it again, without any consultation, to criminalise the Lebanese Australian diaspora, consistent with the previous attack from Mr Dutton on that same community, and wanting these powers to criminalise parts of multicultural Australia. This is why we have human rights. This is why we're meant to be respectful of human rights. This is why the pretence of this parliament to be mindful of human rights, in putting in sunset clauses, is nothing more than pretence. The sun should set on this legislation. 10:10 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I thank my parliamentary colleagues for their contributions to the debate on the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Declared Areas) Bill 2024. The Albanese government is committed to protecting the Australian community against the real and evolving threat of terrorism. The declared areas offence in section 119.2 of the Criminal Code Act 1995, which is currently due to sunset on 7 September 2024, is a part of the Australian government's efforts to stop Australians becoming foreign fighters. Where an area is declared by the Minister for Foreign Affairs, it is an offence to enter or remain in that area without a legitimate reason. A declared area is a place where terrorist organisations are engaging in hostile activity. There are very few legitimate reasons for entering such an area. The offence recognises this by providing a carefully targeted range of exceptions. Although there are currently no areas declared, these provisions remain a necessary component of our framework in the current threat environment. The offence plays a role in the disruption and prosecution of returning foreign fighters and their associates. The bill would extend the offence in section 119.2 for three years, to 7 September 2027. A three-year extension is consistent with previous recommendations made by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, including in its report on the bill. This will be the third time the provision has been extended. The bill would also provide that section 119.3, the provision under which the Minister for Foreign Affairs can declare an area for the purpose of the offence in section 119.2, ceases to have effect on 7 September 2027. This will align the relevant declaration and offence provisions in the Criminal Code. The government welcomes the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's report on the bill and its unanimous recommendation that the bill be passed. The government has agreed or agreed in principle with all recommendations made by the committee. This bill reflects the government's commitment to protecting Australians against the enduring threat of terrorism. I commend the bill to the Senate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Senator Shoebridge 169119 by leave—Rather than having a division, I'd ask that the Greens opposition be noted. Third Reading 11 10:13 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole. 10:13 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024 11

Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024

Second Reading 11 10:14 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia One, two, three, four seconds: that's the time it takes to create a deepfake. In four seconds what could come next can be catastrophic. Deepfake imagery can be career harming for adults, but when used by criminals against our children the consequences have been and can be deadly. This bill recognises that improvement is needed to keep up with new developments in deepfake, but this bill does not make the existing legislation better. Instead, it introduces new legislation with significant gaps for vulnerable people and/or criminals to fill. It is becoming increasingly difficult to identify deepfakes and that makes this legislation incredibly important. There is criticism of this bill from important stakeholders. The Law Council of Australia, in its submission, complained about Labor's process for consultation, declaring: … expert advisory committees have not been able to consider completely all the issues raised by this Bill. You would think the Law Council was a relevant contributor with a view worth taking very seriously, but it appears not. Australia's eSafety Commissioner has estimated deepfake imagery has soared by as much as 550 per cent year on year since 2019. Pornographic videos make up 98 per cent of the deepfake material currently online; 99 per cent of that deepfake imagery is of women and girls. As shadow minister for child protection and the prevention of family violence, I have heard from parents whose lives have been shattered by the depravity and sheer evil of these online scammers. These criminal scammers use deepfakes and nude images to extort money from young children in a manner called 'sextortion'. Sextortion works like this. Criminals, maybe online and maybe in another country, prey on children through social media platforms and demand their money. They trick children into sending a compromising photo and threaten to leak those photographs, or the extorter threatens to send a fake photo to everyone in the recipient's contacts—schools, clubs and anywhere they've found out the young person is connected to. Male children and young people online during the school holidays, likely with more cash or gift cards than usual, are targeted most. They are more than 90 per cent of victims. The Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation has seen a 100-fold increase in reports of sextortion crimes in 2023 compared to the previous year. Latest data from November 2023 shows around 300 reports of sextortion targeting children each month. Globally, sextortion is reported to have doubled from 2022 to 2023. I encourage everyone—carers, parents, grandparents, teachers—to know more about protecting our children from sextortion and to check out the ACCCE website for information. A few months ago, News Ltd Australia brought a group of parents to Canberra as part of its Let Them Be Kids campaign, calling for children under 16 to be restricted from having social media accounts. As part of the campaign, a group of courageous parents, consumed by terrible grief, shared their stories of the loss of their children as a consequence of sextortion. The harrowing stories of these parents are real. Their stories are horrific. Susan McLean, widely regarded as Australia's cyber cop, is quoted as saying that in her 30 years of policing she has never seen a crime type that tips mentally well young people to crisis and self-harm as quickly as sextortion does. One parent who is taking action is Wayne Holdsworth, who tragically lost his 17-year-old son, Mac, in October last year after being targeted by predators. Wayne created SmackTalk, doing all he can to reduce suicide by educating people on how to be better listeners. Research released in June found one in seven adults, or 14 per cent, has had somebody threaten to share their intimate images. And if a worldwide survey involving Australia that found more than 70 per cent of people don't know what a deepfake is, then we need to do more to educate Australians. We need to ensure that young people understand how wrong it is and the harm it causes. We must do more to ensure children do not become victims or, indeed, perpetrators. In July a teenager was arrested amid allegations that the faces of 50 female students in a Melbourne school were used in fake nude images generated using AI technology. No matter how deepfakes reveal themselves, whether the images shared online were doctored or are real photos unauthorised by victims, they cause harm. As a mum, my children were not allowed to use social media until their late teens. It was very unpopular to take that position, but I saw it as essential. Putting in place controls was the right thing for our family. But, on reflection, it would have been easier with another ally in the fight to protect them. This legislation goes some way to doing that but it could and should be better. I went online and searched 'create AI-generated image'. In seconds, mere seconds, the search result was pages and pages offering easy guides to help me create deepfakes. There is need for education on online safety for people in all stages of life. These protectors include: agreeing on boundaries, reviewing controls, privacy and location settings, talking openly about the dangers and tactics of trolls and scammers, knowing where support can be found, and reporting abuse, crime and unwelcome behaviour. Outside the personal life of Australians, deepfake has also had an impact on the business sector. Research released in July found almost 25 per cent of Australian businesses have experienced a deepfake information security incident within the last 12 months—25 per cent of them! This is not to say that AI is all bad. When used well, it can be used for significant good, but there has always been the potential for people with malicious intent, known as bad actors, in the industry, to turn it to their advantage. We need a strong deterrent for those bad actors. When opposition leader Peter Dutton was Home Affairs minister he funded and opened the $70 million Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation. Since then, the ACCCE has removed more than 500 children from harm. A coalition government will double the size of the Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation because there is evidence of its good work. In 2018, the coalition's Enhancing Online Safety (Non-consensual Sharing of Intimate Images) Bill established crucial powers, now exercised by the eSafety Commissioner, to keep Australian children safe. Those opposite shouldn't be introducing weak legislation that is inconsistent with the Online Safety Act, that is too broad and that risks capturing innocent victims and placing the onus of proof on them. There is no need for legislation that amends the definition of 'consent', leaving too much room to judicial interpretation. We don't want to amend the definitions of 'recklessness' and 'unnecessary exception', and we don't want to increase exponentially the risk of harm to the victim, increasing the need to cross-examine victim-survivors. The bill is flawed. It is well intentioned but ill-informed. The Albanese government should not be allowed to keep the bill as it presents to the chamber but instead make the necessary changes to improve the legislation, to increase safety for all Australians. 10:23 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I first of all rise to acknowledge the, woe of my colleague, Senator Waters, in this space, for her work on the committee and her contribution to the chamber, and endorse whole heartedly her contributions and credit her work on the committee. This is a bill that does a very, very small thing. It extends an existing offence about the transmission of sexual material without consent, which has been on the statute books for years and years to also include material that was produced using technology including deepfakes. That's what it does. You would think, from the comments from the Prime Minister down in the government, that this was some extraordinarily significant achievement from the government. The Greens have been on record as saying that they support this change and support this incremental change to the existing offence of using a carriage service to transmit sexual material without consent. We support that, but we really could have legislated for this in an afternoon with the broad support of all parties and a very rapid committee process, because the change is, to be quite frank, extremely marginal in terms of the impact it's going to have. One of the concerns that has been repeatedly raised in this space with my office is that the existing offence under the Criminal Code of using a carriage service to transmit sexual material without consent is almost never policed, and another is that, when women make complaints to the police, at a state level they get told it's a federal matter, and for a federal matter they get told it's really a state matter. The police seem largely disinterested in investigating. There don't seem to be any good guidelines for how the police should go about acquiring the relevant information needed to find out where the offence was committed. There don't seem to be the specialist resources in place to assist state, territory or federal police to undertake the necessary investigative work to work out from what device and by who the material was sent. None of that seems to be in place. It would be good to see the government investing in those resources, asking those questions of the Australian Federal Police and, through the standing committee on police ministers and the attorneys-general, getting those questions asked of state and territory police. That's the hard work of government that needs to be done in this space, but we're not getting that. We got this bill as though it's a solution. The concerns that I have are that we'll pass the law and the government will say they've taken this action and that, somehow, this passing of the law itself will make women safe in this space, but history would suggest that that, of itself, won't do it. The policing culture needs to change to respect women when they come and make complaints, and I would refer the chamber to the report that was released last week on missing and murdered First Nations women and children and the additional comments to that report given by my colleague Senator Cox and me, which pointed out the deep disrespect police can show women when they're reporting their missing children, the physical assaults that they have received or the violent threats that they've received. Does anyone seriously think that there's a huge gap—that there's suddenly a totally different set of police forces across the country who are respectfully responding to women when they talk about their images being shared without consent online? I don't believe there is any meaningful difference. So, yes, let's amend this bill. Let's amend this law. Let's criminalise the non-consensual sharing of deepfakes. Let's do that, where it's involving sexual material without consent. Let's do that, but don't anybody pretend that the problem's fixed with the passing of this bill. Don't even pretend that it's fixed with passing this bill. I also move the second reading amendment that's been circulated in my name—as I'm corrected by my august leader in this chamber, I foreshadow that I will be moving a second reading amendment as circulated in my name. 10:29 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I thank my parliamentary colleagues for their contribution to debate on the Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024. This bill will modernise and strengthen criminal offences targeting the non-consensual sharing of artificially generated and real sexually explicit material online. Digitally created and altered sexually explicit material that is shared without consent is a damaging and deeply distressing form of abuse. The rapid development of artificial intelligence has allowed perpetrators to create extremely realistic but false depictions of real people engaging in sexually explicit acts, known as deepfakes, and share these online. This insidious behaviour is degrading, humiliating and dehumanising victims. Such acts are overwhelmingly targeted at women and girls and perpetuate harmful gender stereotypes and gender based violence. This bill will strengthen the criminal law to protectable vulnerable people from online harm and abuse and to hold perpetrators to account. The government welcomes the unanimous recommendation of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee that the Senate urgently pass the Albanese government's bill to ban the sharing of non-consensual, deepfake sexually explicit material. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee made three other recommendations. The first is: … that the Attorney-General reviews the threshold outlined in proposed subsection 474.17AA(1) after two years of the Bill's operation. The second is: … that the Attorney-General continues work already underway via the Standing Council of Attorneys-General in relation to development of harmonised offences … for the: non-consensual creation of sexual material; and threat to non-consensual creation and/or distribution of sexual material that does not use a carriage service. The third is that education ministers continue to progress their work to strengthen respectful relationships in schools. There is existing work underway to implement version 9 of the Australian curriculum and there's work by schooling systems to implement age and developmentally appropriate programs on consent and online safety within the context of respectful relationships. The government is considering each of these recommendations and will provide its response in due course. The bill amends the Criminal Code Act 1995 to modernise and strengthen criminal offences for the non-consensual sharing of simulated and real sexual material online. It will create a new criminal offence that applies where a person transmits sexual material depicting an adult person, using a carriage service, and the person knows the person depicted does not consent to the transmission of the material or is reckless as to whether the other person consents. The new offence will carry a maximum penalty of six years imprisonment. The bill also introduces two new aggravated offences. The first aggravated offence applies where the person transmitting the material is also responsible for creating or altering the material. The second aggravated offence applies where a person has already been found liable on three occasions for similar conduct at the civil standard under the Online Safety Act 2021. These aggravated offences carry a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment to reflect the seriousness of this offending. The bill sets out specific defences to ensure these offences are targeted and proportionate. I might address some matters that have been raised in the debate, before summing up. The bill ensures criminal offences relating to non-consensual sharing of sexual material apply to both real and fake material, including deepfakes. The bill repeals previous offences in the Criminal Code dealing with non-consensual sharing of private sexual material. Those existing offences do not adequately cover the situation where deepfake sexual material is shared online without consent. This was the clear advice of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee's inquiry into this bill and to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement in December 2023. The new criminal offences remedy this defect and create a strong framework to criminalise the non-consensual sharing of sexual material online. The new criminal offences are based on a consent model to better cover both artificial and real sexual material. Consent is not defined in the legislation and relies on its ordinary meaning, which is understood to be 'free and voluntary agreement'. A person is taken to have consented if the person freely and voluntarily agrees to the sharing of the material. It would not apply where consent was obtained through fear, force or deception. I want to thank Senator David Pocock for his contribution to the debate. The second reading amendment proposed by Senator Pocock relates to electoral fraud and scams. This is outside the scope of this bill, which is focused on criminalising the non-consensual sharing of sexually explicit material online. As such, the government does not support this amendment, although we remain committed to continuing to improve the transparency and accountability of Australia's electoral system. This includes asking the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to consider how governments and the community can prevent or limit inaccurate or false information from influencing electoral outcomes, particularly with regard to artificial intelligence, foreign interference, social media and mis- and disinformation. I also thank Senator Waters and the Greens for their contribution. This bill creates strong criminal offences for the transmission of sexually explicit deepfakes using a carriage service that are in line with the Commonwealth's power to legislate. There is an aggravated offence where the person transmitting the material is also responsible for creating the material. Criminalising the mere creation of such material is a matter for the states and territories. The Commonwealth has engaged with states and territories at National Cabinet and in the Standing Council of Attorneys-General on measures to ban such material. In light of this, the government does not support the second reading amendment proposed by Senator Waters. In conclusion, this bill will assist to protect the community from the growing trend of emerging online harms and will send a clear message to perpetrators that serious penalties apply to those who create and distribute real or fake sexual material without consent. This is another sign that the Albanese government is committed to keeping Australians safe from technology facilitated abuse. I commend the bill to the chamber. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator Waters be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [10:41]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Hughes)

12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 23 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hughes, H. A. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

10:43 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I move my second reading 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". The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 The question is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator David Pocock be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [10:44]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Hughes)

12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 24 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hughes, H. A. McAllister, J. R. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

10:45 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move the second reading amendment circulated in my name: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes that: (i) deepfakes present serious risks to democracy including through the spread of misinformation, and misleading and deceiving voters, (ii) the next federal election will likely see the proliferation of political deepfakes, with authorities including the AEC currently not having powers to remove these or penalise those involved, (iii) jurisdictions overseas have begun to grapple with the challenge posed by political deepfakes including South Korea where the National Assembly prohibited AI-generated deepfake content in political campaigning within 90 days of their April 2024 election, (iv) deepfakes of Australian politicians have already been created and circulated; and (b) calls on the Government to work across Parliament to ban political deepfakes in the pre-election period leading up to the next federal election with an exemption for clearly labelled deepfakes used for parody, satire, criticism, news reporting or legal proceedings". The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 The question is that the second reading amendment on sheet 2767 moved by Senator Shoebridge be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [10:47]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Hughes)

12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 24 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Cash, M. C. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hughes, H. A. McAllister, J. R. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

10:48 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 The question now is that this bill be read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. In Committee 17 10:49 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia At the outset of this contribution in the committee stage, there are just a number of technical issues that I will be canvassing and making comment on, but, again, I make it very clear that we fully support the intention of the bill and will not stand in the way of its passage. It has been our position since 2018, and it's consistent with the government's, that deepfakes and revenge porn should be dealt with in our criminal law. However, when you look at the way that this particular bill has been drafted to address the issue, there are, potentially, a number of unintended consequences. Just to be clear, for the purposes of the debate: the offences in this bill are not just about deepfakes; they are also about so-called revenge porn. So it's important, in terms of the technical drafting of the bill, that we don't forget that the bill deals with not one issue but two issues: deepfakes and revenge porn. If we look at the historical context of where we have been, what's in place and where we will be going to, the new offences in the bill replace the existing laws about revenge porn and deepfakes in section 474.17A of the Criminal Code—and they were, of course, introduced under the former coalition government in 2018. It's worth putting on the record the now Labor government's role in passing those provisions. It's a matter of public record that, as the shadow attorney-general at the time, Mr Dreyfus worked with the coalition to settle those provisions and ensure that they indeed did pass the parliament, and, in fact, in parliament, Tanya Plibersek expressly acknowledged Mr Dreyfus's role in settling and passing the current laws. So the Attorney-General worked with us when he was in opposition to pass the laws, and, indeed, the legal definition of 'private sexual material', which is the term that is now described as 'problematic'. That has now been put forward as the rationale for getting rid of the existing offences about deepfakes and revenge porn, even though this was originally drafted by Labor. This is where the historical context of what we are looking at today does become so important. If you actually look at the legal definition of 'private sexual material', as far as we can identify, it was first developed by Mr Tim Watts and Ms Terri Butler in 2015, when they included it as a definition in a private member's bill which was later described as being the then Labor Party's policy. That's fine, as I said, because we obviously agreed with that at the time, and we worked with the then opposition to ensure the passing of what are now the current criminal offences. At that time, we had been quite clear, and it was always intended, that that particular term would capture both revenge porn and deepfakes. So that's the historical context for the current law and what it reflected. To come forward to the present day: the offence provision in this bill is now drafted in a new way. It is now framed around consent. But one of the technical issues that has arisen is that, while the government is telling us it wants to move to an offence based on consent, it's actually repealing the definition of 'consent'. In terms of the drafting decision itself, it is not consistent with expert evidence around best practice. In fact, this is what the New South Wales Law Reform Commission report on consent in relation to sexual offences in 2020 said. The commission reviewed changes in the law over time and said: 3.48 The law on sexual offences in NSW has undergone significant changes in the past 40 years. Consent is now defined in a way that reflects communicative principles. They then went on to say: 5.14 We recommend that the law continue to define consent as requiring free and voluntary agreement— Again, look at what this bill is doing. It's repealing the definition of consent. So, instead of keeping a clear definition based on communicative principles, we are, in fact, removing the definition of consent as 'free and voluntary agreement'. That then raises some immediate questions about what this means in practice and—this is the issue we canvassed in our second reading speeches—the resulting lack of clarity that will play out in court. For example, what does consent mean when you're dealing with sexual material involving people with disability or dementia? What does consent mean when you're dealing with people from non-English speaking backgrounds, both victims and perpetrators? Does the lack of clarity in the legislation now mean that courts will need to look at cultural barriers, linguistic barriers? And could consent be implied from the circumstances? We actually don't know, and this is the issue that we have in terms of the new bill. We actually don't know how this is going to play out in court because of the unusual drafting choice that the Attorney-General has made. Where we end up, though, with the Attorney-General's choice is this: the design of the offence means that the prosecution will need to prove the element relating to consent for each prosecution, and again this raises questions, particularly about how it would play out in revenge porn cases, because all too often one of the issues we see with revenge porn is that victims do consent to the sharing of some material but only for very limited purposes with a particular person. The perpetrator then violates that trust by sharing the material in ways that the victim never intended. You need to prove the consent issue to secure the prosecution. And, as I said, one of the big issues—and we canvassed this in our second reading speeches—is it's not hard to imagine, based on the drafting by the Attorney-General, the consent issue now being a contested point in a trial. What does that then look like in the practical reality? This bill will go through; the law will change, so what will the then practical reality actually look like? Well, it will mean a greater likelihood of needing to lead evidence about consent and, in turn—and, again, this was one of the issues we raised in our second reading speeches—more cross-examination about exactly what things the victim did or did not consent to. You don't need to be an expert to understand how confronting and intrusive this might be for victims, given we have a current law that does not enliven these circumstances. As a parliament, we should be cautious before going down that pathway. Minister, one of the questions that we continue to ask in relation to the drafting of the bill and, in particular, in terms of the context of the amendment on sheet 2659 that the coalition will be moving but also in terms of comments that have previously been made—I read from the New South Wales Law Reform Commission report on consent in relation to sexual offences in 2020—is: why is the government repealing the definition of consent? 10:59 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland This bill does not remove the concept of consent and its application to the new offences. It simply builds consent into the text of the offence. While the bill does not define consent, it relies on the ordinary meaning, which is generally understood as free and/or voluntary decision or agreement, and this is clearly stated in the explanatory material for the bill. The previous definition was relevant to determining whether material was offensive. The elements of the new offence do not require the material to be offensive, so the previous definition is obsolete. 10:59 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I understand what you've just said. In fact, I think I read out evidence similar to that. That wasn't exactly the issue. I want to understand the rationale for removing the definition of 'consent', given that there is currently a definition and given the concerns that have been raised particularly by legal experts. But, more than that, what now will actually occur in terms of needing to prove the consent issue to secure prosecution? Consent is likely now to become a contested issue at trial, which then means greater likelihood of needing to lead evidence about consent. Therefore, the natural progression of that becomes more cross-examination of the victims and in particular about what a victim did or didn't consent to, which obviously means more pressure on the victims. That means they're now in court and are having to answer questions on this. So the question is not so much about what you're doing. I understand what you're doing. It is about why you're removing the definition. 11:01 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As I said in my previous answer, the previous definition of 'consent' was relevant under the previous law to determining whether material was offensive or not, but the elements of the new offence do not require the material to be 'offensive' and so that previous definition is obsolete. The definition of 'consent' applied to the requirement for material to be offensive, and that requirement doesn't exist anymore. Therefore we don't need the definition. Having said that, as I said in my previous answer, it would be expected that the court would rely on the ordinary meaning of the term 'consent', and I explained what that is. You did just raise the point about cross-examination, Senator Cash, so I thought I might point out here that the new offence requires the person alleged to have committed the offence to either know that the victim does not consent or be reckless as to the lack of consent. Whether a victim is involved in a prosecution to give evidence will be determined on a case-by-case consideration, based on the individual circumstances and admissible evidence. It should also be noted that Commonwealth criminal offences are typically tried in state courts, which will apply state and territory procedural and evidence laws. Many states have specific frameworks for the evidence of special witnesses, including alleged victims of sexual offences. 11:02 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The issue that arises, though, is that, in the absence of a clear definition—which we know is being removed—there is now room to argue what 'consent' may or may not mean in the context of the trial. So what I'm trying to explore is how it will play out in a prosecution under this law. I would argue that you'd need the definition of 'consent' in the current law to be replicated in this bill because you've made consent an express part of the offence but you've removed 'consent' by way of a definition. The issue that has been raised with us in particular by victims is that the move to the new laws will create more room for cross-examination to occur, which is obviously what they don't want. That's the issue I have in terms of how it plays out in the court. Our amendment clearly mitigates that, but are there any ways you can mitigate the potential exposure for victims? It's the victims who are raising this with us. They don't want to be cross-examined on consent in the court. 11:04 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As I said in my first answer, the intention would be that courts would rely on the ordinary meaning of the term 'consent', and that is generally understood as 'free and/or voluntary decision or agreement'. I remind Senator Cash that this is set out in the explanatory material for the bill. The point about cross-examination is valid, and, as I said in my previous answer, there are frameworks that exist at state and territory level to deal with the evidence of alleged victims of sexual offences. 11:04 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia The concerns have been raised. I have articulated them. They are on the Hansard record. I know the Attorney-General indicated the government will not support the amendments put forward by the coalition, but, given the issues with consent, the fact it is the victims that have been through this before who have been raising it and the fact that it is acknowledged by the government that there now could be an impact on cross-examination—and we don't know what that is going to be but you removed the definition—it does open up the door in terms of victims being cross-examined publicly about what they did or didn't consent to. Before we get to the amendment, I would just ask the government to again consider its support for our amendment on sheet 2750, which is merely a review to understand: if it is working, that is great; but if it is not and it is having a detrimental impact on people who now find themselves in a witness box answering very difficult questions about what they did or didn't consent to, if you could consider whether or not that is something you would be minded to support. In the committee inquiry into this bill, one of the issues that again has been raised is that it was truncated. In fact, the Law Council itself was not heard from, so I just want to put on the Hansard record part of the Law Council's written submission. It states: 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. That is a quote from the Law Council's written submission. Certainly, the points that we have raised in our second reading speeches, and as I previously discussed with Minister Watt, there are some very unusual drafting choices in this bill. You can make unusual drafting choices. The problem is when you don't explain the rationale for the unusual choices. But what is worse is, in implementing the unusual drafting choice—and, as I said, in this case, consent is now an element of the offence; however, confusingly, the government is then repealing the definition of 'consent'—the flow-on consequence for that—I don't know if the Australian Greens have also looked at this—is now the exposure of, probably, women to cross-examination in a court, which is not something they necessarily want to be cross-examined on. I would have thought the Law Council of all people, you would want to hear from, given their expertise in drafting legislation and providing comment on it That quote by the Law Council should ring alarm bells. We have unusual drafting choices in this bill which, if you haven't fully considered the impact of an unusual drafting choice, mean potential unintended consequences. I am really concerned that it was a truncated hearing and that bodies like the Law Council were not heard from yet, in written submissions, they raise some critical concerns. For example, they go on to say: While we agree that the existing aggravated offences in the Criminal Code may— I pause to emphasise '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 primary offence in section 474.17 that promote certainty. These features should be considered by the Committee in considering improvements to the new offences contained in the Bill. Where does this actually leave us in terms of the unusual drafting choices in the legislation? As I said, the legislation will go through this chamber. It's the unintended consequences and, in particular, the impact on victims that we are trying to understand. The Law Council itself has said that this bill has unusual drafting choices, which we know, because of the truncated committee inquiry, and have not been properly considered. We also know that the Law Council has emphasised the advantages of the current legislation. We also know, or acknowledge, that they've expressed a concern that, in some cases, the existing aggravated offences may not apply to deepfakes, albeit this view hasn't been tested in a court or even fully considered. But, importantly, there is actually a way to address the intended result of this bill—and, as I said, we're all here on the same page in terms of the intent of the bill—but, at the same time, avoid the risks of unusual drafting choices and preserve the advantages of the current offence. In that respect, I now move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 2659: (1) Schedule 1, page 3 (line 1) to page 9 (line 5), omit Schedule 1, substitute: Schedule 1 — Amendments Criminal Code Act 1995 1 Section 473.1 of the Criminal Code (at the end of the definition of material ) Add: Note: See also section 473.6 (which deals with material that has been created or altered using digital technology). 2 Section 473.1 of the Criminal Code (definition of private sexual material ) (note) Omit "Note", substitute "Note 1". 3 Section 473.1 of the Criminal Code (at the end of the definition of private sexual material ) Add: Note 2: See also section 473.6 (which deals with material that has been created or altered using digital technology). 4 At the end of Division 473.1 of Part 10.6 of the Criminal Code Add: 473.6 Material created or altered using digital technology (1) To avoid doubt, the definition of material in section 473.1 includes material that has been created, or altered in any way, using technology. Note: This includes images, videos or audio depicting a person that have been edited or entirely created using digital technology (including artificial intelligence), generating a realistic but false depiction of the person. Examples of such material are "deepfakes". (2) For the purposes of the definition of private sexual material in section 473.1, in deciding whether a depiction covered by paragraph (a) or (b) of that definition is in circumstances that reasonable persons would regard as giving rise to an expectation of privacy, the following matters are irrelevant: (a) whether the material mentioned in that paragraph: (i) is in an unaltered form; or (ii) has been created, or altered in any way, using technology; (b) if the material mentioned in that paragraph has been created, or altered in any way, using technology—whether the person depicted in that material authorised, or was otherwise involved in, the creation or alteration of that material. Note: For example, material depicting a person's (the victim's) face is publicly available. Another person uses technology to alter other material (the altered material) by superimposing the victim's face onto the altered material, such that the altered material appears to show the victim engaging in sexual activity. This depiction of the victim in the altered material may be in circumstances that reasonable persons would regard as giving rise to an expectation of privacy. 5 Application of amendments The amendments made by this Schedule apply in relation to material that is transmitted, made available, published, distributed, advertised or promoted after the commencement of this Schedule, whether the material was created or altered before, on or after that commencement. [material created or altered using technology] By way of explanation, this is an amendment that respects the intent of the bill. As I said, we all agree with the intent of this and what the government is trying to do. It's also an important amendment that aligns with coalition policy since 2018 that deepfakes should be covered in our criminal laws. There's no disagreement on that. We, obviously, know and understand the impacts of deepfakes, and, as the public record makes clear, the intention behind the existing law is to cover revenge porn and deepfakes. I'm offering in terms of the amendment—I understand it won't be supported, but by way of explanation—a way forward that avoids the drafting problems, risks and unintended consequences associated with the government's unusual drafting choices in this bill. It is an amendment that means simply clarifying that the existing aggravated offence—that means the definition of consent remains; we don't have the issues arising in terms of cross-examination—applies to deepfakes, as it was always intended to. This is an approach that preserves the advantages the Law Council spoke about but, as I said, also addresses the potential concerns that have been raised in relation to the Attorney-General's unusual drafting choices. It preserves the definition of consent but reduces the risk that a prosecution will fall over—this is always a risk when you're actually prosecuting something and you now need to prove the consent, because consent is an element of the offence—because a victim is reluctant to be cross-examined in a court. It is a better way to arrive at the destination that the government is aiming for. As I said, we get to the same destination. We would argue it is a better way to do it, and it addresses the unusual drafting choices but also the unintended consequences in terms of the risks that prosecutions will fall over because a victim is reluctant to be cross-examined in court. In the event that this amendment fails—and the government has indicated it will not be supporting the amendment—as I said, I will then move the amendment on sheet 2750. Again, why would I do this? It's because of the issues that have been raised, particularly in relation to the removal of the definition of consent, to the impact that this could potentially now have on a prosecution, to the fact that you will be seeing victims cross-examined in court and to the fact that there will be victims that say, 'I actually can't do this; I'm reluctant to be cross-examined,' so you'll have a prosecution that now falls over. That amendment is a straightforward review provision that requires us to come back to the issue in two years. It's a sensible approach that means we can check that the offence is doing—as I said, we're all on the same page here—what is intended, but, if necessary, we would be able to adjust it. Minister, the questions I have for you are: What are the advantages of the current legislation that the Law Council is talking about? Why is the government removing them? 11:14 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland With regard to the amendment, the government is not supporting the amendment. The bill repeals existing offences relating to private sexual material and creates a new offence that applies where a person transmits sexual material depicting an adult person using a carriage service and the person knows that the person depicted does not consent to the transmission of the material or is reckless as to whether the other person consents. The proposed amendments take a completely different approach and seek to reinsert the more complex concept of 'reasonable expectation of privacy' back into the provisions. This is not what was considered or recommended by the inquiry of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee on the bill. The advice of the CDPP is that there may be no reasonable expectation of privacy in an image that has been digitally created or altered. The proposed amendment would not resolve this issue as it does not engage with the question of whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in, for example, images or videos that are already publicly available. I note that the Law Council of Australia, in their written submission, also agreed with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions that existing offences may not adequately cover the situation where deepfake sexual material is shared online without consent. 11:15 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia In terms of the government's response, again, we're all seeking the same outcome. Our biggest concern is unintended consequences. The unintended consequences won't be known, unfortunately, until the law changes. When someone seeks to bring a prosecution and the victim has to be cross-examined or, alternatively, says, 'This is all too much; I'm reluctant to be cross-examined,' it is then we'll know whether or not the unintended consequences are indeed playing out. To clarify: our amendment is a simple way of addressing the issue. It overcomes the issues that have been raised, in particular those raised by the victims and by those in the legal fraternity. All it would do is put us exactly where we all want to end up—that is, it would clarify the issue. The existing aggravated offence applies to deepfakes, as I said, as it was always intended to do. 11:16 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I've already said we're going to oppose the amendment. The CHAIR 287062 The question before the committee is that the opposition amendments on sheet 2659 be agreed to.

The committee divided. [11:21]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

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

Question negatived.

11:24 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I move the opposition amendment on sheet 2750: (1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 8 (after line 25), after section 474.17B, insert: 474.17C Review of amendments made by the Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Act 2024 (1) After the end of the 2-year period beginning at the commencement of this section, the Minister must cause to be conducted a review of the operation of sections 474.17A, 474.17AA, 474.17AB and 474.17B. Report (2) A report of the review must be given to the Minister within 3 months after the end of the 2-year period mentioned in subsection (1). (3) The Minister must cause copies of a report under subsection (2) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report. This is a straightforward review provision that requires us to come back to the issue in two years. 11:24 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The government will not be supporting this amendment. The CHAIR 287062 The question before the committee is that the amendments on sheet 2750 as moved by Senator Cash be agreed to.

The committee divided. [11:25]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

Question negatived.

11:28 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland At the request of Senator Thorpe, I move her amendment on sheet 2763: (1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 5 (after line 12), after subsection 474.17A(3), insert: (3A) Subsection (1) does not apply if the first person is not 14 years of age or older. Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (3A). See subsection 13.3(3). This amendment is in line with the Greens' long-held position of raising the age of criminal responsibility to 14. I note that Greens in state parliaments right around the country have been pushing for this change, as have many organisations. In my home state of Queensland, politicians are sending children of primary school age to be locked away in prison, and, despite the efforts of our Greens MPs in Queensland to stop this, last year we saw the Queensland government suspend the Human Rights Act so that children could be held in adult police watch houses—children as young as 10 years old. The purpose of the Queensland Human Rights Act is to protect children from harm, yet it was suspended. Leaving aside that blatant disregard for democracy and human rights, both adult and children's prisons have repeatedly been shown to be unsafe for young people. They increase the likelihood of reoffending, and they impose torture-like conditions. First Nations children are especially targeted and are grossly overrepresented in child prisons. Closing child prisons is a key measure towards closing the gap. That's why the Greens are moving this amendment on sheet 2763, and we urge everyone in the chamber to support this amendment. I note that the federal government should in fact use its power to incentivise all state jurisdictions to raise the age of criminal responsibility for both this and all other offences, because kids don't belong in prison. 11:30 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thank you, Senator Waters, for that contribution. The government will be opposing the amendments by Senator Thorpe moved by Senator Waters. The new criminal offences are intended to criminalise the sharing of sexualised deep fake images without consent. The application of Commonwealth criminal law to those who meet the minimum age of criminal responsibility is not a new concept. There are a range of safeguards in place to ensure any decision to prosecute a juvenile is in the public interest, and relevant considerations are taken into account, such as the welfare of those involved. In light of this, the government does not support the amendments proposed by Senator Thorpe and moved by Senator Waters. 11:30 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I rise to join with my colleague Senator Waters to support this amendment. When this legislation was first presented to parliament, the federal Attorney-General was queried about it by ABC journalist Raf Epstein. Concerns were raised with the Attorney-General that the law would likely see kids locked up and put in jail, to which the Attorney-General replied, 'Potentially, yes,' and then sought to suggest that there wasn't an issue because, 'Children are treated differently to adults in the justice system.' He was pressed on it in the interview, and the Attorney said, 'It's going to be a matter for courts, but, by and large, children are not jailed in Australia.' He then said that police would obviously exercise discretion. The Attorney-General is living in a different Australia to the one that we witness, that First Nations kids witness and that young kids from poor communities witness. When the Attorney-General says, 'By and large, children are not jailed in Australia,' perhaps he hasn't been reading the data. Perhaps he hasn't been talking to state and territory jurisdictions. Perhaps he hasn't even been looking at the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, which, in its report into youth justice in Australia in 2022-23, found that on average during that year, there were 828 young people in jail aged between 10 and 17. I ask: is the Attorney-General right where he says, 'By and large, children are not jailed in Australia'? When you look at the number of kids washing in and out of jail, that same report from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare said that over the 2022-23 year—the last year we have full data for—some 4,605 children spent time in jail in Australia. On an average day, there were 42 kids aged between 10 and 13 in jails in this country. Over the course of 2022-23, 600 different kids aged between 10 and 13 went to jail. I say again: the Attorney-General, when he says, 'By and large, children are not jailed in this country', seems to be living in a very different country—perhaps a more privileged country, where you don't talk to First Nations communities and families and where you don't talk to kids and families that come from regional parts of the states or some of the areas in our cities with poorer socioeconomic indicators. Perhaps in the Attorney-General's country—the one he and the people he talks to inhabit—kids don't go to jail. But in this actual country they do—this country where, if we were to go and look at the jails in the Northern Territory right now, there'd be a bunch of kids in those two detention centres, and every single one of them would be First Nations. Or we could go to WA and look at the torture-like conditions in which kids are held in WA prisons. The Supreme Court has repeatedly called them out and said that they are torture-like conditions and has demanded the closing of those brutal child prisons. But the state government has done nothing and the federal Attorney-General has done nothing because the federal Attorney-General, it turns out, thinks that, by and large, kids aren't put in jail in Australia. And we could have a look at the cruel institution in Tasmania which has been the subject of a royal commission. The royal commission found that girls as young as 13 were being put into that children's jail and the girls, when they turned up at the jail at age 13, were put on the pill so that they didn't become pregnant because the authorities knew about the extent of sexual abuse and assault of girls in that jail. That's a child's jail in this country—the same country where the Attorney-General says, by and large, kids aren't being put in jail. When the Commonwealth goes to put yet another criminal offence on the statute books, one involving social media and the sharing of social media images, we say, 'Don't put kids aged 10, 11, 12 and 13 into jail for this,' because we know what will happen. We know they will be abused. If they go to a jail in WA, it's certain they'll be abused. They'll be in torture-like conditions. They'll be put in a watch house in Queensland. Every kid that gets jailed in the Northern Territory under this is almost certain to be a First Nations kid. And that cruel institution in Tasmania, the one the royal commission pointed out, is still operating. I support the amendment and I'd urge everybody in this chamber, when the Attorney-General says things like this, that by and large kids don't get jailed in this country, to just pretend it's not a problem, check it. Test it. Talk to people in your states. Talk to families who expect their kids to get stopped and searched and potentially jailed just for the crime of being black in a public place in this country. Don't just rubberstamp this stuff and think it doesn't matter, that kids will somehow be protected by the rhetoric of the Attorney, because they won't. 11:37 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria I rise to support the positions put by my colleagues Senator Waters and Senator Shoebridge. Right now 10-year-old kids across the country are being put in prisons. This is a national disgrace. The Greens, both federal and state, have been pushing to raise the age of criminal responsibility, and we welcome Senator Thorpe's amendment to the Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024 to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 14. In my home state of Victoria, the Labor government recently backflipped on raising the age of criminal responsibility to 14 and caved to right-wing pressure instead of listening to First Nations communities and expert advice. This decision is a complete betrayal to First Nations communities and the Victorian government have ignored the evidence that tells us that we should be investing in children's futures and this is ultimately what leads to more community safety. This decision will put more Victorian kids, especially First Nation kids, in prison. Breaking this promise is completely heartless and a total betrayal to First Nations communities, leaders and experts who have been telling us for years what needs to happen to keep communities safe and keep kids out of prison. We know that locking up kids isn't what's best for them and it doesn't lead to community safety. In fact, it's quite the opposite. It's deeply disappointing, although perhaps not surprising, that the Labor government isn't prepared to accept this amendment to raise the age in this legislation. Labor would do well to follow countries that have actually listened to the evidence and improved community safety, raised the age and invested in programs to keep kids out of prison. 11:39 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks for those contributions. There are a range of safeguards in place to ensure that any decision to prosecute a juvenile is in the public interest and relevant considerations are taken into account, such as the welfare of those involved. The government will be opposing this amendment. The TEMPORARY CHAIR DYU The question is that Senator Thrope's amendment (1) on sheet 2763 be agreed to.

The committee divided. [11:44]
(The Temporary Chair—Senator Fawcett)

12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 24 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Davey, P. M. Fawcett, D. J. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hughes, H. A. Lambie, J. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Bill agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment; report adopted.

Third Reading 26 11:47 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That the bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 26

National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024

In Committee 26 11:48 The TEMPORARY CHAIR DYU The committee is considering the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 and opposition amendment (1) on sheet 2649, moved by Senator Hughes. 11:48 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Minister, throughout the discussion and debate on the need for this reform, we've seen this as an ongoing issue around the NDIS, and we know sex sells. We know that it gets a sexy headline and that lots of people will click as soon as the word 'sex' turns up in the headline of an article. What we have seen not just during this process but for a few years around the NDIS is outrage that people with disability may require assistance when it comes to being a sexual being. Unlike a lot of people in this place—certainly unlike a lot of people that sit on my side of the chamber—I have a very different view on this issue and how it's addressed. I don't support the use of it as clickbait. There is no overwhelming money being spent on services that relate to sexual health for it, in any way, to be tied to overspending within the NDIS. It is insulting and ridiculous. I do particularly enjoy it when particularly middle-aged men raise with me the issue that no-one should be accessing sexual services through the NDIS. I make point that if you were to have a car accident on the way home today and would then require assistance to have sexual relationships with your wife, girlfriend or both, you may be pretty keen to ensure that you can access those services. It's amazing how that tunes the mind on what is the intent of some of these supports. Senator HUGHES 273828 I'm ignoring Senator Cadell, I didn't hear what he said, but I can imagine it was a pearler. The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Order! Senators, interjections are disorderly. Senator HUGHES 273828 Sometimes they're entertaining, Temporary Chair, but I do think that it is used as a salacious point and is misunderstood. I remember Jonathan Lea did a story on Sky News, and I happened to be on Paul Murray Live, and Paul was expressing outrage, as many do with regard to sexual services being accessible through the NDIS. Being on his show, I said, 'Paul, I'm actually going to disagree with you,' and I outlined some of the reasons I just said. I then received a phone call from Jonathan Lea that night. His mother had called him and said: 'I think you better call Senator Hughes. She made some pretty good points about this.' I don't think I'm disclosing a private conversation, but I know that Jonathan certainly had his eyes opened whilst working and investigating that story. It is not as simple, clean cut or salacious as some would have you believe, but we know that it is something that garners headlines. I find it personally distressing and a return to the old paternalistic attitudes that people with a disability are somehow not fully human—that they do not have the same urges and needs of every other person in society and that includes the need for physical contact. You just need to think of someone with a profound disability who is never, ever hugged. No-one ever touches them in any way, not even in a sexual way. They are just never receiving any form of physical affection, and that is a very, very sad state of affairs. I think it is something that we need to acknowledge—that people with a disability are full humans. We need to remove the paternalistic attitude that they somehow do not exist as sexual beings, because that is simply not true. I am sure plenty of people with a disability would back me up on that. I do appreciate that there are lists and amendments and services that aren't going to be provided under the NDIS. Some of that is very well and good. To buy into the rhetoric, do I think that people should be able to hire prostitutes? No, I don't. Do I think that people may require assistance to participate in sex? They should be able to acquire those support workers that enable them to assist that. Without going into too many of the details of some of the aides that are required, they can include harnesses and frames et cetera. Those things are important, and I think we need to make sure that we are mindful throughout this process not to get sucked into the political rhetoric and the sexy clickbait headline and denigrate people with a disability when we talk about this. What has garnered some attention, but I don't think the full scope of attention that it may deserve, is that we had an instance of someone who was convicted of sex crimes as an NDIS participant who was self-managing their plan and advertising on Facebook groups for young women to walk along the beach with him and potentially go swimming. At no stage was the person's background revealed. I acknowledge that this bill and the amendments attached to it will rectify that for people who are convicted, particularly of sex offences, who may require NDIS plans on their release from prison. The CEO informed us at estimates that all people with a disability who are eligible should be eligible, and that is regardless of their criminal background. I'm not sure I'm one hundred per cent on board with some of that, but that was the advice of the CEO. I totally support that position in relation to those convicted of serious crimes, and I think it should go beyond sexual crimes; it should be for all crimes that you are then put onto agency management of your NDIS plan, for the sake of the Australian taxpayers who fund it. Perhaps the minister can update us on one of the concerns I have and let us know whether it's addressed as part of the next tranche of legislation or whether it's something that's being examined. There is nothing that I can see in this bill that will protect support workers who are appointed, via the company that they work with, to work with a participant who has previously been convicted of a serious crime or, in particular, a sexual offence. A lot of the support workers—particularly those who work in behavioural supports and activities of basic daily living, whether it's assistance with shopping or chores around the home—tend to be women, and, very often, they are young women. I'm concerned that, at this stage, we can see no requirement for the agency, the providers or the participant who's been put on a self-managed plan because of a previous conviction to notify the support worker of this situation so that they are in a position to decide whether or not they want to work with that participant. We hear an awful lot about choice and control for participants of the NDIS. That is a feature of the scheme which I am very, very much in support of and one which should be protected vigorously by all of us, but the choice and control must extend to support workers. They must have the choice and control to determine who they are prepared to work with. Minister, as we're coming towards the guillotine for the committee stage and debate on this legislation, is this issue addressed anywhere in the legislation or is there anything planned as part of the next tranche of legislation that addresses it? Is there something that the minister is aware of that means that protections for support workers will be as much a part of this legislation as the required protections for participants? 11:58 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Senator Hughes, I'll endeavour to work through those questions, and I'll address that last issue last because I want to make sure that the view I'm offering is correct. I'm grateful for your outline in relation to questions around sex and your, I think, absolutely correct assertion about people being sexual beings and having a requirement for intimacy. The scheme and the government—and, indeed, all of us—should have proper regard for the dignity of the whole person in relation to those questions. I do think it's been unfortunate, to say the least, that the debate has focused on these questions in what I regard as a prurient and undignified way. Maybe the less said about that the better, but it certainly hasn't assisted a proper public debate about what is at stake here, what it is that the government is trying to achieve and the representations made to the government by the disability community and by experts. There is an amendment on sheet 2650 that is supported by the government and it does say that you may not have an NDIS support for a participant or prospective participant that includes the provision of sexual services. It is quite narrow in its construction. It does not include, for example, provision of therapy or counselling or other kinds of assistance that a participant or a potential participant could have in their plan now, or as a result of the needs assessment tool, properly found in the sections that we have traversed over the course of the last few days of committee discussion in relation to these questions. I should say that is a good thing. We should offend that principle, I think, and I hope that we do. I will come back to the final question in a moment. I just want to use this moment while I am on my feet to indicate that amendment SK120 relating to the governance of the scheme has been circulated. It goes to the fact that the NDIS is a joint scheme between the Commonwealth and states. Given, as you say, we are approaching the guillotine on this, I wanted to set that out as efficiently as I could. We also recognise that the critical need to get the scheme back on track is all about making sure that it continues to provide the services which it was established for by a Labor government. The bill includes a range of reforms that go to improving the experience of participants and to making sure that planning and budget-setting arrangements for participants contribute to this. In the course of this, the government put a proposition to the states and to the parliament that created the ability for the Commonwealth to make legislative instruments for select elements of the bill. These instruments cover things like what the NDIS should pay for, how new needs assessments will work, and how people will be moved to new budget arrangements over time. This is because these are administrative and operational elements that will need to be updated regularly as the reforms progress. States and territories expressed concerns with this approach. It has always been the approach of the ministry and the government that we will work with the states, but the government has listened carefully to the concerns raised by the Council for the Australian Federation about the use of legislative instruments. The minister has been working very hard with the states behind the scenes to land an acceptable way forward for both the Commonwealth the states. The amendment sheet that has been circulated signifies agreement with states and territories to significantly improve processes for NDIS rule-making. Statements have also been made outside of here today in relation to that. This agreement with the states and territories is to ensure that they continue to play their critical governance role while also ensuring that decisions can be made in a timely and effective manner. There are a number of aspects to this agreement. First, most legislative instruments in the bill will be made into category A NDIS rules. Second, there will be a new clearer process for seeking agreement to category A rules, with specific guidance around the kinds of objections that states and territories may raise to the rules. Instead of the current 90-day timeframe for states and territories to provide agreement, each jurisdiction will have 14 days to disagree to the rules. This disagreement must be based on the objects and principles of the act. If agreement cannot be reached with all states and territories, a new dispute resolution process will allow for referral to the Prime Minister and direct engagement with first ministers. If unanimous agreement can still not be reached, only majority agreement is required before the rules can be made. Third, there is a truncated process for agreeing to certain amendments to the rules setting out the needs assessment and budget tools. If the amendments will have no substantial policy or financial implications for the NDIS, agreement from states and territories is not necessary. They will still have the ability to object if they consider that the amendments will have substantial policy or financial obligations. Finally, revisions for consequential amendments have been made to sheets PA112 and SK118 to facilitate these amendments. This has necessitated revised sheets being circulated, and I understand that that has occurred. Much has been said in this place about the views of the states and territories. This agreed approach to this amendment, and the agreement that that amendment secures, demonstrate the support of the states for this bill and will usher in a new era of collaboration between the Commonwealth and the states and territories on NDIS and disability reforms. That is a good thing for the future operation of the scheme and should give participants, future participants and their families more confidence about the future direction and sustainability of this vital service and reform. In relation to the last matter you raised with me, Senator Hughes, about carers, the minister has already directed the NDIA to ensure that participants that have significant risk, as was the case for the participant that you referred to, are agency managed and not self-managing. This is based upon an assessment of the risk of the individual circumstances, and no doubt there will continue to be engagement and consultation on those questions over the coming months. 12:06 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales I want to reconfirm something, and I know we might not have an answer now—but for when we hopefully come back this afternoon. The question was in regard to the notification of the backgrounds of support workers. They may be agency managed; they may be working for a large provider, but, when they are allocated to a participant, the participant themselves may not know the worker's background. I'm happy for you to take that and come back later. 12:07 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Thank you. If we can provide further information early this afternoon, we will. If we can provide it later on this afternoon, we will and, if we need to provide it directly to you, we will. 12:07 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I've been reflecting on the last series of interchanges between senators last night in the debate on this legislation, and I fully understand the need for robust policy debate under parliamentary privilege and the role that it plays in our democracy. But I, more than most, now have a very clear understanding of the personal toll this abuse takes when parliamentary privilege is abused for personal attacks. I also had cause to reflect on the comments that were directed at Senator Steele-John last night. What we very rarely reflect on in this chamber is that just because we can say something doesn't mean we should. It certainly doesn't mean that it is compassionate or that it is, indeed, humane at all. Last night, I think, was one such opportunity to reflect on our shared humanity and our shared compassion. In this place, we are now reflecting on the appropriate standards that we all should adopt, and that has to include what we do and say to each other in this chamber. It's also important for us to remember the impact that our words have, as much as we can say them under parliamentary privilege. Clearly, last night, the words that were used in the debate were deeply wounding to Senator Steele-John, who was clearly very distressed. It wasn't just Senator Steele-John, because this is not just another bill that we pass in this place. This is a bill that will impact the lives of 660,000 NDIS participants, including some of our most severely and permanently disabled, who over the last 10 years have had their lives changed by getting the supports they need and getting out of the most disgusting conditions in group homes. They are worried, they are deeply concerned and they are watching these proceedings in record numbers. So even though we can say them, sometimes we have to stop and reflect on the impact that these words will have in the circumstances, as they did on Senator Steele-John last night. And this morning many people have contacted me to express dismay at the fact that they have not been listened to and that the tenor of the debate in this chamber is causing them genuine concern, genuine fear and genuine terror about their future. So while the minister did technically withdraw his comment, it was done not as an apology. It was done as, 'Well, if it assists the chamber.' That was not an apology. It was technically correct, but it wasn't a humane response to Senator Steele-John's distress that was reflecting the distress of so many other Australians. If there was ever a time in this debate to think about how we go forward and how the government communicates these significant changes to a community that is in uproar, but ultimately who is afraid, then the time is now. This is something that I think is beholden on all of us in this chamber. Minister, I have been asking questions in estimates. I have been looking through the quarterly reports, through the annual financial sustainability report. We've had OPDs and questions on notice. We have had smart-arsed responses in all of these areas; the minister is finding new and smart ways to not provide this information and this transparency. But, Minister, we don't ask for this information for ourselves. We understand how important the actuarial data is to be able to explain to people who are watching, who are terrified, what is going to occur with this bill. Whose packages will be impacted? How they will be impacted? They are not stupid. There are over 50,000 people who are waiting for planned variations at the moment. They are all terrified. Will this legislation and the cuts that it will implement mean that they won't be able to get any more services because they've had intra-plan inflation through their own fault, the cost-of-living increase or abuse by somebody else. There are tens of thousands of people who are waiting to get into the scheme, who have been waiting and waiting and waiting due to technical IT reasons. We all know what's going on, but, ultimately, it is those people who are on the waiting list that deserve our compassion. Those people deserve transparency and they deserve for this government to stop the games, stop the Redbridge rhetoric, and actually provide information to this place on this bill and in this debate so that we can provide that information to those who this bill will impact. It is good that the states and territories have come on board in relation to the categories, but they are not on board with foundational supports. They are not on board with all of the other assessments and the processes that will impact them. Given we're about to move out of this debate at 12.15, I would implore you, Minister, to ask Minister Shorten to provide this information that this place and these senators have asked for. To not play any political games, but to provide this data and this information so that those who are so terrified by this bill can be reassured, or at least understand what is going to happen to their lives. What you heard from Senator Steele-John last night is the weight of the disability sector on his shoulders. It is an unfair burden for any government to place on a single senator. Just out of human decency, when we get back to this legislation, please bring the answers to the questions I am asking on behalf of the sector. 12:14 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales If we get an opportunity to deal with these issues further, I'd be delighted to respond to Senator Reynolds's question. The CHAIR 287062 As it is 12.15 pm, the committee will report to the Senate. Progress reported. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 30 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Howe, Professor Joanna 30 12:15 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I rise to speak in relation to an extraordinarily disturbing article that appeared in the Australian this morning, which has brought to my attention a case where the University of Adelaide has acted in a shameful way with respect to the academic freedom of one of its professors, Professor of Law Joanna Howe. I'll read from the introduction of this article first, to provide the context. This is what Professor Howe writes: There is no such thing as academic freedom and free speech on campus if activists can weaponise a university's complaints-handling process to harass scholars and students they disagree with. I have experienced this first-hand as a professor of law at the University of Adelaide where I have been subject to five investigations in two years. Before I move on to the details of Professor Howe's case, I'd like to state that, as Deputy Chair of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, I've been aware of Professor Howe's very important work in the migration space, particularly with respect to the protection of migrant workers subject to egregious practices by unscrupulous employers. Professor Howe has made a significant contribution in relation to reforms in this area, and that is where I first came across Professor Joanna Howe. Professor Joanna Howe holds a Doctor of Philosophy in law from the University of Oxford. She studied as a Rhodes Scholar, so she's one of Australia's best and brightest. In 2022, Joanna was appointed by the Minister for Home Affairs as part of an expert three-member panel to review the Australian migration program, and in 2021 she was appointed by the minister for immigration to the Ministerial Advisory Council on Skilled Migration. She has, in fact, been someone who has assisted governments of both persuasions with respect to her expertise. She's authored three books, is well published, is very successful in terms of research grants and is making a very, very positive contribution in relation to scholarship in this country. So what we read today in the Australian newspaper is very, very disturbing in relation to academic freedom at the University of Adelaide. Professor Howe also conducts research with respect to laws relating to termination of pregnancy, and this is where she has been subjected to allegations, complaints and harassment from those on the other side of the debate. This is what we continually see, especially from the radical Left. If you do not share the version of the world that the radical Left has, then it is open season on you, and everyone from the radical Left will do everything they can to delegitimise you, attack you, and attack your freedom of speech, freedom of association and academic freedom. That's what we've seen in the case of Professor Howe. In this article, she goes through the five complaints she's been subjected to. The first complaint is: One was from a pro-abortion colleague complaining that my research critiquing abortion was religiously motivated and thus bringing down the reputation of the Adelaide Law School. Never mind the fact that I'd never once used religion as the basis for my argument … That was the first complaint knocked out. Here's the second complaint: Another complaint was from an activist member of the public alleging that my video on the tragic death of Jessica Jane was misleading. Jessica was a baby girl, unexpectedly born alive— during a termination procedure— and left to die on a metal kidney dish for 80 minutes in an empty room. Although my boss acknowledged my video was uncomfortable to watch, she confirmed the accuracy of its contents and its consistency with the coronial report. The second complaint was knocked out. Here's the third one: Yet another complaint came in via an email from Western Australian Labor MP Peter Foster to the vice-chancellor. Foster's problem? Apparently I'd been traversing the halls of WA parliament spruiking a research report that purported to be the views of the university. It's a pity Foster didn't bother to read the report's first footnote— The first footnote— which made it patently clear the views therein were the author's alone. That's the third complaint to the vice-chancellor knocked out. Seriously, this Labor MP, Peter Foster, should have a good look at himself. That is just ridiculous. It's wilful disregard of what was plainly stated on the face of the research. The fourth complaint was: Just before Christmas another investigation was initiated: this one prompted by an avalanche of complaints by TikTok activists claiming I had misrepresented facts on abortion— et cetera— I had done no such thing … Finally on January 24, less than two hours after I'd received an email clearing me of the fourth investigation … So that fourth investigation was knocked out. This is a professor at one of our universities who's having to deal with this torrent of complaints and investigations. It's outrageous. That investigation was knocked out on 24 January, and then she received another one. She says: … I received another email, from a different department of the university, opening a new investigation into research misconduct. This one alleged plagiarism and misrepresentation of facts, and was prompted by a complaint from a pro-abortion activist with a TikTok account dedicated to attacking me. This professor has TikTok accounts dedicated to attacking her—for goodness sake! I would expect from any university in terms of any academic pursuing scholarship in relation to any issue and exercising academic freedom for that university to stand behind their academics. And what happened in this case? The professor says: This investigation was by far the most serious of those I had endured. It was formal, dragged out over months, and an independent investigator was appointed. When the investigator's report cleared me of any potential breach … I breathed a sigh of relief, assuming it was over. For the fifth investigation, the professor's cleared again. There were five investigations—five out of five knocked out. But listen to this: But the university had other ideas, imposing "corrective actions": What an orwellian term that is! I despise bureaucratic language of this nature—a 'corrective action'. … a mandatory requirement that I complete an anti-bias course within 30 days and ordering me to have a formal discussion with my line manager about my research. The professor's cleared, and then the University of Adelaide formulates, under the guise of this orwellian language, a 'corrective action' that must be taken for this professor—she's a Rhodes scholar, no less—to actually go through a formal course on anti-bias training. Not only that, the university, when they wrote to the initial complainant about the results of the investigation, said this: Making things 100 times worse, the university then wrote a letter to the TikTok troll, failing to mention that I had been cleared of any breach of the Australian Code for Responsible Research. Instead, the university threw me under the bus; writing to the troll that corrective actions had been imposed. How dare you, University of Adelaide! That is shameful, to write to a troll in terms that omit the material fact that this professor was cleared of any misconduct. How dare you! It's shameful. Hang your heads in collective shame, University of Adelaide. The professor goes on to say: Predictably, the TikTok troll released the letter online and a torrent of online abuse ensued. I was accused by all and sundry of being guilty of plagiarism and misrepresentation of facts, and that the university had ordered me to unpublish my research. Of course none of this was true but the university's own letter had made it seem like it might be. So the university enabled and empowered the trolls who were out there attacking the freedom of one their most senior academics and then enabled the continuation of those attacks. Shame on you, University of Adelaide. Shame on you! Not only that but the professor then had to fight three times to try and get the university to lift this requirement that she undergo anti-bias training. The university refused three times without giving any reasons, and the professor had to go to the Fair Work Commission, and it was only then the university relented. Shame on you, University of Adelaide. We're watching what is happening in this case very carefully, and it is a matter I will be pursuing here and outside of here. Workplace Relations 31 12:25 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales This coming Monday is a huge day for millions of Australian workers. From 26 August, key parts of the Australian Labor government's closing loopholes reforms come into effect. For the first time in Australian history, gig workers will have access to some of the same rights as every other worker in this country. Gig workers in food delivery, ride share and the care sector are some of the lowest-paid workers in Australia. They don't have access to minimum wage or unfair dismissal laws, superannuation, insurance, or a right to collective bargaining or representation. These are all fundamental basic rights that many of us take for granted, and we've seen the devastation that takes place as a result of those workers being left in the lurch. The previous government refused to rein in the gig economy, and former attorney-general Christian Porter told the parliament that it was too complicated. Former assistant attorney-general Amanda Stoker said gig workers were just getting 'what they signed up for'. The Liberals and Nationals stood by and allowed gig workers to get literally torn to shreds on our roads. There have been at least 18 gig worker deaths that we know of. In reality, there have been many more that have been unreported. One tragic death we do know about is that of Burak Dogan. Burak was just 30 years old when he was hit by a truck on 2 April 2020. He was working for one of the major food delivery platforms, and records show that the platform had been sending him job requests at the time of his death. His uncle, Yavus, told me: 'When he was dying, they sent another message three or four minutes later. We had to wrap him up in a plastic bag to keep his body in one piece as we sent him back to Turkiye.' This is the carnage that's taken place in the gig economy over the last decade, while successive Liberal and Nationals governments denied there was any problem, and a number of the workers who tragically died at work were working for the worst offender, Hungry Panda. Hungry Panda is the worst of the worst when it comes to low pay and safety short cuts. In 2020, Xiaojun Chen was killed while working for Hungry Panda in Sydney. The following year, a New South Wales inquiry found Hungry Panda failed to report Mr Chen's death to Safe Work. In fact, Safe Work only found out a week later, when the Transport Workers Union reported it. It was then forced to reinstate two riders who the Fair Work Commission found had been unfairly dismissed for pursuing fair rates. When another one of their riders, Joy Wang, made the courageous decision to speak out about Hungry Panda, they sacked her, and Joy told the ABC earlier this year: I found myself in a desperate situation because of pay cuts, unfair order distribution, a dangerous reward system with unsafe time limits to complete orders, and a lack of rights, like proper injury insurance. 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. I think I will have to probably borrow money to pay next week's rent. If I still don't have any orders, I will probably not be able to afford food. That's a disgraceful situation, and it's happening on our streets. But, from Monday, because of laws passed by the Labor government, gig workers will have long overdue rights. And it's not just gig workers getting new rights on Monday; every employee in Australia will have a new right to disconnect. Labor recognises that too many bosses are expecting people to work and answer calls and emails outside their working hours without proper respect. We have put a stop to that. There are also new rights for truck drivers to get minimum standards, and there will be new rights for casuals making it easier to get permanent full-time or part-time work if they choose. The previous Liberal and National government passed laws making it harder for casuals to choose to convert to permanent employment. We promised to scrap those and put in a fair conversion process, and we have. That builds upon the 625,000 full-time jobs this government has created, representing 63 per cent of all new jobs. I'm also going to go to some of the things those opposites are opposing, if they get to power, including those things we've just talked about—gig workers, the right to disconnect, casual conversion rights to permanent jobs in Australia. The opposition have said they're going to take those away if they win the next election. But it's not only labour rights that are at risk from Mr Dutton; the same Liberals and Nationals are ramping up their attacks on industry super funds. We all know industry super funds are low fee, are run only to benefit members and have a strong track record on return for their members. On the other side you have the for-profit funds run by the big banks and financial service companies. They run to generate profits for their investors, have consistently higher fees and have consistently generated worse returns. The latest attack line from the bank lobby is they don't want democratically elected worker representatives on industry super boards. Let's go to the front page of last Thursday's Financial Review and see what it said: 'Growing criticism that it may not serve Australia's best interest for the retirement savings by having tripartisan'. This was effectively what they were talking about. So we're supposed to believe that, rather than democratically elected worker representatives, we should replace those representatives with the directors from the banking sector, the very same backing sector that was raked over the coals at a royal commission just five years ago. And let's not forget the Liberals and Nationals voted against the banking royal commission 26 times in this place. To quote the ABC at the time, 'The final report exposed a culture of capacious greed, of profits and shareholders being put before customers and the law.' These are the same people we're supposed to be putting in charge of people's retirement savings. What really sums up this ridiculous debate is the man criticising the industry funds on the front page of the Financial Review is none other than David Murray. Mr Murray, for those who have forgotten, was appointed chair of the AMP after the banking royal commission. AMP, which is one of the biggest for-profit super funds, was found to be charging its clients millions of dollars in fees for no service. Rightly, the AMP chair and a number of other directors, when exposed, resigned in disgrace. That shows the calibre of those people who are directors of the financial services sector. But Mr Murray then came in to clean things up, only to resign in disgrace himself two years later. Mr Murray had appointed a new CEO of AMP Capital who, just three years earlier, had settled accusations that he had engaged in serious, persistent and wide-ranging sexual harassment against a female employee. The previous AMP board penalised this executive $500,000 for his conduct. But Mr Murray came in and saw fit to promote him to one of the most senior roles in the company. This is the person whose judgement we are now supposed to trust when it comes to industry super funds. Of course, Mr Murray and his colleagues on the AMP board are not the only for-profit directors in the financial services sector who have disgraced themselves. I would be here all night if I tried to run through the entire list of the disgraceful conduct covered by the banking royal commission. But it's a bit rich for Mr Murray to be giving lectures about director integrity. Let's go to Cbus, which has been named as one of the funds of recent times by those opposite, the super fund most directly attacked by My Murray. It picked up a number of awards from leading independent super research house Chant West just a few months ago. Cbus was named specialist fund of the year 2024, the best for member services and the best fund for responsible investment. So on one side we've got the best specialist fund in Australia, which delivers the best member services and the best responsible investment, and on the other side we've got a man who had to resign from his last board role in disgrace and who spends his spare time campaigning against social licences and questioning the science of climate change. Unfortunately, it's just another sorry chapter in a sloppy, bank funded campaign to attack tripartism and industry super funds. Cost of Living, Northern Territory Election, Gaza 33 12:35 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland One in six children in Australia live in poverty. As a teacher, I saw the burden of this time and time again: kids going hungry at school; parents who didn't have the time to engage with their child's teachers because they were working two or three jobs to make ends meet; kids being taken out of school because their family had housing insecurity and they had to move on to keep a roof over their head; families without a roof over their head who were sleeping in cars, living in tents or couch surfing; parents and carers having to decide if they put food on the table that week or they pay for their young child's excursion; families in desperate need of mental health care and support who couldn't afford it; and senior students in my classes struggling to stay awake because they're working three or four nights a week. The government have all of the levers at their disposal to end this tomorrow. The year before COVID, suicide rates for people on income support payments were three times the Australian average. That rate fell by 37.4 per cent when payments were increased during the pandemic. The levers to end poverty are at the disposal of the Labor government, and every day that they decide not to use them is a national shame. A government sets its priorities. It shows us who it cares about and who it doesn't. The Labor government pouring billions of dollars into the fossil fuel industry, into wasteful nuclear submarines and into tax cuts for the rich tell us exactly who they care about. More heartbreaking than this, though, is that they're telling us who they don't care about. They don't care about the one in six children living in poverty in Australia. They don't care about the people who are punished over and over again by the failed mutual obligations system. They don't care about the thousands of people who rely on income support that is still woefully below the poverty line. The government has more choices to make as well, by choosing to dish out millions of dollars to the toxic petrochemical Middle Arm project. This coming Saturday is election day in the Northern Territory. Territorians will have the opportunity to send a message to the Labor and Liberal parties that they don't want the NT sacrificed for the expansion of fossil fuels. The Middle Arm project is an export hub for gas. It will be a petrochemical hub mere kilometres from where people in Darwin live. Instead of investing in health and education or supporting the community, the Labor government is blowing $1.5 billion of public money on propping up the fossil fuel industry. This weekend, Territorians can send a strong message to the old major parties that they, the people of the NT, deserve better. They can vote for candidates like Suki Dorras-Walker, a school teacher and a law student, who's running in Fannie Bay; or Asta Hill, a parent of two young children, who's a lawyer and a community advocate in Braitling. Whilst I know that it's incredibly hard to break through into a parliament that only has one house, as a Queenslander, I know we've shown that it can be done. The Greens in the NT are on the cusp of making that happen. This weekend, Territorians can send a strong message to the old major parties that the people of the NT deserve better, that they don't want their health and their community to be sold out to the gas cartels, that they want a government that fights for them and that they're sick of being ignored by the Labor and Liberal parties. The NT Greens are running an incredible campaign to ban fracking, stop the disastrous Middle Arm project, implement a rent freeze and get dirty money out of politics. We've seen in Queensland what a people-powered movement can do, and I have no doubt that we're going to see that in the NT. Every day, the Greens fight in this place for a better world. Since the beginning of the genocide in Gaza, nearly 90 per cent of schools have been damaged and destroyed. The last remaining university in Gaza was destroyed by Israel earlier this year. At least 625,000 students are currently denied their right to education and are learning in tents, in inhumane conditions, whilst Israel's attacks intensify and our government continues to take no meaningful action. We need to consider the consequences of this government's inaction. Once hostilities cease, Palestinian children will have no schools to return to. They are already falling behind, and the longer they spend out of school the greater the likelihood that they will not return to school. We know that the consequences of children being out of school are grave. They risk their mental and physical health, they risk both their own and their family's prospects in the longer term, and they are at greater risk of violence and abuse. We need meaningful work and action towards an immediate and lasting ceasefire to protect Palestinian children and their right to education. We must immediately end the two-way arms trade with the State of Israel, including the F-35 parts manufactured in Australia and used in the State of Israel's fighter jets. We need a ceasefire now. Free Palestine. It should come as a shock to no-one that the Leader of the Opposition has sunk to new depths of racism, aided and abetted by his colleagues in this place. To call for a blanket ban on the immigration of people who are fleeing for their lives from the genocide unfolding in Gaza is disgraceful. It is a complete and utter disgrace. They should hang their heads in shame. When they're asked what they did to stand up for the Palestinian people, who are fleeing a genocide, they can stand up and proudly say that they kicked the door in their face. Racism is in the blood of the opposition, from dog whistling on African migrants to saying that welcoming refugees was a mistake. It is who they are. We must call this out for what it is, which is a pathetic attempt to sow division and demonise a people who are fleeing a genocide. Labor must stand up and call this out for what it is. When we waffle our words on what they're doing on the dog whistling, we're giving ground to a racist politic. The Leader of the Opposition thrives on campaigning for cruelty, and his recent comments are more of the same. Labor must stop this race to the bottom on refugees and immigration policy. Audit, Assurance and Consultancy Industry 34 12:43 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales It's a privilege to rise once again in this chamber and draw my fellow senators' attention to the egregious conduct of the consulting, auditing and accounting firm PwC, who not only enabled the theft and monetisation of Australia's confidential information but have overseen an ongoing effort to evade responsibility and protect the image of their deeply complicit global brand. On 2 August I chaired the final public hearing of the inquiry of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services into this sector, as part of our ethics and professional accountability inquiry. This committee will report quite soon, and it will engage with recommendations that will seek to address what we have seen as widespread malpractice within the consulting, audit and accounting sectors that goes to the very heart of what professionals should be able to guarantee in the marketplace. I would like to give my thanks and gratitude to the Australian people who've been paying attention—the over 2,000 viewers of the live YouTube stream of what was happening here in the Senate, and the readers of the Australian Financial Review live blog and the daily blogs of the Australian Guardian and the ABC, which have been covering this hearing. I want to thank the people in Australia, and, indeed, across the world, who have shared in the disgust and anger generated by this grotesque reveal of the malpractice and failings of PwC. PwC is one of the companies, both nationally and globally, that purports to provide great guidance on governance; yet it has been revealed as failing grossly in its own management of itself. The Senate, with the fourth estate, has enlivened collective outrage. The question to be answered is: why does this matter for Australians? Well, these partnership franchises, so fundamentally important to the proper functioning of our markets here in Australia, are of interest to every Australian who has superannuation. That's why what they do matters. They are required to act in a professional way, to make sure of the information they provide to the market about whether a company is a going concern and whether there's compliance with governance requirements, throughout all our ASX companies. They have their fingers in every single business in Australia, and they are making some very serious mistakes in terms of the quality of audit and in governance reporting. What the closing hearing made clear was that PWC's global firm is complicit in this ethical ambivalence—the ethical ambivalence that enabled a tax-leaks scandal out of Australia to occur in the first place and created the culture in which that was enabled. Then what is clear to me is that there remains an ongoing and active strategy of protectionism, instead of accountability and reform, from PwC Global. The morning of our session in the committee's final hearing began with the new, most recently appointed CEO, a man by the name of Mr Kevin Burrowes. He was implanted in, imposed on, the Australian operation by PwC Global. The committee has taken evidence from the Australian Kristin Stubbins, who was removed from her position—and she made it clear to the committee that she did not want that to happen—and from whistleblowers from inside and outside PwC. I have heard from a range of partners very concerned about the way in which PwC Global has manhandled its way into the Australian operation. To cauterise their reputational damage, and the subsequent financial damage to the Australian firm, has been a part of the plan from PwC Global. It was a deliberate decision to place the interests of PwC Global operations above the transparency and accountability of, and reform within, their troubled Australian franchises. There was a steady stream of key international people coming to Australia and staying for extended periods. In this instance I particularly name Mr Bob Moritz, the global CEO of PwC. I also name a person who was very critical in this whole debacle, Global General Counsel Ms Diana Weiss, who was in residence in Australia and seems to me to have been critical in the cover-up that we saw from PwC and who continues to obfuscate and prevent the Australian Senate from getting documents that we know clearly reveal what was happening internationally with this information that came from Australia. It was Mr Burrowes who came in to oversee the reporting that finalised their internal investigations, commencing with King & Wood Mallesons and then engaging Allens and Linklaters. Mr Burrowes was absolutely a part of the international team aware of these matters. Now, this inquiry ended up with a report, the Linklaters report that I've referred to. That is in the UK. The Senate has asked for it. We have asked our sister entity in the UK, the Financial Reporting Council, to see if they can get it. But we've had refusal, and continuing refusal, of any accountability from PwC Global. Recently, Mr Burrowes finally revealed, after further questions on notice, that, in addition to his A$2.4 million salary—on which he had to correct the record and tell us it was A$2.8 million—he receives $1.2 million from PwC international. He omitted that in evidence to this Senate. He omitted revealing that to his own partners in Australia. In July last year, he revealed that only to a very small group of people on the current governance board of PwC. That gives me pause for great concern. Mr Burrowes, in his most recent appearance, defended the notion that his substantial payments from PwC International do not pose a conflict of interest with his role in PwC Australia as the CEO. Despite the firm's supposed separation into distinct entities across countries, the reality is, when the head of the firm has additional considerations beyond his joint and several liabilities to his Australian partners, the whole structure, which is already fragile, is further undermined. I have serious concerns about the state of PwC Australia, and I caution those seeking governance advice from that firm, because it clearly struggles to manage its own affairs and it seems to have a very, very limited understanding of what conflicts of interest actually look like. What continues to trouble me very significantly is that Mr Kevin Burrowes, who receives over $1 million from the international firm, claims not to have access to the Linklaters report or knowledge of the international partners involved, yet he is contracted to PwC Global. There is clear worldwide complicity. Australian partners like Peter-John Collins have faced investigation and public scrutiny, which are still underway. International partners who were directly involved in commercialising confidential Australian government information continue to act with impunity, and the contempt that PwC Global shows for the Australian sovereign jurisdiction is not lost on me or other senators on that committee. In that hearing, we heard from Meredith Beattie and also from Ziggy Switkowski, who revealed important details about governance failures. We also heard from former CEOs Luke Sayers and Tom Seymour, and I will have more to say about that. But I want to really stress the point that, despite our extensive efforts, PwC Global continues to stand in the way of the Australian people and, indeed, the Australian arm of its own entity, PwC Australia, achieving full visibility of exactly what transpired within their global firm both during the tax leak scandal itself and in the aftermath. We know, from the 144 pages of internal PwC emails that were released to the Senate in response to my questions on notice, that PwC staff from the United States, the Republic of Ireland, Hong Kong and London, as well as numerous staff within Australia, received and planned to utilise confidential Australian government information. PwC Global is not off the hook. They have intentionally shielded these individuals from accountability and, as far as we know, are still enabling them to operate in jurisdictions around the world as purportedly 'trusted actors' under the PwC International brand. PwC Global have demonstrably prioritised their own interests over the need to reform the culture and ethics of the Australian firm and, indeed, their global entity. They've put the security of companies and governments across the world at risk by refusing to release the Linklaters report. They continue to refuse to provide any assurance that international actors who engaged in misuse of Australian confidential information are not still engaging in the same behaviour. We must condemn the action of PwC Global. It is no longer a separate entity from Australia, not with Mr Burrowes receiving funds from both the Australian and international entities. Housing Australia Future Fund 36 12:53 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I'm grateful for the opportunity to put some remarks on the record today in relation to the Housing Australia Future Fund and in relation to the justification for the coalition putting forward legislation later today that will put particular guardrails around the operation of the Housing Australia Future Fund. You would have to have been basically not living in Australia over the last month or two to be unaware of the enormous scandal engulfing the CFMEU, and the unions and the Labor Party more broadly. The government has now claimed that it is shocked about all this corruption and disgusting behaviour of the CFMEU which everyone knew about. Taking them on face value, they say that they are shocked and, as a result of their shock, they are seeking to put the CFMEU into administration. So the CFMEU goes into administration as a result of legislation passed by this parliament, but the government shows no interest in the CFMEU's best friends who are operating a superannuation fund called Cbus. The Cbus super fund has three CFMEU trustees on its board, and the Cbus superannuation fund is a significant donor and payer of funds to the CFMEU. The Housing Australia Future Fund is seeking to engage with institutional investors to build houses in Australia. That is its stated objective. One superannuation fund has said that it would like to work with the Housing Australia Future Fund and that fund is Cbus—the CFMEU's fund. This fund is chaired by Mr Wayne Swan, who was a former Treasurer of the Commonwealth and who is currently the President of the Labor Party. Mr Swan, according to the Cbus website, is not the chief investment officer of Cbus; he is the president of the Labor Party and the chairman of the fund. But in his role as chair of the fund, Mr Swan has said: 'We believe investing through the HAFF'—by that, he means the Housing Australia Future Fund—'will meet the best financial interests of our members.' Mr Swan has committed $500 million of retirement savings belonging to members of the Cbus fund so he can co-invest with the Housing Australia Future Fund. We think that is a massive red flag, because, if it is good enough to put the CFMEU into administration, why on earth would he leave taxpayers exposed to the CFMEU's activities through Cbus? Why would he do that? We on this side will not do that. We will move to protect taxpayer funds by legislating that the Housing Australia Future Fund cannot do business with an organisation like Cbus, which is run by the CFMEU. It is not an appropriate party with which the government, for the Commonwealth, should do business. We have been trying to get to the bottom of these matters. Recently we filed a freedom-of-information request to try and work out what has happened between the Cbus super fund and the Housing Australia Future Fund. What correspondence has occurred between November 2022 and 19 July 2024? That FOI was rejected this government, a government which promised it would be transparent and honest. To make matters worse, we also passed an order for the production of documents through this Senate last week with unanimous support, which was due yesterday, which was not being complied with. So there is secret correspondence between the Housing Australia Future Fund and the Cbus fund which should be made known to the public, particularly given the scandal. As I say, if it is good enough to put the CFMEU into administration then surely it is good enough to protect taxpayer funds in the Housing Australia Future Fund from the corruption and thuggery of this union. This particular super fund has, as I say, three CFMEU trustees on its board. One of them has been on the board for 13 years, Ms Rita Mallia, and there is a Mr David Noonan who has been on the board to 16½ years. The APRA guidelines say you can only be on the board for 12 years—16½ years! Sometimes I wonder if we are in Australia or Argentina. On the broader issue of the coalition between the CFMEU and the Cbus fund, in the last year the Cbus fund has paid $1.5 million to the CFMEU and it has established a Cbus Property organisation, which has done $6 billion worth of property work since 2006. What is very curious here is that we have talked at length about the CFMEU's 30 per cent tax on the Australian people, where, if you want to build an apartment building, you have to pay 30 per cent in grafts to the CFMEU. But interestingly, the CFMEU and Cbus have been exempting their own developments from this tax. During an ETU strike which occurred in Sydney in relation to Endeavour Energy in February this year, the ECU, which has a seat on Cbus's board, has exempted Cbus Property from their actions. So they are trying to destroy private construction but exempt their own vested interests here from their 30 per cent tax and their 20 per cent cut in productivity. Productivity in the building industry is in the toilet because of the CFMEU, and all you have to do is read some of the accounts from the developers, like Mr Diaswati Mardiasmo, who says: They're looking after the guys on site … enforcing the 'no ticket, no start' type arrangements, which mean if you're not in the union, you don't get to work on site. "On large sites, there may be anywhere between five and 10 of these guys walking around, and that's a cost that gets built into the system, and it's a significant cost. That is the cost that we're all paying. In relation to the CFMEU and its engagement in my own state in New South Wales, there's another case which has come up recently, which is the Hakoah case, where the Hakoah Jewish club has been developing a site in east Sydney—it has a developer called Parkview—and there has been a dispute there. Hakoah alleges there has been a sweetheart deal between Parkview and some subbies where the subbies make payments off the books to the CFMEU and then, when Hakoah and Parkview have had a dispute, the CFMEU has been able to threaten to get pro-Palestinian activists to go down to this Hakoah development and threaten the Hakoah members and associates in order to get the best possible deal in their industrial dispute with Hakoah. They are putting the fear of a pro-Palestinian militant campaign into a Jewish club, which shows the length to which these people will go. So I think it's very important that we're clear-eyed about what we're trying to achieve with this legislation to be introduced today by the coalition. This is about preserving the integrity and probity of taxpayer funds. It is true that we don't believe that the Housing Australia Future Fund is a good idea. We don't think that spending billions of dollars on housing bureaucracies which build no houses and spending money on executives and paper pushing are a good idea. But, because there are $10 billion of taxpayer funds invested in this organisation, we must do everything we can to protect these taxpayer funds against them being pillaged by the CFMEU and its Cbus constituent fund. If it were allowed to go ahead—if the Cbus fund could in fact co-invest with the Housing Australia Future Fund—you would see a massive exposure of taxpayer funds to criminal elements that are deliberately inflating the costs of construction. Perhaps the irony is not lost on the chamber that the government is seeking help from the CFMEU and Cbus, which are the same organisations that are making housing unaffordable in Australia. These are the people, through their disgusting corruption, that are inflating the building costs in this country, which means that young people can't afford to buy an entry-level apartment. So the idea that we would allow taxpayer funds to be exposed through the Housing Australia Future Fund to the Cbus fund cannot stand, which is why our legislation will ban the Housing Australia Future Fund from investing in any project or any consortium which is engaged with Cbus for the period in which the CFMEU is in administration. If it's good enough to put the CFMEU into administration, it's surely good enough to protect taxpayer funds from being pillaged by the same criminal and corrupt elements. I look forward to introducing that bill later today. National Security 37 13:03 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Two weeks ago, Australia's general terrorism threat level was raised to 'probable'. That means there is a greater than 50 per cent chance of an onshore attack or attack planning in the next 12 months. Mike Burgess, the head of ASIO, has warned Australians that religiously motivated violent extremists and ideologically motivated groups are increasingly hard to track. So why is an organisation like Hizbut Tahrir still operating in this country? This group's stated aim is to establish an Islamic caliphate and call Muslims living in Western countries like this one to—and I quote—'come out of the illusion of their cozy relationship with the West and embrace the struggle of Islam versus nonbelievers.' Twenty years ago, New South Wales police and counterterrorism departments had a list of organisations they wanted listed as terrorist organisations. One of the groups they were tracking was—guess who? That's right: Hizbut Tahrir. Twenty years later, not only is this group still operating; it is infiltrating protest groups on our streets and in our universities, spreading their extremist filth and whipping up hatred. According to the Age, Hizbut Tahrir are using front groups to infiltrate the university encampment and pro-Palestinian movements. One of these groups, Stand for Palestine, works in coalition with other Palestinian groups who are often unaware of their extremist connections. In just a few months, this organisation has gained thousands of followers, has stepped up its presence in our mosques and is radicalising our youth. In May, a Sydney sheikh led protesters through Sydney university chanting free Palestine slogans, and just hours later the footage was edited by Al-Aksha Bhuiyan and spread online by Stand for Palestine. In social media posts, Bhuiyan has written that Muslims will 'continue resisting until Israel is completely wiped off the map, from the river to the sea'. Hizbut Tahrir are banned in China, Russia, Pakistan, Germany, Turkiye, the United Kingdom, Indonesia and all Arab countries except Lebanon, Yemen and the UAE. One of the criteria for listing a terrorist organisation is that like-minded countries have done so. Is the UK not a like-minded country? We're in a strategic relationship with them. It doesn't get any more like-minded than that for sure. When British home secretary James Cleverly announced that they would be declared a terrorist organisation, he said that the group was 'an antisemitic organisation that actively promotes and encourages terrorism, including praising and celebrating the appalling 7 October attacks.' Deakin University's extremist expert Josh Roose told the Age that Hizbut Tahrir has seized on the violence in Gaza as 'their chance to shine'. What is the Australian government doing about this? Not only have we not listed them as a declared terrorist organisation; according to the investigation by the Age, Australian authorities have registered and given special tax status to a charity directed by a key figure within Hizbut Tahrir, who has urged Muslims to send weapons to Gaza. We've got a front group for a terrorist organisation that multiple countries, including like-minded ones and Muslim countries, have proscribed as a terrorist organisation. What has the Australian government done? We've let a member of the organisation start up a charity. That's right, Australians! 'Come to Australia if you're a terrorist group. We'll give you a charity organisation to start up.' How is that leading by example, and how is that possibly keeping this country safe? You cannot be serious about the stuff; you seriously couldn't make this up! To Australians, they've done this to an organisation so they can get tax deductions. That's right. What a dirty, filthy way of giving someone tax deductions, seriously. The charity commission and the Australian government shouldn't waste any more time dealing with this. Seriously, what other terrorist organisations do you want to be taking Australian taxpayer dollars? Is that what you want? You have to do something about this. You can't keep turning a blind eye to this. You have to start leading by the front foot, and let them know we're not putting up with this rubbish. Take their tax deduction status off them, and do it right now. I want to start seeing some courage in here. Take that tax deduction status off them. Children's Book Week, Equal Pay Day 38 13:08 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania I'm going to use my contribution on senators' statements today to talk about two recent events. The first is Children's Book Week, an annual initiative of the Children's Book Council of Australia, which this year takes place this week, from 17 to 23 August. The 2024 theme, Reading is Magic, is a perfect illustration about how books can transport you to other worlds, help you explore new ideas and help you understand different people and perspectives, and it also bolsters cognitive process. This is true of both fiction and nonfiction. I was pleased to attend a book week function at Tasmania's Government House last week which celebrated the Read Aloud to Your Child Every Day campaign. Leading this campaign is the president of the Toast for Kids Charity, Steve Martin. Mr Martin has garnered the support of the Children's Book Council for the campaign, with the aim of making Read Aloud to Your Child Every Day as ubiquitous as other messages like 'Life. Be in it' or Slip, Slop, Slap, Seek, Slide. It's a message for parents and caregivers so that reading aloud to children becomes a daily routine for every family. To promote this message among parliamentarians, I've joined with the member for Moncrieff to establish the Parliamentary Friends of Children's Literacy, and I thank all colleagues who have joined. We know, from research, that reading aloud to children regularly fosters a love of reading. It promotes a number of skills including language, literacy, imagination and critical thinking, and it also strengthens the relationship between children and their parents and caregivers. I encourage everyone to make this simple yet highly important investment in our children's future. The other event I'd like to talk about this week is Equal Pay Day, which took place on Monday 19 August, thus 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. Research by the Workplace Gender Equality Agency identified three main contributors to the gender pay gap: gender discrimination; care and family responsibilities and workforce participation; and gender segregation by job type and industry. The gender pay gap is now at an historic low of 11.5 per cent, down from 14.1 per cent when we came to government. While there are some cultural issues to overcome, there is also a role for public policy in tackling the gender pay gap. That is why the Albanese Labor government has supported the Fair Work Commission to increase the minimum wage on not one, not two but three occasions; required large companies to report on their gender pay gaps; expanded paid parental leave to six months; and encouraged women's participation in male dominated industries, through initiatives like fee-free TAFE. We will not close the gap overnight, but we are making progress. We're also addressing the unfortunate historical trend to devalue jobs in feminised industries. One of these industries is early childhood education, and I'm delighted that more than 200,000 early childhood educators will receive a 15 per cent pay rise thanks to the Albanese Labor government. As a former educator, then a union official for educators and now a senator, I've been fighting for close to 40 years for the skills and experience of early childhood educators to get the recognition they deserve. While I've been advocating for educators and their important work, which is making such a huge difference to childhood development, I've heard ignorant comments by those on the other side that subsidised early childhood education is communism, a money pit and the hand of government reaching in and taking away the youth of our children and, more recently, that it is destroying the family unit. Give me strength, people! Those last two comments were from Senator Rennick, and it's absolutely shameful that no-one on the other side has called out these ignorant comments. If those opposite truly believe in accessible, quality early childhood education and care, then they have to hold Senator Rennick to account for his outdated views and make it clear that they are not shared by the opposition. These last-century views and the lack of any challenge from his coalition colleagues—I haven't heard one person from the other side call him out—go some way to explaining why progress to close the gender pay gap was so slow under the previous government. If nothing else gets taken away from my speech today, I would ask those opposite to make sure that Senator Rennick is educated in the importance of early childhood education and the value it brings not only to children but to families and the economy. Electric Vehicles 39 13:13 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria When the government brought in an FBT exemption for EVs, hydrogen fuel cell cars and plug-in hybrids, the intention was to drive up the take-up of low-emission cars. However, as a concession to the Greens, the government also agreed to end the fringe benefits tax on plug-in hybrids in April 2025. The problem is that range anxiety, high costs and inadequate infrastructure have hindered EV adoption, making plug-in hybrids essential for our energy transition. Plug-in hybrids are the choice of Australians who want to do better in reducing their emissions but are not in the position to commit to a fully electric vehicle. What we must not do is make perfect the enemy of the good. More people driving plug-in hybrids means lowered emissions, a key point I believe even the Greens would agree with. The upcoming expiration of the fringe benefits tax exemption for plug-in hybrid vehicles means we have to act this year to extend the exemption. Extending the FBT exemption until 2030 is essential for several reasons. Plug-in hybrids act as a crucial bridge for businesses, councils and the like to transition from fossil fuels. Extending the FBT exemption provides a stability across these sectors that they need to continue investing in cleaner technologies. Without this extension, we risk market regression where businesses revert to internal combustion engine vehicles due to cost pressures, threatening both economic stability and our progress towards sustainability. Environmentally, plug-in hybrids offer a pragmatic solution to reducing carbon emissions while our EV infrastructure catches up. They emit significantly less carbon than fossil fuel cars and are feasible in areas where EV adoption isn't yet practical. Most commuters only use the battery to drive their average 40-kilometre daily commute, rarely travelling distances that would engage the petrol engine. The FBT exemption encourages plug-in hybrid uptake, aligning with our climate commitments. Shortsighted policy should not derail our long-term environmental goals. Full EV adoption should be the ultimate goal; however, we must acknowledge the current technological limitations, particularly in rural and remote regions. Plug-in hybrids address range anxiety and infrastructure challenges, providing reduced emissions without needing an immediate comprehensive EV infrastructure overhaul. Extending the FBT exemption allows time for the market and infrastructure to mature, ensuring a smoother transition to fully electric vehicles. Strong support for this extension is widespread. Key stakeholders across the automotive industry, environmental groups and consumer advocates have voiced their backing. They recognise plug-in hybrids as an integral part of Australia's journey towards a low-carbon economy. Public sentiment echoes this support, with increasing numbers of Australians choosing plug-in hybrids over fossil fuel vehicles—reflecting a growing awareness of their environmental and economic benefits. Internationally, we have seen the positive outcomes of extending similar tax incentives. Countries that have maintained or extended their tax exemptions for hybrid and electric vehicles have experienced higher adoption rates, reduced emissions and a more stable automotive market. When I introduce the Treasury Laws Amendment (Extending the FBT Exemption for Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles) Bill 2024 in the near future, I call on this chamber to be part of the solution and to support my bill. I call on everyone to consider a policy adjustment to pull down barriers and support the technology that allows more people to drive lower emissions vehicles while the challenges of a fully electrified fleet are resolved. Australian Human Rights Commission 40 13:18 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I have been asked to read from four heartbreaking resignation letters written by people who recently left the Australian Human Rights Commission. The AHRC is a crucial institution, but all institutions need to be held to account, especially when it comes to how they treat their staff. After much thought, I have decided to read from these letters in the hope that it will encourage the AHRC to address the alleged behaviour. One letter describes an unsafe workplace, saying: Indigenous staff, people of colour, LGBTQIA+ people and those with disabilities were frequently dismissed in their attempts to address a lack of cultural safety, accessibility and inclusion in the workplace and were treated very poorly by senior management. It continues: Institutional racism and hostile working conditions at the AHRC is an issue that starts at the very top of the organisation. At one point, it was suggested that the then-President was actively promoting a safe and inclusive workplace by 'doing the rounds' of the office to greet staff in the morning. I experienced these 'morning rounds' many times and saw the President repeatedly use the names of employees of colour interchangeably—a racist and dehumanising act that never occurred with white colleagues. Racism and a lack of care for staff wellbeing is systemic at the AHRC … White people are hugely overrepresented in the organisation (particularly at the executive level and above) and little is done to address structural barriers that might prevent Indigenous people and people of colour from entering, and staying safely, at the organisation. Hiero Badge's resignation letter speaks of 'the internal suppression of pro-Palestinian perspectives and voices and a cavalier disregard for the psychosocial safety and wellbeing of staff'. It reads: In one instance, I was informally cautioned by a senior official for using the phrase 'From the River to the Sea' on my personal social media. Similarly, I was informally reprimanded for summarising a UN press release on the situation of women and girls in Gaza. The letter also speaks of poor working conditions stating: Staff members are overworked and unsupported … Last month, I worked 12 consecutive days without a weekend break including, a 15-hour day over a public holiday. I have experienced symptoms of anxiety, burnout, chronic stress, and depression, leaving me miserable and dreading work. I do not feel safe to continue. If this isn't disturbing enough, Sara Saleh's resignation letter spoke of how her identity was viewed as a risk by senior management and how a right-wing hit piece on her was circulated. The letter reads: The deliberate circulation of a defamatory and racist news piece about me to all staff was egregious, detrimental to my reputation and hurtful. This also sent a message to staff of colour that the Commission is willing and capable of circulating vitriolic commentary about them in the future. Sara shared details of how their departure was leaked, stating: The decision to leak news of my departure against my wishes allowed radio shock jocks, among others, to publicly humiliate me and attack my reputation. Sara also states that at least seven people have resigned in the last quarter alone, citing the commission's inadequate stance on Palestine as the primary reason behind their departure. These people have shown immense courage in speaking out, and they must be listened to. The allegations in these letters suggest a pretty toxic and silencing culture at the AHRC, one which is at odds with the role of the commission. The AHRC has the opportunity to reset with new president Mr Hugh de Kresta, who commenced his five-year term less than a month ago. I would encourage the new commissioner to read these resignation letters carefully and chart a new course for the commission, one which ensures a safe workplace, including for people of colour, LGBTQIA+ people, and also a place which involves taking a loud, fearless and staunch stance on the greatest moral injustice of our time Israel's genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza. Acting Deputy President, I seek leave to table these letters. Leave not granted. Australian Capital Territory: Community Survey 40 13:23 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory As an Independent senator for the ACT, my job is to listen to my community and come into this place and act in their best interests. Recently, I sent a letter to ACT households asking what issues are most important to them and how I can better represent their interests. Nearly a thousand Canberrans responded to my request for input with thoughtful, insightful and informed feedback. I'd like to thank each and every person who took the time to reach out and help me to better understand what Canberrans care about and how I can best represent your interests. A number of key issues for ACT residents emerged that I want to take time to share with the chamber. First, in what comes as no surprise, is the cost of living, which looms large in the lives of many Canberrans. Stephanie from Nicholls asked, 'Why do politicians think Canberra residents are immune to cost of living?' It's a good question, and I certainly try and talk about this a lot. There are many Canberrans doing it tough, and the talk about Canberra being an incredibly wealthy, entitled jurisdiction is not helpful. Judith from Stirling tells me that the cost of insurance has gone up 250 bucks, or nearly 50 per cent. Adrian from Evatt tells me that his parents are 'good, hardworking people who are both recently retired'. He says: 'They have done well for themselves, and my concern is that, in retirement, they might have to sell their home because of ever-rising rates and utilities costs.' At the heart of the cost-of-living crisis is our housing affordability crisis. Claire from Wright is concerned that young people are being locked out of the market. She says that she has given up on owning her own home. Many others are feeling the pinch of increasing healthcare costs. Caroline from Kambah says: 'There is a huge shortage of emergency and residential mental health options in Canberra. Just getting an appointment with a psychiatrist can take more than 12 months.' Lisa, also from Kambah, says, 'My husband needs his cataracts done, but the large premium we pay each month impacts on his ability to pay the gap fee while he's off work while he recovers.' Climate change also comes up time and time again. Michelle from Evatt captures the sentiment of many. She says, 'I want all elected representatives to take much more urgent action on climate change and actually treat it as an emergency.' Many Canberrans raised the importance of greater integrity in politics, and especially increased whistleblower protections. Jane from Amaroo says: 'So much good can come from the bravery of whistleblowers. They need protection for coming forward.' The need for a gambling ad ban also comes up time and time again. Osmond from Duffy tells me: 'Sports betting advertising has to be stopped. My children, aged 12 and nine, can recite the Sportsbet ads off by heart. It is just not right.' The overwhelming sentiment from ACT residents is that the territory cannot be left behind any longer. We deserve more investment and great opportunities from the federal government. Many other issues are raised regularly: the need for investment in education, science and research; better support for small businesses; household electrification; environmental law reform; funding for domestic and family violence; and electoral law reform—the list goes on. To all of those who reached out, I say thank you, again. I will continue to bring your voices to the Senate chamber and vote in the best interests of ACT residents. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 It is a bit early, but I shall now proceed to two-minute statements. Taxation 41 13:27 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales I want to talk today about the Tax Agent Services (Code of Professional Conduct) Determination 2024, a disallowance motion for which is currently before the Senate. A number of accountants, tax practitioners and others across New South Wales have been in touch with me to express their concern about elements of this determination and, in particular, sections 45 and 15. They're concerned for two reasons: firstly, that they may be required to disclose issues of a deeply personal or private nature to prospective clients and, secondly, because of the potential impact on the relationship of confidentiality and trust that should exist between a tax practitioner or adviser and their client. Let me address those concerns briefly. The new section 45 requires a disclosure of any matter that may significantly influence a decision to engage a practitioner. This could include, for instance, the practitioner's health, potentially their marital status, any problems they might be having at home, any substance abuse or addictive elements, as well as things such as an investigation by the Tax Practitioners Board which has not yet led to a conclusion. And this would also be retrospective in nature, requiring disclosure back to 1 July. Section 15 effectively requires them to dob in clients for material, false, misleading or incorrect statements in a way that may inhibit their clients from having a frank conversation with them. The Assistant Treasurer has recognised some of these challenges and has deferred the implementation date, but I urge my colleagues to study this determination closely, talk to tax practitioners affected by this determination and join us in this disallowance motion to allow proper consultation to be had with those affected by these quite far-reaching changes. Women's Economic Security, Gender Equality 41 13:29 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria This week, we marked Equal Pay Day. So it's perfect timing to reflect on the latest gender pay gap statistics and to introduce our legislation for super to be paid on paid parental leave. We are a government that gets things done for Australian women. We have achieved the lowest gender pay gap in history. We are funding a 15 per cent wage increase for our essential, and undervalued, early-childhood educators. We've boosted wages for aged-care workers already. We are extending paid parental leave to 26 weeks. And we've delivered a tax cut to all Australian working women, not just a few. These actions, along with our commitment to pay superannuation on paid parental leave, are making and will continue to make a huge difference when it comes to the gender pay gap. On the one hand, there are those opposite. What about their contribution to the gender pay gap? We know that they just don't get it. We know that the Liberals love low wages—and they particularly love low wages for women, who they think should go to work in our big, feminised, essential industries just for the love of it alone. On the other hand, we believe in backing women's economic security. Paying superannuation on paid parental leave is another valuable reform for the women of Australia. So we're not just talking about change; we are actually delivering it. Right now, today, the gender pay gap stands at a record low of 11.5 per cent. It's the smallest on record. We're proud of that achievement. There's lots to do, and we'll be here to do it. Domestic and Family Violence, Physical and Sexual Harassment and Violence 42 13:31 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales Recently, thousands of people across the country came out on the streets, thanks to organisers What Were You Wearing? We came out to say, 'No more': 'no more' to gendered violence, 'no more' to violence against women—'no more' to violence, full stop. How many more ways of public outcry must we find, how much more anger and grief must we express, how many more marches and demands for action must we make before governments decide to step up? Prevention services, crisis accommodation and trauma-informed training for first responders and judicial staff must be fully funded. No woman should be turned away as she seeks refuge, leaves a violent relationship and looks for safety—but they are, and every woman turned away is a government failure. All women, whether they have experienced violence or not, live under its threat. We have no choice but to feel the myriad ways in which our lives are forcibly shaped by it. So don't tell us what to do, what to wear or how to speak. We have a right to be who we are. We have a right to be safe. We have a right to live. Gendered violence does not happen in a vacuum. It happens largely against women and is perpetrated by men, and we must reckon with that fact. We must go to the heart of tackling inequity, dismantle power imbalances and smash the patriarchy. We must recognise that First Nations women, women of colour, trans women, queer women and disabled women face extra barriers, due to lack of appropriate support and services. So, most importantly, each and every policy and action must be developed through an intersection of feminist and antiracist lenses if we are truly to make sure that no-one is left behind. Otherwise, the untold heartache and sorrow of women being killed and abused will just go on. And that is unacceptable. United Nations Climate Change Conference: COP 29, Azerbaijan 42 13:33 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales In just 82 days, world leaders will descend on Baku, Azerbaijan, to attend the global climate conference, COP 29. I have concerns that Azerbaijan is hosting this significant event. COP 29, like its predecessors, is a conference designed to increase global cooperation, with the goal of reaching net zero emissions and reducing global warming. It is now more important than ever that the world acts cohesively in order to achieve this goal and to ensure a transition to net zero economies, conscious of the economic opportunities that exist with this, particularly here in Australia. Azerbaijan's environmental record is one of pollution and degradation, with vast areas of the country marred by oil spills and unchecked pollution, making it one of the most ecologically devastated regions on our planet. Worse still, Azerbaijan's actions go beyond environmental negligence. Azerbaijani leadership has manipulated climate rhetoric to cover up its human rights abuses. A glaring example is the blockade of the Lachin corridor, which eventually resulted in the displacement of 120,000 ethnic Armenians from the Nagorno-Karabakh area. The world has watched in horror as vital humanitarian supplies have been blocked by Azerbaijan, including food, medical supplies and vital utilities. This act, falsely presented as an environmental protest, has been condemned by leading international voices as an attempt to cleanse the region of ethnic Armenians. By granting Azerbaijan the privilege of hosting COP 29, the international community sends a dangerous message. I urge this government to take a principled stand and boycott COP 29 in Azerbaijan. (Time expired) Forestry Industry 42 13:36 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I've spoken many times in this place about Australia's great timber industry. Yesterday marked National Forestry Day, so I wanted to celebrate the enormous environmental, economic and social contribution of our forest industry and the workers behind it. The sector is a major employer in my home state of Victoria and right across the state of Australia. In fact, the full supply chain of our forest industry supports 80,000 direct jobs and another 100,000 indirect jobs, many in regional communities. It contributes $24 billion to our national economy each and every year. This month I had the pleasure of touring the Powelltown Sawmills and I saw the positive impact that this industry has on the town and the surrounding neighbourhoods and communities. It was fantastic to hear how the facility provides significant employment opportunities for the local community. During the visit we discussed how sustainable forest management can help achieve emissions reduction targets and support regional communities. We know that as trees grow they absorb carbon, which then continues to be stored in the wood, plant matter and soil, retaining carbon that would otherwise live in the atmosphere. This week federal Labor announced funding worth $5.65 million for eight new softwood plantations right across Australia. While it's disappointing to see the Victorian government shut down the native timber harvesting, it's pleasing to see that the federal government is putting money into plantations. With global demand for timber expected to quadruple by 2050, I'm proud to be part of a government that supports sustainable forest management in Australia and that recognises the crucial role the forestry sector plays in mitigating climate change and driving local economies, particularly those in the regions. Queensland: Education 43 13:38 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland The Courier-Mail newspaper has today reported that at-home learning enrolments in Queensland have increased by 229 per cent in the past five years. Today there are 11,250 students being homeschooled in the state. Parents are pulling their kids from Queensland schools in unprecedented numbers, and here's why: bullying, which is no longer confined to the playground but is entering every victim's home via social media; poor academic records and performance; and woke activist teachers and school curricula. In fact, one teacher in Queensland told a student not to do an assignment on me as his hero because in her opinion I was too controversial. The nation's largest homeschool education provider said parents consistently say they're dismayed at what's being taught and what's not being taught in Queensland schools. These parents deserve a pat on the back for taking a keen interest in their kid's education and shielding them from the indoctrination taking place in our schools. Students must be educated, not indoctrinated. Students should be taught critical thinking—how to think, not what to think. They shouldn't be forced to recite acknowledgements of country, touching their hands to the ground. They shouldn't be taken out of school to attend protests. Any teacher that indoctrinates children should be sacked and never permitted to teach in Australia again. They can always get a job with a Greens senator who will happily indulge in their woke extremism and hatred of Australia. One Nation is taking an education policy to the Queensland state election that will stop this indoctrination of innocent children. We'll focus on the basics to improve literacy and numeracy. We'll reward teachers whose classes achieve good academic results, and we'll put parents at the centre of education decision-making, ensuring they have a meaningful say in what their kids are taught. And welcome to the children up in our gallery today. Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence 43 13:40 Senator LIDDLE 300644 South Australia I join with others in welcoming the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner's annual statement on the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children. In a nutshell, the commissioner's report says the evidence is in: we need better data. Well, we should just get on with it. Already on record is the government's slow delivery on its headline commitment to 500 frontline service workers, with only 136 delivered to date. Innovative perpetrator responses are also behind schedule. We are on a unity ticket, though, in wanting to end family violence. There is shared commitment to the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children, informed by more than 3,000 contributions. The commissioner's report tells us we need more focus on the national plan's governance and a sharper focus on children and young people. Sixty per cent of calls to Kids Helpline go unanswered. The scale of sexual violence and incest needs greater spotlight. Men must be included in actions, with greater focus on them in assessment and response to risk. Lived experience must also be part of the solution, and, while the evidence for demand is in, good, consistent, reliable and timely data is important in ensuring the effective deployment of resources. This week I heard another heartbreaking story of yet another family devastated by a young woman's entirely preventable death. Community legal services talk of the need for greater funding certainty because uncertainty is affecting their ability to do their business and respond. For every client they turn away, there are two people seeking help. The solutions sit with every single Australian—just as it is that every single incident and death is preventable. Every single one is preventable, when prevention and early intervention are effective and people are able to access strategies to affect it. Housing 44 13:42 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I want to talk about the great, big tax rort—the elephant in the room—disguised as a housing policy. Nowadays, the Australian dream of owning your own home is a distant fantasy and the housing market is an absolute nightmare. And why is that? Well, let me tell you. Young Australians know exactly where to point the finger. Recently I asked my followers on Instagram about what they wanted me to talk about today. The results are in. Do you know what they want Canberra to hear? Please do something, anything, about negative gearing. Young Australians aren't stupid. We know this fancy sounding term is just the tax system's way of handing out massive freebies to people who are already doing pretty well. Meanwhile, young Australians are stuck renting, watching house prices skyrocket and wondering if they'll ever be able to afford their own home. Let's be clear: negative gearing isn't just unfair; it's harmful. It distorts the housing market, turning what should be homes for families into little collectables in a giant game of Monopoly. And guess what? The ones holding all the property cards aren't the young families trying to get a foot in the door; they're the wealthy investors with multiple properties under their belts. Negative gearing costs taxpayers over $4 billion each year, with nearly a third of that going into the pockets of the top 10 per cent of earners. That's billions of dollars that could be better spent on things that would actually help the next generation own a home. To all of my fellow young Australians out there wondering if you'll ever own your own home, I hear you, and I'm here to say, 'Enough is enough.' Let's stop this madness and build a fairer system where owning a home is more than just a dream and is a reality. On behalf of all young Australians, please, let's do something, anything, about negative gearing. Watson, Mr Paul Franklin 44 13:44 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania On 21 July, Captain Paul Watson, global iconic conservationist, was arrested by Danish authorities in Greenland. I want to update senators on developments since his arrest. This is, obviously, a significant matter of public interest to lots of Australians. Australia has shown a leadership role in the International Whaling Commission for decades to end whaling everywhere in the world. Cetaceans, including whales, are protected in Australia, and I note that, on the day that Captain Paul Watson was arrested, our environment minister put out a statement condemning Japan for the resumption of whaling endangered fin whales. Paul Watson did face the courts again six days ago, and the Danish authorities decided to keep him in prison until 5 September when he will face a decision on extradition to Japan and, potentially, 15 years in jail. The charges against him are highly questionable and are built on a claim that many view as bogus and politically motivated. The arrest is widely seen as a tactic to remove him from the global stage and curtail his environmental activism. Watson's legal team has been barred from presenting crucial evidence in court—evidence that is publicly available but strongly refutes the charges against him. If the evidence were allowed, it would significantly undermine the case being brought by the Japanese authorities. Refusal to consider this evidence raises serious concerns about the fairness of legal proceedings and suggests that Watson is being denied a fair opportunity to defend himself. The actions taken against Paul Watson represent a blatant violation of his personal rights, and it's simply unfair. I have written to the Danish ambassador about this. We've seen politicians from across the political spectrum in Europe write to the Danish Prime Minister. President Macron himself has called for Paul Watson to be released. I will be sending a letter to all senators and MPs, asking them to sign it and send it to the Danish Prime Minister, to free Paul Watson— (Time expired) Environment 44 13:46 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria Like many Australians, I am alarmed by media reports that 'forever chemicals' have been discovered in our water supply. These chemicals—the presence of which water authorities had previously denied—create major concerns for people's health. The fact that Australia has some of the loosest standards around regulation of forever chemicals should really concern all of us here in this place. What is even more alarming is that not only is PFOS found in drinking water but these carcinogens are found in sunscreen, takeaway coffee, paper cups, paper straws, cosmetics and even non-stick frypans. It's like a slow-motion car crash that authorities seem reluctant to address. I understand that a problem as seemingly ubiquitous as the presence of forever chemicals may seem too large to address, but address it I think we must. If we are not here to take action on known health challenges to the Australian public, then for what purpose do we exist? One of the great ironies of this place is that so many of our decisions serve only to make things worse. We replace cheap coal with expensive renewables, telling Australians that their lives will be better but only driving them into poverty. We have replaced plastic straws with paper straws, and we're told that it's better for the environment, only then to realise that these papers straws are lined with forever chemicals. Often it seems there is no problem that our regulators can't make worse. The matter of forever chemicals needs to be urgently addressed by this Labor government. It's an issue that demands attention, and Australians are counting on us to get it right. Member for Warringah 45 13:48 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland The film Catch me if you can stars Leonardo DiCaprio, who plays Frank Abagnale, a master of disguise. As a master of disguise, he was able to con his way to millions of dollars, putting on the facades of a doctor, a pilot and a prosecutor. We have our very own Frank Abagnale in the member for Warringah, Zali Steggall. She has disguised herself as a community Independent even though she votes with the Greens 60 per cent of the time—a political con artist. But Ms Steggall's disguise is not a very good one. Ms Steggall has created a protection racket for the Prime Minister over the issue of visas and has shamefully slandered the Leader of the Opposition, calling him racist. Ms Steggall, it is not racist to criticise the government for not conducting normal screening processes for people from a terrorist zone, it is not racist to criticise the Prime Minister for misleading parliament by stating that ASIO were screening all individuals, when in fact they were not and it is not racist to put the safety and security of Australians first. Ms Steggall should own up to the fact that she got it wrong, but she never will, and that is because she is a political con artist, deceiving people as she runs this protection racket for the Left. Ms Steggall is the queen of hypocrisy. She calls for high standards while throwing mud. Ms Steggall does not care about transparency or accountability. She is not independent. She has done bugger-all for the people of Warringah. She is the first Greens member for Warringah, and we need to ensure that she is the last Greens member for Warringah. Tasmania: Book Week 45 13:49 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania Firstly, a shout-out to Mount Nelson Primary School: hey! It's Book Week. This year's theme is Reading Is Magic. Reading can transport you to a different world, and that's magic happening right there. I love a good James Patterson thriller, but I'm also happy dipping into a children's picture book. I hate knowing that half of all Tasmanians are functionally illiterate, but we're working on that, especially at Mount Nelson. The Tasmanian Toast for Kids Charity is campaigning for us to read aloud to children every day. Reading aloud helps develop children's brains and understanding of language. Besides promoting reading, Book Week is a legitimate excuse for dressing up. I can't get my kids to dress up for Book Week anymore, so I've been planting ideas throughout the chamber this fortnight. This Book Week I'm channelling The Rainbow Fish. Rainbow Fish is bright and shiny. He has beautiful metallic scales and loves swimming around in his part of the sea. All the other fish admire Rainbow Fish's scales. Some ask for a scale for themselves, but Rainbow Fish loves his scales so much he doesn't want to give them away. After a while, Rainbow Fish realises he has lost almost all of his friends. He is lonely and has nobody to swim with. This makes Rainbow Fish sad, so he asks the wise octopus what to do. Of course, the answer is to share. When Rainbow Fish does share his metallic scales, he sees how happy he can make his friends and then realises he is happy too. Kindness is one of those underrated attributes, in my opinion. I love that the story about the rainbow fish wraps up the message about kindness in a sparkly little bow. Sharing can be hard, especially when we really love whatever it is people would like us to share, but being willing to share spreads happiness and magic. And guess what! It's cool to be kind. International Relations: Australian and Indonesia 45 13:52 Senator VAN 283601 Victoria 'Indonesia and Australia are destined to be close neighbours. We cannot choose our neighbours. Australia is Indonesia's closest friend.' These are the words of Indonesian President Joko Widodo in his address to a joint sitting of parliament in January 2020. Every government has aimed to strengthen our relationship with Indonesia, and I have consistently advocated for stronger defence ties. The defence agreement agreed yesterday with President-elect Prabowo Subianto is a welcome step towards this goal. The 2023 Defence Strategic Review highlighted that it's a priority for Australia's army to be transformed and optimised for littoral manoeuvre operations by sea, land and air. This transformation is not an abstract goal. It is a recognition of the geographical realities we face. When it comes to geopolitics, we can't forget the 'geo' part of it. Geography is the most binding constraint in geopolitics. This defence agreement, though we're yet to see the details, emphasises the strategic importance of our closest neighbours. We need to keep our bonds with like-minded neighbours, should we ever need to undertake littoral manoeuvres in their waters or on their lands. I anticipate that this defence agreement with Indonesia will help strengthen our littoral manoeuvrability in Australia's northern approaches, but it will also cement our friendship with our close friend, Indonesia, whilst enhancing our collective strengths to close security gaps in the region. Minister for Education 46 13:53 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria The federal education minister, Mr Clare, has demonstrated he cannot work constructively with even state Labor education ministers. This morning, state Labor education ministers—Prue Car from New South Wales, Ben Carroll from Victoria, Blair Boyer from South Australia, Dianne Farmer from Queensland and Yvette Berry from the ACT—joined a protest outside Parliament House against the Albanese government. It takes a special sort of incompetence by Mr Clare for things to go this far off the rails. As reported in the Herald Sun today: Mr Carroll added fuel to the fire in an ongoing Labor vs Labor stoush over funding for public schools on Wednesday, applauding the former Coalition government for increasing funding to state schools. In a brutal takedown, he also called on Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to "beat what Turnbull did" … "If I go back … to when Simon Birmingham was (education) minister and Malcolm Turnbull was prime minister, they increased public school education from 17 per cent to 20 per cent and that's a conservative government … Asked to clarify whether the previous Coalition government had done a better job at funding public schools, Mr Carroll replied: "Yes." This school funding war is absolutely a mess of Labor's own making. Prime Minister Albanese went to the election promising full and fair funding, despite the fact the Commonwealth is fully meeting its 20 per cent funding contribution to government schools under the Gonski funding model, but, in an act of apparent hypocrisy by state Labor, a short time ago I met with a teacher from Oberon Primary School, and they still need their roof fixed. There was a young man from Geelong High School who was having class in a hallway, so I say to Ben Carroll: please cut the hypocrisy, get your funding priorities right, and fix these issues. Students deserve better. Salmon Industry 46 13:55 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania Today, I have the pleasure of hosting a delegation of Tasmanian workers and representatives of the Tasmania salmon industry, who are here with us in the gallery. Also with them is Alison Jarman, the mayor of Devonport, and the West Coast mayor, Shane Pitt. I extend a very warm welcome to you all here in the parliament. The delegation represents a mighty industry that produces the best salmon in the world, and the Prime Minister has said the workers that produce Tasmanian salmon are also world-class. This industry creates jobs in regional towns. It is the lifeblood of local communities, and we are proud to back it. And I am proud to back all of you. One of the things that I'm very clear about, and that the Prime Minister has also made clear, I will reiterate: we want the salmon industry to be able to continue to operate sustainably across Tasmania. Tasmanian salmon generates over $1.3 billion of economic activity and employs over 5,000 Tasmanians in good, secure and well-paid jobs, and, last year, it hit a milestone of $1 billion in exports over the previous five years. The industry has a vital role to play in Tasmania not just today but well into the future. We in Labor stand on the side of jobs, and we also stand on the side of sustainability. The Prime Minister was very clear when he said, 'We think the two things aren't contradictory; they go together.' My union motto was 'Never give up'. These workers are facing a massive challenge. They have a fight on their hands, and I'm standing with you in that fight. AgQuip Field Days 46 13:57 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales Given the impromptu two minutes, I've been going through social media, and all my New South Wales colleagues are up there at AgQuip—a great celebration of agriculture— Senator Watt 245759 I was there last year. It's bloody good! Senator CADELL 300134 It is bloody good. I'll take that through you, Chair. It is one of the largest agricultural gatherings in the Southern Hemisphere. It is more than just a gathering where people get together and talk about their farming and buy and sell things; it is a gathering where like-minded people come together. They talk about things. They have an event which is super. It has been going for over 50 years. Gunnedah is a wonderful place to go to. I've noticed my New South Wales Nationals colleagues are on the tools today. They're on the barbeque. They're out there cooking their Teys and Cargill steaks for people. They are having a wonderful time. The agricultural minister was there. I love going there, and, if I weren't here, I would be there on the tools myself. Up there you get to see all the innovations in agriculture. You get to see the different breeds. You get to see the leaders. It is a backbone of rural industry. You get to talk to people experiencing similar problems. Something I do like is the last day deals, where people have taken augers up there to sell and they aren't ready to drive them home again, and you can drive them down and get a great bargain in that last half day up in Gunnedah. I wish my state colleagues well. I wish everyone in Gunnedah well, and I'm sure the agriculture minister, the shadow agriculture minister and everyone here wishes our farmers well as they do everything they can to feed this nation, to feed others and to grow the food and fibre that we need as a country. In Gunnedah, the New South Wales Nationals have their own shed, and we give a $2 donation to a local charity for every sausage sandwich—we don't charge full price—and that funds different things each year. All the MPs get on that. You can go to an MP, tell them you want a well-done steak, boss them around and tell them what kinds of onions and what kind of steak. Get out there, pay your $2 to charity and have a wonderful steak in support of charity. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Brockman. We'll move to question time. Live Animal Exports: Sheep 47 13:59 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia The Prime Minister can't help himself— The PRESIDENT 112096 Oh, this is your— Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Oh, we're moving to question time, are we? I thought we had 10 seconds left. The Prime Minister can't help himself. He has to make jokes at the expense of the agricultural industry and at the expense of closing down the Western Australian sheep industry. The PRESIDENT 112096 The time has expired, and I'll invite you to ask the first question in question time. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 47 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Agriculture: Intravenous Fluid Products 47 14:00 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator McCarthy. The current shortage of saline IV fluids under your government's watch is also impacting the agricultural sector. What guarantees can the minister provide to Australian commercial livestock operators and the nation's farmers that their livestock and livelihoods will not be adversely impacted by this shortage? 14:00 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I thank the good senator from Western Australia for the question. Just to follow up on something that he might have said 10 seconds before the question: we all love beef. We all like to eat sheep—those of us who like that—and lamb. It is important. It's good food. It's something that certainly those of us in the Northern Territory like. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Brockman on a point of order? Senator Brockman 30484 Yes. The question was about IV saline availability. The minister's got nowhere near it. If she doesn't know the answer, she should sit down. The PRESIDENT 112096 I will return the senator to your question. Minister McCarthy? Senator McCARTHY 122087 I know this is an important question for the senator from Western Australia, and I would say this: we saw what happened during the pandemic, when we couldn't get the medical supplies that we needed when we needed them most, which is why the Albanese government is investing to create strong domestic supply chains that support our world-class services. That includes rebuilding our medical, pharmaceutical and manufacturing capacity in this country and to reach out right across all of these sectors, including the sectors that the good senator from Western Australia is asking a question about. We've dedicated $1.5 billion of the $15 billion of the National Reconstruction Fund for medical manufacturing. Only the Albanese Labor government believes in making things here and is investing so we aren't always reliant on others in a crisis. Under your watch, Australians faced shortages of vaccines, shortages of COVID tests and shortages of PPE for our frontline workers. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator Ruston! Senator Cash! Senator McCARTHY 122087 Even today they stand in here and say that they want stronger domestic capability while, at the same time, their colleagues rant and rave in the opposite place. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston and Senator Cash, I called both of you, and you completely disregarded my direction. Senator Brockman, first supplementary? 14:03 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia This is a serious question that does impact livelihoods, and I don't think the contempt this Labor government has for the ag sector should be on display in the answers. The current shortages are also impacting Australians' veterinary clinics. Vets are reporting that, without adequate IV, practices may need to cancel emergency surgery and postpone routine procedures. What guarantees can the minister provide to millions of Australian pet owners that their pets will not be adversely impacted? 14:03 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory We won't be lectured on this side about the importance of supply chains. We won't be lectured on this side about the importance of having those supply chains. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister, please resume your seat. I have been attempting to call the chamber to order. Minister McCarthy, please continue. Senator McCARTHY 122087 I do pick up on the senator's question there in terms of the way we react and treat the farming industry. I disagree completely— Senator McCARTHY 122087 Senator Ruston, if you'd let me finish. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston! Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Wong and Senator Ruston, it's my role to make sure the Senate is orderly. I will admit I am not always successful at that, but I would ask senators to stop their interjections. Senator McCARTHY 122087 I do pick up on the senator's question there in terms of our work and the legislation that Senator Watt brought in on live sheep exports. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator McCARTHY 122087 They don't want to hear. Senator Watt 245759 They don't want to hear. Senator McCARTHY 122087 They don't want to know. They come in here saying that we're not interested in— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister McCarthy, please resume your seat. Senator Ruston? Senator Ruston 243273 This is on relevance. Maybe the senator would like the question reread. We were talking about pets. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ruston, I do remind you and other senators in this place that there was a preamble to that question about the government's regard for the ag sector. The minister is perfectly entitled to address that part of the question. Yes, Senator Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU The opposition consistently interject, particularly on this minister. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator Wong 00AOU She was responding to an interjection, so you can't have it both ways. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Wong. I have addressed Senator Ruston's point of order. Senator Brockman, a second supplementary? 14:06 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Will the minister guarantee that no animal great or small will be adversely impacted by the government's failure to appropriately manage this IV fluid shortage that they have known about for more than a year? The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm not going to call the minister until there is silence across the chamber. Order! Senator Davey, when you are quite finished! 14:06 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I can certainly say this to the good senator from Western Australia: we have a minister here in the federal government who is very, very dedicated to wanting to ensure there is care and concern right across the country. I think you are coming into this chamber wanting to cause fights over things that are totally unnecessary. We are certainly very supportive of the farming industry, and we certainly will— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator McCARTHY 122087 take on any of those issues. I know the minister will—you don't even want to listen. You don't even want to listen! Senator Watt 245759 So rude! Senator McCARTHY 122087 You're so rude. The PRESIDENT 112096 Just a moment, Senator Birmingham. I'm waiting for silence. Senator Birmingham H6X I have a point of order on direct relevance. The question was very clearly specific about IV fluid shortages and the impact on animals and veterinary practices. The minister, in more than half the time available, has come nowhere close to veterinary practice or to animals let alone to IV fluid shortages. Please draw her to the question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Birmingham. Just a moment, Minister McCarthy. I would very happily draw the minister to the question, but I also note that there have been a number of interjections, which the senator is also entitled to answer. I suggest, if you want the question answered, control the interjections. Senator McCARTHY 122087 As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted by the other side, we do have a minister who is very prepared to meet with the sector and work with the sector. I just repeat for those opposite who don't want to listen that we do believe in investing here, unlike you— (Time expired) Cost of Living, Education 49 14:08 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Minister Wong. How has the government addressed the cost-of-living challenges while building a better and fairer education system, from early-childhood education all the way through to fee-free TAFE and HECS debt relief? Can the minister also detail particularly how the Albanese government is helping early-childhood educators get a pay rise while also keeping fees down for many working families? 14:09 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you to Senator Ciccone for that excellent question. What I would say is we understand that Australians are struggling with cost-of-living challenges. We know that, which is why this government is working so hard to deliver assistance and support to Australians who are struggling with the cost of living and looking at all the ways we can help—tax cuts for all Australian taxpayers, energy bill relief for every household, cheaper medicines and more bulk-billing, HECS relief for everyone with a student debt—and, of course, fee-free TAFE—support for people from the outer suburbs and regions to go to university and getting wages moving. We also provisioning for higher wages for aged-care and childcare workers. Of course, what have the opposition, who came in here talking about cost of living, actually done? Well, what they have really done is oppose cost-of-living relief at every chance they get. Not only that, but the ideas they put forward would cost more. Mr Dutton's plans would mean higher power prices, higher grocery prices and higher taxes, but there is one thing that would be lower under Mr Dutton. There would be one thing that would be lower— Senator Sterle e68 Wages! Senator WONG 00AOU You got it, Sterlie—wages! Wages will definitely be lower under the Liberals and Nationals. You see, Labor wants Australians to earn more and keep more of what they earn, including early childhood educators and care workers. We are making sure that they are fairly paid by funding a 15 per cent wage increase, and we are always working to make sure the cost is not passed onto families. The wage increase is tied to a commitment from centres to limit fee increases, so better for parents, better for educators, better for children. This is on top of our cheaper childcare reforms that have cut the cost of child care for 1.2 million families. Senator WONG 00AOU You don't like the truth do you, Senator Henderson? According to the ACCC, childcare costs were cut by 11 per cent following our reforms—11 per cent! (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ciccone, a first supplementary? 14:11 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria In my home state of Victoria and right across Australia, including here in Parliament House, I have met so many hardworking early childhood educators and parents who speak of what an important role they play. What will the government's decision to lift the wages of early childhood education and care workers mean for the workers and the industry more broadly? 14:11 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you, Senator Ciccone, for the supplementary. Like all of us on this side of the chamber, he knows early childhood educators deserve a pay rise. The Productivity Commission has made it clear: if we don't increase wages in the sector we won't have a workforce. Under the Albanese government's plan, an average worker receiving the award rate will get an extra $103 per week in pay by the end of the year, increasing to $155 extra by December 2025, a wage increase that will apply to workers in OSHC—outside of school hours care services—benefiting parents of school-aged children too. Of course, we take a different view to the opposition. We don't believe we should keep wages low by design. Of course, we have Senator Rennick, who is on the record on these issues. When Labor announced these changes, he said 'paying early educators more was going to destroy the family unit'. Is this the coalition's policy? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rennick on a point of order? Senator Rennick 283596 I've offered the Prime Minister and Minister for Education a debate about this issue. The PRESIDENT 112096 That is not a point of order. Please resume your seat. Senator Rennick, I have asked you to sit down. Please resume your seat. Senator Ciccone, a second supplementary? 14:13 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I thank the minister for that response. How is the Albanese Labor government supporting Australians to develop the skills and the capabilities required for the jobs of the future while also providing cost-of-living relief? 14:13 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Thank you for the supplementary, Senator Ciccone, because it does articulate one of the policy challenges that the government at this time faces. We have to address cost-of-living challenges but we also have to do the work that was never done under the coalition, which is to set Australia up for a prosperous future. By 2050, Australia will need a workforce where four out of five people have a TAFE or university qualification. If we don't achieve that, we will be poorer; we will be less productive than we otherwise would be. That is why, through fee-free TAFE, we are funding 500,000 courses in priority areas of care, defence, construction and manufacturing, to name a few, and doubling the number of university study hubs to help students in regions and outer suburbs—looking forward to the National Party being supportive of the Labor government's university study hubs! We are introducing prac payments to help nursing, teaching and social worker students and we are cutting HECS debts for more than three million Australians. Mining Industry: McPhillamys Gold Project 50 14:14 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment, Senator McAllister. On what date or dates has Minister Plibersek met directly with any members of the Wiradyuri Traditional Owners Central West Aboriginal Corporation— Honourable senators: 'Wiradjuri'. Senator DAVEY 281697 I question whether it's 'Wiradjuri' or 'Wiradyuri'. It's actually spelt differently, so I'm just putting that on the record. That is including in relation to the issues associated with their section 10 application against Regis's McPhillamys Gold Project. If she has not met directly with them, can you let us know who has met with them on behalf of the government and on what date or dates? 14:15 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thank you for the question. I understand that your question relates to the decision recently taken under the ATSIHP Act by Minister Plibersek in relation to a project in the vicinity of Orange, and it's in response, as you say, to information provided to her by a very, very large number of documents. Can I provide this indication: this decision, as has been communicated, does not mean that the goldmine cannot go ahead. It simply means that an Aboriginal heritage site— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister McAllister, please resume your seat. Senator Davey. Senator Davey 281697 Point of order on relevance—I am specifically asking for dates of meetings held, not what the project is or whether a goldmine can proceed. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Davey. I will draw the minister to your question. Minister McAllister. Senator McALLISTER 121628 I understand that the senator is seeking information about the approach taken by the minister in considering the application, and I'm advised that she carefully considered thousands of pages of documentation. That is the legal obligation of the minister, of course. In these matters and all of the matters that come before Minister Plibersek, she has made it very clear that her first responsibility is to apply the law and to do so in ways that produce sound decisions. I think that members on all sides of this chamber appreciate that Minister Plibersek exercises all the care and diligence that you would expect when applications—legal applications—are put before her. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator McALLISTER 121628 As has, I think, been indicated to you in interjections, the level of detail you are specifically seeking in terms of dates and times and specific meetings is not information that I presently have with me. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Davey? 14:17 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales Minister, in your briefing notes there—following this news breaking last Friday, the lead applicant, Nyree Reynolds, said: … more than often, we get told our knowledge isn't traditional enough, and we make things up. Is it in your briefings whether the minister did any due diligence to establish that none of the claims in the application were confected or fabricated, given it was done by the Environmental Defenders Office? 14:18 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales (—) (): I reject, actually, the premise of your question. As I indicated in my answer to your primary question, Minister Plibersek of course conducts all diligence necessary to make decisions when matters are before her, and, in doing so, she of course relies on the advice of her department, which is exactly the practice that would have been in place when ministers took similar decisions in your government—the government that the coalition was part of. The point that I have made in these questions earlier in the week is that this decision is very similar to a section 10 decision that was made by former minister Ley when she was the environment minister. Former minister Ley made a decision in relation to the same act, in relation to the same legislation, that has been in place since the 1980s in relation to cultural heritage in the central west. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Davey, second supplementary? 14:19 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales So what information does the government possess about how many complaints have been made to the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations about the activities of the Wiradyuri Traditional Owners Central West Aboriginal Corporation? 14:19 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator, I think I have— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU I was just trying to understand the question, but I'm not sure that is within this minister's portfolio. The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm happy to ask Senator Davey to repeat the question. Senator Davey, perhaps you could just reiterate the question and then we can look at the portfolio? Senator Davey 281697 Without debating, the question goes directly to the due diligence conducted and whether the minister— The PRESIDENT 112096 No—just repeat the question, thank you, Senator Davey. Senator Davey 281697 The question is: what information does the government possess about how many complaints have been made to the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations about the activities of the Wiradyuri Traditional Owners Central West Aboriginal Corporation? The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Davey. Minister Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU Senator, Davey, I will concede if I'm wrong, but I didn't think that that's an entity within the representing minister's portfolio. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham. Senator Birmingham H6X President, still on the point of order: I think Senator Davey did clarify, at the commencement of restating the question, which does go to the due diligence undertaken by the minister that Minister McAllister is representing in the decision that was made and that that due diligence should extend to awareness, given the representations of this entity of the credibility of that entity. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU With respect, that submission is not on point. The office that is referred to is not in this minister's portfolio. I understand it's in the portfolio— Senator Davey 281697 But it's a government office. Senator Wong 00AOU Well, not everything in government is with one minister. I'll take the interjection. As I understand it, Minister McCarthy has said that that's in her portfolio. You have to change it. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! I am advised by the Clerk that the question does go to ORIC. That's my interpretation; that's not what the Clerk said to me. Therefore, it is not within Senator McAllister's portfolio but, as I have always done on occasions when senators ask questions outside a portfolio, I'm happy to ask Senator McAllister to make a statement, if she wishes to, about Senator Davey's question. Senator Davey, do you have a point of order? 14:22 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I will reframe the question. Was the minister aware of any complaints that may have been made about the activities of the Wiradyuri Traditional Owners Central West Aboriginal Corporation? 14:22 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thank you to Senator Davey for rephrasing her question. I can say this: the minister took evidence from a number of groups, including of course the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council and the Wiradyuri Traditional Owners Central West Aboriginal Corporation. I am aware that evidence was provided by at least both of those groups. The minister's obligations in all matters before her are to observe the law, and, as she has made clear on many occasions in relation to many matters, she is diligent in her approach to those issues. The minister has always considered that her first obligation is to take these decisions in a way that produces a sound legal decision, and I am sure that she has done so on this occasion also. Women's Safety 52 14:23 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland My question is, I believe, to the Minister representing the Minister for Social Services, Minister McAllister, but I'm also happy if Minister Gallagher thinks it's more in her patch. There have been now at least 45 women murdered this year, and the rates of violence against women are increasing. The women's safety sector has repeatedly called for $1 billion each year for frontline services, including legal services, to ensure that no-one who seeks help has to be turned away and go back to violence. Today, the Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Commissioner warned that the women's safety sector is already buckling, and she said that, when there's an increase in reporting, frontline services need more support to meet increased demand. When will the Albanese government commit $1 billion per year to properly resource frontline services? 14:24 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales We know that too many women are killed by their current or former intimate partner. The AIC's latest data update indicates that there were 43 female victims of intimate-partner homicide in 2023-24. It's a pretty stark reminder of the human cost of this violence and it is why the government is deeply committed to addressing this national crisis. In the two years since coming to government, we have taken the crisis of men's violence against women seriously, through a range of measures including the introduction of paid family and domestic violence leave. You ask about funding. Funding in the 2024-25 budget brings government investment to over $3.4 billion to support women's safety and implement the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children. That plan was developed in partnership with the sector and with victims-survivors and was agreed with all states and territories. That funding brings together the investments that we have made across our budgets in support of the national plan. We've been focused on supporting economic security so women don't have to choose between poverty and violence. We've been investing in housing so women know they have a place to go. We have been strengthening the legal system's response to gendered violence, implementing all of the 55 Respect@Work changes and putting a positive duty in the Sex Discrimination Act to prevent sexual harassment. We have been working with the states and territories to fund frontline services. We've extended the national partnership on frontline service funding and provided funding to states for 500 more frontline service workers, and we are sharpening the focus on prevention so we can end violence in a generation. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters, a first supplementary? 14:26 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland As the commissioner said in her address, First Nations women are 33 times more likely to be hospitalised and six times more likely to die as a result of violence. Will the government commit to working with First Nations communities to develop an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander violence prevention framework for men and boys, as my colleague Senator Cox recommended in her additional comments in the inquiry report into missing and murdered First Nations women? 14:27 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The government appreciates greatly the work that has been done through the committee that Senator Cox contributed to with such distinction and that I understand was chaired by Senator Scarr. We appreciate that the statistics and experiences of First Nations women in relation to violence are unacceptable and need to be addressed. It's on that basis that an action plan has been developed and agreed with First Nations women as part of the national plan to end violence against women. The government has a continuing commitment to work with First Nations women to improve this in a collaborative way that meets their needs and their priorities. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters, a second supplementary? 14:28 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland The commissioner also said today that sexual violence is often left out of the conversation, and yet there's been an 11 per cent increase in sexual violence in the last year. Will the government commit to increasing funding, specifically for sexual violence services? And can you please answer this question? One out of three is better than none. 14:29 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales No woman or girl should have to experience sexual violence in their life, and the government is leading national efforts to prevent sexual violence and support the victims-survivors who experience it. We are partnering with states and territories to strengthen and harmonise the laws in relation to sexual assault and consent, and we're providing $14.7 million in the 2023-24 budget to strengthen how the criminal justice system responds to sexual assault. We are funding an Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry into justice responses to sexual violence, and that's due to report at the beginning of next year. A lived-experience expert advisory group comprising victims-survivors and their advocates has been established to ensure that victims-survivors— Senator Waters 192970 A point of order: I am sorry, but I ask these questions because I actually do want to know the answer. I appreciate the context, but I do already know all of that. The PRESIDENT 112096 What is the point of order, Senator Waters? Senator Waters 192970 My question was: will you commit to increasing funding specifically for sexual violence services? The PRESIDENT 112096 I believe the minister is being relevant, and I will listen carefully to the remainder of the answer. Senator McALLISTER 121628 We are increasing funding to services for women who experience sexual violence, and we are progressing important reforms, particularly in the criminal justice system so that the experience of complainants can improve. (Time expired) Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility 53 14:30 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Northern Australia, Senator McCarthy. Minister, as senators from northern Australia, you and I both know how important the NAIF is. How is the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility unlocking economic opportunities in the north, and why did the government announce an independent review of the NAIF? 14:31 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I know members opposite are very excited to hear about this too! A strong north is a strong Australia, as Senator Green knows. The Albanese Labor government is committed to creating secure jobs across northern Australia and empowering the region to drive our nation's future prosperity. A centrepiece of that vision is the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, which we increased to $7 billion. Last month the NAIF reached a significant milestone, with $2 billion now invested in infrastructure projects across the north. A further $2.4 billion has been committed. The 32 projects now backed by the NAIF are transforming the north and are on track to create more than 18,000 jobs across the country. The NAIF also has 31 projects—I can tell everyone's riveted; this is wonderful!—in its pre-investment pipeline, with the potential to create thousands more jobs across northern Australia. Everyone, move north! On Monday the Minister for Northern Australia announced an independent review of the NAIF, as required by law. The independent review panel will soon start engaging with a range of key stakeholders to ensure the recommendations— Senator Dean Smith 241710 It's not even an initiative. It's in the law. Senator McCARTHY 122087 even Senator Smith's excited about moving north—put forward to government are robust and reflect the views of the north. I encourage senators to contribute to this important review. But I recommend that those opposite engage meaningfully, instead of attacking an opportunity to ensure the NAIF continues creating secure jobs and economic opportunities for northern Australians. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Green, first supplementary? 14:32 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland That's wonderful news, Minister. Thank you for outlining how the independent review of the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility will ensure that it continues creating secure jobs in the north. How is the NAIF supporting Indigenous businesses and boosting employment for Indigenous Australians? 14:33 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I thank the senator for the supplementary question. A priority of the NAIF is improving First Nations outcomes and contributing to closing the gap, and all projects backed by the NAIF need to create and implement an Indigenous engagement strategy that is tailored to the aspirations of the local community. NAIF's proponents have so far created more than 1,100 jobs for Indigenous Australians, and projects have spent over $80 million supporting Indigenous businesses. For example, the NAIF has provided a $150 million loan to Charles Darwin University's Education and Community Precinct, which reports 12.5 per cent Indigenous employment. The Minister for Northern Australia has also instructed NAIF to deepen its investment in social infrastructure, particularly housing, that benefits First Nations communities. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Green, second supplementary? 14:34 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I thank the minister for outlining how the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility is increasing Indigenous employment and backing businesses owned by Aboriginal Australians. Minister, how is the NAIF helping to drive Australia's transition towards a net zero economy by also supporting renewable energy and critical minerals projects? The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Green. Minister McAllister. I beg your pardon. I'll get the 'Mc's right. Minister McCarthy. 14:34 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Thank you, President, and thank you, Senator Green. I might also make mention of Mackay because we do have a member in the gallery from Mackay, which is incorporated in northern Australia—welcome. The Albanese Labor government updated the NAIF's investments mandate this year to better align its focus with our national priorities, including achieving Australia's net zero and energy transition goals. The NAIF has approved loans to three renewable energy projects expected to create more than 900 jobs and six critical minerals projects forecast to create 2,500 jobs. So, senators, let's get on board and support the NAIF. Native Title 54 14:35 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Minister McCarthy. On Monday, Senator Roberts asked you if the Albanese Labor government supports the Miles state Labor government secretly giving away freehold land to Aboriginal corporations with little or no community consultation beforehand. You said: There are no secret deals going on; there's no secretiveness in any of this. Could you please share with the Senate the details of the land transfer plans that are currently underway in Queensland in the towns of Augathella, Boonooroo, Croydon, Duchess, Eurong, Happy Valley, Laura, Maryborough, Mount Isa, Rainbow Beach, River Heads, Roma, Thargomindah, Theodore and Toobeah? 14:36 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I certainly acknowledge the question from One Nation, which continues, again, in the same form of implying secrecy. I answered the question on Monday, and I repeat again to the Senate that the work of the Queensland government is very critical in terms of all of those places that you've mentioned, Senator Hanson. I don't know why you don't speak to the Queensland government. Why don't you speak to the Indigenous affairs minister for Queensland? You might even be able to get a briefing about all of those particular areas of land. I will just point out: please, One Nation, do not demean and do not weaponise this Queensland election against the First Nations people of Queensland. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, first supplementary? 14:37 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland You claim there is no secretiveness or secret deals, so please explain where I can go to read the details of these land transfer deals. Please assist the people of Queensland by informing them of where this information has been published or presented in any way to the public. 14:37 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I'm very pleased to repeat my response here. One Nation, you are very welcome to go to the Queensland government to find out the information that you are seeking on matters that are impacted by the Queensland government. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, second supplementary? 14:38 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Don't forget, Minister McCarthy, that you made the comment there was no secretiveness. So either you are very naive, ill-advised or misleading the Senate, because Queensland Premier Steven Miles has stated that these applications— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, please resume your seat. Minister McCarthy. Senator McCarthy 122087 I ask that the senator from Queensland withdraw her comment which is impugning on my character. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, if you would withdraw the comments you made in particular around the minister. Senator HANSON BK6 I'll withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. Please continue, Senator Hanson. Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Premier Steven Miles has stated that these applications under the Queensland Aboriginal Land Act are treated confidentially. Also the former LNP president, now Mayor of Goondiwindi Regional Council, told me that it was confidential and they couldn't inform the public. If the details of these deals are being kept confidential by Labor, isn't that the definition of 'secretiveness'? 14:39 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I refer to my first answer—that is, One Nation is very welcome to approach the Queensland government and the Indigenous affairs minister, as is appropriate in these situations. Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union 55 14:39 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Senator McCarthy. On Monday last week, 12 August, during question time, in answer to a question on the use of Commonwealth infrastructure funding to cover cost blowouts in the context of CFMEU lawlessness, you said: The minister has also embedded new assurances and protections in the federation funding agreement that the Commonwealth has negotiated with the states, which was finalised on 11 August. The very next day, Tuesday 13 August 2024, in answer to another question, you repeated those exact same words. Minister, do you stand by the answer that you told this parliament—not once but twice last week—that the agreement was finalised on 11 August? 14:40 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I thank Senator Scarr for the question. Senator Scarr, I certainly stand by the comments that I've been advised on in relation to the infrastructure portfolio. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Scarr, a first supplementary? 14:40 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Senator McCarthy, I note that you were given an opportunity to provide some additional comment, but you've chosen to stand behind your answer. I ask you to carefully consider that answer. If the Commonwealth has, in fact, negotiated the new land transport infrastructure federation funding agreement with the states, which you say was finalised on 11 August 2024, why isn't it on the website and how many states have actually signed it? 14:41 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I see what this is about. You're worried about a website—that there are no details, according to you, on a website, Senator Scarr. Let me say— Senator McKenzie 207825 How many states have signed up? The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Opposition senators interjecting— Senator McCARTHY 122087 They don't want to hear the answer. You ask a question and you don't want to listen. You don't want to hear, Senator for Tasmania; you clearly don't care about it either. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Ruston, which part of 'order' does not apply to you? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie! Minister McCarthy, please continue. Senator McCARTHY 122087 I can see the interest is about the website. If I go back to the primary question, the answer that I gave last week still remains the same: the Commonwealth has negotiated with the states, which was finalised on 11 August. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Scarr, a second supplementary? 14:42 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland My interest is not in the website; it's in whether or not the agreement has been finalised—and that means to me that each of the states has actually agreed to the agreement. Otherwise, how else could it be finalised? Minister, could you please explain whether or not all of the states have actually agreed to the infrastructure funding agreement? If not, which ones have not? 14:42 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I will pick up on the fact that you said you're not worried about a website—you actually are, Senator Scarr. You actually raised that in your first supplementary. However, let's not put the facts in the way of a good story here. The FFA outlines the states' and territories' responsibility to ensure value for money for public funds. The minister has embedded new assurances and protections in the federation funding agreement, which you do not want to hear. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order across the chamber! I realise you're on your feet, Senator Scarr, but I would appreciate it if senators—particularly on your side, but not solely on your side—came to order. Senator Scarr, on a point of order? Senator Scarr 282997 Relevance. Which states have agreed to the agreement? The PRESIDENT 112096 I do believe the minister is being relevant and I'll continue to listen carefully. Senator McCARTHY 122087 The advice I have given, which I continue to give, is the advice that I've given you, Senator Scarr. If I am provided with further advice on that, I'll bring it back to you. Honourable senators interjecting— Aged Care 56 14:43 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania My question is for the Minister representing— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrrell, I'm sorry, please resume your seat. We have moved on. I had a senator asking a question and you were still interjecting—particularly you, Senator Ruston—about the previous question. I'd ask you to listen to in silence or leave the chamber. Senator Tyrrell, could you start again, please? Senator TYRRELL 300639 My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Health and Aged Care, Senator Gallagher. Aged-care facilities are struggling to meet care-minute targets, especially those in cities and regional centres. Media reports show significant issues in the aged-care workforce and around how each person's 200 daily aged-care minutes are distributed. Since March 2021, the government has provided a certification letter to meet regulatory impact statement requirements for the adoption of mandatory care minutes for aged-care residents, but this process has not been evaluated in all that time. So essentially, the government has issued a letter to say it followed the rules when setting care time requirements, but there is no public evidence to show this regulation is actually working properly. So how do we know a regulation process was followed for aged-care minutes when there has been no evaluation on the regulation change? 14:45 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Tyrrell for the question. It relates to the improvements we've been putting into place in aged care around additional requirements for care minutes for elderly Australians. This is a relatively recent change, as you know, to staffing requirements in aged care. The feedback the government is getting from consumers and providers is that it is making a difference across the aged-care sector. I'm not certain, and I don't have the details in front of me, on the evaluation of the care minutes in residential aged care, although I believe that it would be being done. I'll quickly skim and see if I can see if there is a requirement or a timeframe. Certainly, the care minutes have improved the quality of care going to residents in aged-care facilities. The government is watching this as part of our response to improving care in aged care, and we will continue to do so. I'll see if there's further information I can provide. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrrell, first supplementary? 14:46 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania While statistics released by the government show that half of Tasmania's residential aged-care facilities are not meeting their care minute targets, the Office of Impact Analysis hasn't looked at the regulatory impact statement requirements between 2021 to 2023, which makes me think there's been no quality analysis of the regulation change to aged-care minutes. Another certificate has already been issued to support the government's planned increase. If we know the system isn't working now due to workforce issues, where are the extra staff coming from to support these extra 15 minutes? 14:47 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Tyrrell for the question and for her ongoing interest in aged care, particularly in her state of Tasmania. I don't think you can just see care minutes in isolation from the other work that's being done in aged care to improve the sustainability of the sector and to encourage staff into the sector. For example, our support for the aged-care pay increase is linked to attracting and retaining staff in the aged-care sector. If you are getting better pay and better recognition for the work that you would do, you're not going to see the separation rates and changes or the loss of staff through that time. But this is an adjustment for the sector. As you said, some areas are not able to meet those requirements, and that's something that we're going to have to continue to focus on. Certainly in my feedback that I've got from aged-care providers, the wage increase has been the single biggest thing that has changed the workforce situation for them. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Tyrrell, second supplementary? 14:48 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania The government's $2.2 billion investment in aged care is just a stopgap. It won't touch the more than 13,000 registered nurses and 32,000 personal care workers we need to fix the workforce gap. The government has had more than two years to get this right: two years to support the workforce, two years to evaluate the regulation—a regulation you're about to add an extra 15 minutes to. Even the Australian National Audit Office said there was no evaluation strategy in October last year. Why is there still no publicly available information on the evaluation of the regulation? 14:48 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I'm happy to take further information on that. My expectation and the leadership that's been shown by the Minister for Aged Care will be that these reforms to aged care would be scrutinised and evaluated over time, but that they are relatively new reforms. I would again say that the extra investment that you cite going into aged care is a very small part of the extra investment. In terms of wages, it was significantly more than that in order to retain and attract people into the roles that you speak about, including for registered nurses. So, yes, there is more to do, but we have invested significantly in the workforce and in reforms and we're continuing to discuss further opportunities for aged-care reform during this term of parliament. Climate Policy 57 14:49 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Minister McAllister. Since the election of the Albanese government, Australia has returned to being a constructive partner in the effort to reduce global emissions by investing in clean, cheap, renewable energy. Could the minister please explain to the chamber what actions the government is taking to seize the economic opportunities afforded by international efforts to reduce climate emissions? 14:50 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The international community is moving to act on climate change, and the Albanese government is committed to working with our partners in our region, and in particular in the Pacific, to address climate change through the Paris framework. Australia under the Albanese government has a serious plan, an actual plan, to transform our economy and meet our commitments. On coming to government, we lifted our emissions target by more than half from 26 per cent to 43 per cent by 2030, and, alongside our net zero commitment, we made those targets law. We made them law, because that is what will provide businesses and the community with certainty. As uncomfortable as it is for those opposite, business welcomes this approach. When we passed the Climate Change Act, the Business Council of Australia said: Prime Minister Albanese and Minister Bowen have bought Australia a step closer to ending the climate laws that have put a handbrake on progress and become a serious economic barrier. We've acted on those targets with policies like the safeguard mechanism, our Reliable Renewables plan that is backed in by the Capacity Investment Scheme, new vehicle efficiency standards, Hydrogen Headstart and Future Made in Australia. The November report from the Climate Change Authority, which didn't yet reflect all of those initiatives, showed that 43 per cent by 2030 is within reach. We are now on track for at least 42 per cent emissions reductions by 2030. We take this path because we know that the world's path to net zero is an unprecedented economic opportunity for our country. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bilyk, first supplementary? 14:52 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania We know that the Albanese government's Reliable Renewables plan is investing in reliable energy sources while supporting Australia's climate targets. Could the minister explain how the government's Reliable Renewables plan is securing Australia's energy needs and ensuring Australians have access to cheap, reliable energy? 14:52 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I thank the senator for her question. Anyone serious about energy reliability has a serious plan to replace coal and gas and get more firmed renewables into the grid. Anyone serious about tackling Australia's emissions has a serious plan to get more renewables into the grid, and anyone serious about electricity prices would follow the advice of experts and choose the least cost option, not the highest cost option in thinking about our energy future. We are already halfway to our 82 per cent renewables target in the national electricity market. Renewables have increased by 25 per cent, and we have record investment in batteries and storage. It is an ambitious target. There is more to do, and it's why we're backing it in with an expanded Capacity Investment Scheme. It is not convenient for those opposite, but our Reliable Renewables plan is working, and it is bringing more renewables online. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bilyk, second supplementary? 14:53 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania It's good to hear how the government is taking action to put downward pressure on prices and reduce emissions at the same time, even if those opposite don't want to hear it. Could the minister explain why it is taking this approach to reducing Australia's emissions? 14:54 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Our approach—unusually, it seems—is informed by experts, and we actually listen when they tell us that the optimal path for future investment is solar and wind firmed by batteries and storage and supported by gas. We want to ensure the reliability and affordability of our energy system, and we want to grasp the opportunities of the clean energy transformation. We are not taking the approach of those opposite, who have become very, very quiet. Those are the people who would see Australia backslide on our targets and sit outside of the Paris Agreement with Iran, Libya and Yemen. We certainly won't be taking the approach of waiting decades to build expensive, risky nuclear reactors that experts say will provide just 3.7 per cent of power that Australia needs. We just cannot wait decades for that. Northern Territory Election 58 14:55 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory My question is to the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator McCarthy. Media reports this week detailed an atrocious attack on CLP candidate Yanja Thompson in the Northern Territory election on the false basis that she is out to wind back opportunities for Indigenous Australians. Do you condemn the stereotype that all Indigenous politicians need to be left leaning in order to serve the interests of Indigenous Australians? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong. Senator McKenzie 207825 This is a protection racket! Senator Wong 00AOU You should withdraw that. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Wong, I'm more than willing to ask a senator to withdraw, but I didn't hear the comment, and I'm not sure who you are referring to. Senator Wong 00AOU Senator McKenzie. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, in the interests of the goodwill of the chamber, I ask you to withdraw a remark. Senator McKenzie 207825 I withdraw. Senator Wong 00AOU Point of order, I don't believe the question relates in any way to the minister's portfolio or matters of administration under the federal— Senator Wong 00AOU Senator Rennick, if you'd like a question, we're happy to advocate for you. The PRESIDENT 112096 I am advised that your question, Senator Nampijinpa Price, doesn't go to Minister McCarthy's portfolio, but I am happy to ask Minister McCarthy if she wishes to make a statement. Senator Gallagher, are you standing on a point of order? Senator Gallagher ING Yes, I am. I again seek your guidance on standing order 73(1)(h) because I believe Senator Nampijinpa Price question asked for an expression of opinion. Under that standing order, it says, 'Questions shall not contain'— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister Gallagher, it is more that it doesn't go to the minister's portfolio, but, as I said, I've invited the minister to make a statement, if she wishes to. Or I can ask Senator Nampijinpa Price for a second supplementary. An honourable senator interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Well, there can't be a supplementary to that question, so I'm not quite sure where that leaves us. Did you wish to make a comment? 14:58 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Thank you, President, and thank you, Senator Nampijinpa Price. I certainly would say that First Nations candidates, wherever they are, good luck. The Northern Territory election is this weekend, and I'm looking forward to getting back home. I'd certainly say that in terms of any intimidation or any tactics that are going on that have been alleged by Senator Nampijinpa Price, that is absolutely incorrect. In fact, if anything, President, I often wonder whether Senator Nampijinpa Price might be running for one of those seats herself! I notice on the how to vote card in Namatjira it has Senator Nampijinpa Price on there. The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister, you cannot use props. Senator McCARTHY 122087 Are you running for the Northern Territory election? The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister McCarthy, please resume your seat. I'm sure you're aware that props are out of order. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, across the chamber! Senator McKenzie is on her feet. Senator McKenzie 207825 I believe the use of props in the chamber is not— The PRESIDENT 112096 I have addressed that matter but you are quite correct. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Nampijinpa Price, come to order. I am advised, Senator Nampijinpa Price, by the Clerk that if there were portfolio issues which came out of Mr McCarthy's response, you may address a first supplementary around that. 15:00 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Thank you, President. Minister, as part of these media reports included the allegations involving a former Labor preselected candidate and current Northern Land Council chair, Matt Ryan, in an attempt to discredit Ms Thompson— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Nampijinpa Price, please resume your seat. Senator Watt, I was going to listen to the entire question before ascertaining whether it went to portfolio matters. Senator Nampijinpa Price, would you like to continue? It does need to address Minister McCarthy's portfolio areas. Please continue. Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Given that the land council is a portfolio area for the minister, the conduct of the chair of the Northern Land Council, in an attempt to discredit Ms Thompson— The PRESIDENT 112096 That is time now. Please resume your seat. The mere mention of the land council doesn't go to the portfolio because the majority of the question was about a candidate. Senator Wong. Senator Wong 00AOU The president is ruling, so I would ask the opposition and the leader of the opposition to perhaps— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! In the same vein as the first question did not go to portfolio matters, the mere mention of the land council does not go to portfolio matters because the bulk of the question went to candidates for election. Senator Birmingham. Senator Birmingham H6X President, on your point of order, the supplementary question was actually quite specific to actions and reports and comments attributed to the chair of the Northern Land Council. This was not peripheral to the nature of the question but core to the nature of the supplementary question and distinctly within the portfolio responsibilities of the minister. The PRESIDENT 112096 I am advised that it doesn't look like the first supplementary question relates to the primary question. I am not aware of whether someone is a chair of a land council or not but what I heard was a question around a candidate. The PRESIDENT 112096 Just before I finish, Senator Birmingham, I am happy review the Hansard and come back to the chamber if that satisfies. Senator Birmingham H6X President, thank you, and I appreciate your offer to review the Hansard. The primary question from Senator Nampijinpa Price definitely referred to media reports. The supplementary, in referencing those media reports, indicated the role of the chair of the Northern Land Council in those media reports. It is clearly supplementary. It is clearly relevant to the minister's portfolio. I appreciate your offer to review that and, of course, the usual practice of the minister being invited to respond. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Birmingham. The first question was ruled out of order. It did not go to the minister's portfolio areas. My assessment of the second question is the same but, as I said to you, I will take that and look at the Hansard. If I need to address the chamber because I have made the wrong calling then I will certainly do that. I invite Minister McCarthy to respond if she wishes. 15:03 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Thank you, President. Of course, in any election, whether it is in the Northern Territory election or any other across the country, we expect people to act appropriately. I do understand also from those same media reports that the chair of the Northern Land Council has rejected those accusations. I was wondering whether you were involved in running for the Northern Territory election and then I realised that you wouldn't be because you are running for Prime Minister. That's right—you are running for Prime Minister. But the problem is, you can't run for Prime Minister. You can't even run. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator McCARTHY 122087 You're not happy with Peter Dutton because you want Senator Nampijinpa Price, who wants to be the leader. And the reason you can't do that, Senator Price, is that you're in the Senate! The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senator McGrath. Senator McGrath 217241 You're a disgrace! The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator McCARTHY 122087 But the next step might be that you want to leave the Senate. So watch out, those in the lower house! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath, withdraw that comment. Senator McGrath 217241 I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you. Senator Nampijinpa Price, with the same caveat—if you believe that matters from the minister's response went to her portfolio matter—I invite you to ask a second supplementary. 15:05 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory Minister, will you investigate the alleged interference by the Northern Land Council in the Northern Territory election and whether any council resources have been used in the election campaign, or will you continue to make a joke of the fact that an Indigenous woman has been targeted, quite disgustingly? Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, across the chamber. Order. I haven't called you yet, Minister McCarthy. I am going to ask the Senate to be respectful of questions and answers, whether you personally agree with them or not, and I expect, when the minister stands to give her response, that she will be listened to in respectful silence. Minister McCarthy. 15:05 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I did respond to the question by Senator Price. Of course we do not want to see any— Senator McCARTHY 122087 Senator McKenzie— The PRESIDENT 112096 Please resume your seat, Senator McCarthy. Senator McKenzie, I have just asked for respectful silence. Minister, please continue. Senator McCARTHY 122087 Clearly they're not interested in hearing the response, President. We know that, throughout any election, whether it's in the Northern Territory or across Australia, people should treat each other with dignity and respect, and I certainly urge that of all candidates in the Northern Territory. Senator Wong 00AOU President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 60 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Regional Australia: Skill Shortages 60 15:07 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland In question time on 15 August, I undertook to provide further information in response to questions asked of me by Senator Payman in my capacity as the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, relating to designated area migration agreements. I have written to Senator Payman to provide additional information, and I table my letter for the information of all senators. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 61 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 61 15:08 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given today to all questions without notice asked by the opposition. What a disgraceful, disgraceful effort! I do want to talk about the IV shortage and other shortages that are happening, but we've got a new minister here who has just made light of and mocked violence against women in the Northern Territory. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Green? Senator HUGHES 273828 Oh, here we go! Sensitive— Senator Green 259819 A point of order: that is a personal reflection on the minister which is not a correct characterisation of the answer that she gave, and I'd ask Senator Hollie Hughes to withdraw. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Hughes— Senator HUGHES 273828 No, I won't withdraw. I'll take my lead from Senator Ayres yesterday and say that I did not impugn. I will not withdraw. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Hughes, can I just ask you to withdraw. To the extent— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 I did not hear a personal reflection, but someone has picked up or feels it is a personal reflection. To the extent possible, for the benefit of the chamber, just withdraw and proceed. Senator HUGHES 273828 For the particular sensitivities of those senators that don't like to hear their own dismiss violence against women, I withdraw. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Thank you. Senator HUGHES 273828 I don't know—do you like violence against women, so it's not why you're complaining? The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Green? Senator Green 259819 Well, the Clerk's given you advice, and on the point of order: that is an issue of very personal, deep importance to me, and Senator Hughes should withdraw not only the comments about the minister but also about me. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Green, I take your point. Senator Hughes, it's just a simple— Senator HUGHES 273828 I withdraw for the ease and the sake of the chamber. There were sensitivities felt here, particularly by Senator Liddle, and I noticed that the sensitivities that Senator Nampijinpa Price felt, when asking a serious question about incidents that had occurred and attacks on a candidate for the upcoming Northern Territory election, were dismissed and mocked by the minister of Indigenous affairs. Quite frankly I'm not even sure what the title is because I haven't quite memorised what all the changes have meant over the couple of weeks. Whatever Minister McCarthy's new title is, her treatment of Senator Nampijinpa Price's question, in her answer, tone and delivery, was absolutely appalling. But interestingly it was also Senator McCarthy who gave, I think, the most disgraceful of answers when it came to the shortage of IV fluid in this country. The thing about the shortage of IV fluids, for those who've never had a job in business, let alone gone to medical school or understood how a lot of this works within the hospital system, is that IV fluids are actually very important. They're important when people are undergoing surgeries. But it might be interesting for some of you to be aware that they're actually important in obstetric care. We've got a situation at the moment where inductions of babies that could potentially be at risk are being delayed because of a shortage of IV fluid. Obstetrics can be dangerous at the best of times, but the fact that inductions are now being delayed because of this shortage of IV fluid means that the lives of babies are being put at risk. It is absolutely disgraceful. Yet the answer that was given in this place was given with mirth. It referred back to COVID and what was happening during a global supply crisis. What actually happened, for those of you that weren't paying attention, for those of you that were trying to pay an extra—what was it, Jonno? Was it $600 for everyone who got the jab and an extra $6 billion that they wanted to pay to everyone who'd already had the jab? But give them some more money—because they've never seen an expenditure they don't want to put their arms around. What actually happened during COVID was that the National Medical Stockpile was utilised, with stocks distributed to the states during a global shortage. We know there is no global IV fluid shortage, but what we also know is that this government, this health minister, were warned of it in March last year. Where are we now? We're in August 2024. So well over a year ago there were warnings about the IV fluid shortage, and nothing was done. All we've seen is that one week ago a monitoring group was set up. They've set up a monitoring group for a problem we already know exists. But what was even more disgusting—it really does struggle to get to a lower level—as part of the minister's answer, which lacked any compassion at all, is that accompanying this IV shortage is a shortage of morphine. Again, for those of you that don't understand what morphine's used for—because clearly this government isn't interested—it is actually predominantly used in palliative care. It's used for people that are in the final stages of cancer, people experiencing significant pain, and there is a shortage of morphine. As for the mirth and the mocking and the smart alec answers provided by the minister, she couldn't take a moment to acknowledge not only the babies that are being put at risk through delayed inductions because of your IV fluid shortages but also the children undergoing palliative care who cannot access morphine, cannot access pain relief, because this government doesn't care. This government's incompetence is now bleeding its way through every single system, including having direct impacts on the health of Australians. We know keeping Australians secure isn't important, with your Gaza tactics, and we now see the health— (Time expired) 15:13 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I'm keen to take note of the questions asked by coalition senators. Of course, it is important I point out that today, in the questions that were asked by those opposite, there was not a single question on the cost of living or the need to take pressure off households— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator O'Sullivan, on a point of order? Senator O'Sullivan 283585 The question is relevance. We're meant to be taking note of the answers given and not of the questions that were asked. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The point about relevance is well made. Just be mindful to bring it to the answers to the questions. Senator GREEN 259819 No worries, Senator O'Sullivan. You don't want to talk about cost of living, and I get that, because the government is making sure that we are delivering cost-of-living relief to all Australians, especially with a tax cut on 1 July to every single taxpayer. But you did ask some questions about an important issue, which is the supply chain of IV. In the responses I think we're going to receive today and in the questions themselves that were asked, there are a lot of mistruths and some misleading going on. I take Senator Hughes's contribution, but I respond in this way: our government is working very carefully on this issue, and we have been since April. The TGA has been working on this issue. What I will do is take advice from doctors. I won't take advice from Senator Hughes about health care. I think that would be a very poor decision on my part and on the part of the community. What I will do—and what the government does—is listen to doctors and work with them, and that is what I encourage the community to do. Senator Hughes might like to know that the AMA has responded to this issue and has provided some very clear advice not just to the government but also to the community and perhaps also to senators opposite who want to worry people, spread mistruths and make people concerned about this issue spreading to other drugs or other vital medicines. AMA President Steve Robson—and I really draw the Senate's attention to his words—said this: The cross-jurisdictional response group established by Minister for Health and Aged Care Mark Butler is meeting frequently to share data; co-ordinate action on IV fluid usage and supply; establish forecasts for future needs; discuss logistics and issue clinical guidance and updates to our front-line healthcare workers. This effort should be comforting for Australian patients, no matter where they live, or where they are being treated. That is the information given by the President of the AMA, doctors and those in health care. What I would ask those opposite to do is not to mislead Australians about the work that is being undertaken on this critical issue. What I want to ask those opposite to do is not to use this parliament as an opportunity to litigate some sort of interrogation of things that are underway—that are happening and are being dealt with—in a way that alarms people out in the community. That is what they are seeking to do. We talk about this issue being 'notified' and being aware of this issue. The TGA, since April last year, has taken a number of actions, and this is important information for those opposite who, we know, are intending on saying that nothing is being done. We know that, from April 2023, approvals of overseas-registered alternative products were made. Work is being done with the Office of Supply Chain Resilience to ensure no delays in shipping and unloading containers at Australian docks. We're asking product sponsors for any regulatory actions that will assist in increasing supplies, and we're increasing the national coordination on monitoring of supply. Of course, all of this is an important issue that raises the importance of medical manufacturing. That's why our government made sure that the National Reconstruction Fund had a focus on medical manufacturing, but those opposite, in nine years in government, did nothing to help the manufacturing sector and did nothing to help the medical manufacturing sector. Whether it was during the COVID pandemic or not, they did absolutely nothing. They hate manufacturing, whether it's medical manufacturing or any other type. So to come in here and complain now about supply chains to a government that is committed to the National Reconstruction Fund and supply chains of those medicines is ridiculous. We know that they hate manufacturing. They voted against the National Reconstruction Fund even when it had medical manufacturing as a key element— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Thank you, Senator Green. 15:19 Senator COLBECK 00AOL Tasmania What a complete embarrassment we have just heard from Senator Green on the other side. In fact, what an embarrassment we heard during question time today in answers that were given or, rather, in answers that weren't given to questions from coalition senators during question time. We see the same tactics all the time from this party, the Labor Party, who promised to be open and transparent in their government. It is yet another one of the Labor Party's broken promises—this government of broken promises—and they broke so many. Then they just come in and start making things up, as Senator Green just did in her contribution a moment ago, with respect to manufacturing. We know that the shortage of IV fluids is having an effect. It is having an effect. If it wasn't having an effect, why is there a national conversation going on about it? We need more than a national conversation for an issue that has been known for over a year. I was talking to a procurement officer of a hospital just last week. Can I tell you, despite the denials from the Labor Party, this is having an effect on the way that the health system is operating. The Labor Party can trot out all the weasel words they like. They can try and blame somebody else. They can try and talk about it being a global shortage, which it's not. It's an Australian problem that they have known about since April last year and have done nothing about until recently. Now they are having a bit of a chat. What they should have done is take action at the particular point in time and dealt with the issue appropriately. But what do we get? We get deflection, we get blaming somebody else and we get talking about the opposition. The default position of this government when they get into strife is to blame someone else, talk about the opposition and talk about the oppositional leader, rather than actually dealing with the problems that are affecting Australians. We see the same thing when it comes to the disallowance or the shutting down of the gold mine project. This wrecking ball of a minister, Minister Plibersek, who's cutting a swathe through industry in this country, makes a decision to kill off a project, but, of course, this open and transparent government says: 'We can't tell you why. You can't understand the reasons why this project is being closed down.' We see it again and again. I was told this morning of the night of the long knives here last week in Parliament House, where the salmon industry from Tasmania was summoned to Minister Plibersek's office and told their history and their future, and it's not good. MMG on the west coast of Tasmania were told their future, and it's not promising. The wind farm on Robbins Island were told about their future, and it's not promising either. This government of broken promises is cutting a swathe through industry and a swathe through the west coast and the north-west coast of Tasmania with their broken promises and their weasel words like, 'We want to see a sustainable salmon industry operating in Tasmania.' How about, 'We want to see a strong and growing salmon industry operating in Tasmania'? All we get is weasel words from this government, nothing definitive, and the whole time this wrecking ball of a minister, Minister Plibersek, is killing off projects and creating uncertainty and angst in our local communities. We come into question time, and we ask questions about these projects. We're dismissed. The issue is blamed on somebody else or blamed on us, yet this government won't make the decisions that support these local communities that take away the uncertainty and that create certainty for jobs. That's what these communities want. They don't want, 'We understand your concerns.' They don't want, 'We stand with you.' They want certainty about the fact that they are going to have a job in the future. They want certainty about the fact that their industry will continue to flourish. They want certainty about their project going ahead. It's about time this government was honest and straight with the Australian community instead of offering up mere weasel words. 15:24 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia There has been an effort here today to politicise an IV fluid shortage, and there's been a lot of heated rhetoric in this chamber about it. I want to take some of the temperature out of it and explain what the government is doing about it—the process and response. I also want to explain how that process demonstrates transparency and accountability and why that's important in a healthcare context and in the context of global supply chains. A moment ago, Senator Colbeck said that there wasn't a global supply shortage. That is simply incorrect. There have been global shortages and supply issues that have affected Australia's position. There has been an unexpected increase in demand in Australia, and there have been manufacturing constraints here and overseas that are contributing to shortages. That's not something that the Labor Party or the government has come up with; that's the TGA in correspondence and in conversation with the sponsors of IV fluids in Australia and around the world. These fluids are important to our healthcare system, and that is why it's so important that this issue not be politicised and used to try to drum up alarm in the community. It needs to be approached in a problem-solving manner, which is what this government is doing. The TGA has been working to mitigate these supply issues, but the Minister for Health and Aged Care and his colleagues around the country, the state ministers for health, have also been meeting and working to resolve the issues. There has been a response group created, and that response group will continue to meet on a weekly basis—or more frequently, as required—to deal with these supply issues and to fix the problems. There are immediate actions that this group has taken. The first relates to data and transparency—sharing data across jurisdictions on usage and supply and ensuring that producers and suppliers of IV fluids in Australia are providing data on their current supply and production forecasts. That is being done to better understand the severity of the shortage and to manage it in order to get the fluids to where they're needed most acutely. The second relates to distribution and logistics. In global supply chains, and in a country like Australia, it is important that there is a coordinated national approach to distribution across those supply chains and within Australia itself. Coordination and partnership are also important, and that's why we have all the state health ministers and the Commonwealth minister working together on this. Clinical guidance and communication are the final step, agreeing that there be consistent messaging across all jurisdictions to support appropriate usage while supply remains constrained. That is in quite stark contrast to the alarmism we've heard in this chamber today and the alarmism we've heard all week. The reason I outline that process and take the time to go through the steps that are being taken and the extent of the coordination is to draw a contrast between the way this is being managed by this government, and the accountability and transparency it is demonstrating, and the approach of our friends opposite during the prime ministership of Scott Morrison. Scott Morrison was also, as we all know now, the secret minister for health. It's impossible to be accountable when you're a secret minister, because people don't know that you are exercising those powers. When Justice Bell conducted her inquiry into this particular affair, this act of constitutional vandalism, she said that Scott Morrison would have been able to take over from the health minister in a matter of minutes and that responsibility for that secrecy should be sheeted home to the Prime Minister. It's a little bit difficult to take those opposite seriously on those issues when, in their most recent opportunity to govern, they showed a complete lack of transparency and accountability. I also want to talk also about coordination and my home state of Western Australia, because there's another contrast that is very stark: the manner in which Mark McGowan communicated during the pandemic. He used clear messaging so that people were clearly aware of the issues facing the community and could deal with them. He did so in a problem-solving manner, not in an alarmist manner—in a manner that sought cooperation to deal with the issues at hand, rather than make political points and try to embarrass a government that's trying to solve a problem with global origins. That contrasts very starkly with the lack of national leadership from those on the other side during the COVID pandemic. There are three things we can say about this. It's a global problem. We're on the job to fix it. We are being transparent about how we're fixing it, and we are being accountable and coordinated in that response. That is something that cannot be said for those opposite. 15:30 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I certainly admire the attempt by my friend from Western Australia, Senator Ghosh, to deal with this issue seriously. I think he approached this in a sincere and serious way. Unfortunately though, we didn't have an attempt by the minister to seriously answer the question that was asked by Senator Brockman in relation to saline products that are available to vets and to animals across Australia. She seemed to take it as a joke in the way that she approached the answering of that question. In doing so, in not taking it seriously, she referred to the banning of the live export of sheep in this country. One person that has not taken that issue seriously is, of course, the Prime Minister of this country, who joked at an event last night in front of the agricultural industry experts that were here in this building. The Prime Minister joked about the ending of that live export trade. How could this Prime Minister do such an atrocious thing—joke about the ending of the livelihood of farmers, who are reliant on this for them, their families and their community—in the way that he did? The Prime Minister has demonstrated time and time again that he does not take Western Australia seriously, that he does not understand Western Australians and that he does not understand the industries that we rely on. Whether it be the agricultural industry or indeed the resources industry, we are seeing pressure on every sector across industry in Western Australia, and our Prime Minister—this Prime Minister, their Prime Minister—needs to take his responsibilities seriously. To appear in front of those there at that event last night—people who put their livelihoods on the line every day by going to work and making investment decisions—stand up on that stage and joke about their industry and the ending of their industry when they are hurting more than ever is absolutely appalling. Someone that needs to take something seriously is the Prime Minister. When you come in here, we need to deal with matters that are of importance. This Prime Minister in this building last night demonstrated that he doesn't get it, and he doesn't get Western Australia. Question agreed to. Native Title 65 15:33 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Indigenous Australians (Senator McCarthy) to questions without notice asked by Senator Roberts and me this week relating to native title. Twice this week, Senator Roberts and I have asked the question of the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator McCarthy, with regard to land deals that have been done in Queensland. These are communities in Queensland that have been taken over in secret deals. Of course, the question was asked about secret deals. At that time, Minister McCarthy didn't say anything other than, 'No; there are no secret deals whatsoever.' I followed up today with the same question, and she, reluctantly, couldn't answer the question because she's been advised since: 'You can't talk about this.' She said, 'Go to the Queensland state government.' On Monday she was quite happy to say that there are no secret deals, but today she isn't, when it was pointed out. Even Steven Miles, the Labor premier, said that applications under Queensland's Aboriginal Land Act are treated confidentially. The Goondiwindi mayor, Lawrence Springborg, also told me that it can't be said because it's confidential. The whole fact is that Senator McCarthy's completely out of her depth. She didn't know. She gave an answer that misled this Senate. She said, 'It's not secretive.' Confidential is secret. It's about the fact. She also made a comment—you can brush it off very easily; it was a very simple question—'Can I just point out that there is no secrecy here and you degrade this Senate by running down Aboriginal people.' What a spin that was! There was nothing about Aboriginal people. I have always called for equality for all Australians. If there are going to be planes across these 15 towns in Queensland, why shouldn't people be consulted about it? Why shouldn't they have a say in this? It is secret. It is not running down the Aboriginal people, but you just use the word 'racist' or whatever you can because you can't answer the questions and be up front and truthful with the people of Queensland or, for that matter, the whole of Australia. You are disgusting. Question agreed to. Women's Safety 65 15:35 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Emergency Management (Senator McAllister) to a question without notice I asked today relating to violence against women. We have just seen today the tabling of the first inaugural report into whether or not the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children is meeting its objectives. I have just been at the Press Club and heard the Family Domestic and Sexual Violence Commissioner speak to these really important matters, so I took the opportunity to ask the government. The commissioner herself said today that the women's safety sector is already—I will just get the words right—buckling. She acknowledged that. I know that, but here is the commissioner acknowledging that the sector is already buckling. She said that when there is an increase in reporting, frontline services need more support to meet increased demand. I too have been saying that for quite some time. Unfortunately, what we have seen this year are the rates of violence and in particular the rates of the murder of women increase. I am a big supporter of the national plan, but it is clear to me there's not enough funding to make it effective, and that should be fixed. It should have been fixed years ago. I ask the government today: when will you commit to fully funding the frontline support sector that handles family, domestic and sexual violence that helps women and children in particular when they seek to flee violence and to stay safe and start fresh, like they deserve to? I got a nice recap of the things the government has done, and they are all fine. I didn't actually get an answer to my question, which was: when will you give them the money they want so they can help everyone who needs it? I did get a bit frustrated, and I try to stay calm in this place, but we have question time so we can get answers. I suppose it is called 'question time' and not 'answer time' for a reason. But I was very disappointed to not get an answer on whether the government will increase funding. They have added some funding but they are at about two-thirds of what the sector says it needs. So is that one in three women who aren't going to be helped because this government won't fund them? Why can you find money for property investor concessions and for nuclear submarines and tax cuts? Why can you find money for those things and not find money for frontline services to the amount they are asking for? I genuinely don't understand what message is not getting through, and why that opportunity to really help people when they most need it is not being grabbed by this government and then trumpeted about. We would all shower them in fanfare like they deserve. This is an issue that needs proper funding. Once again, unfortunately, we haven't seen the government commit to what women want them to do on this matter. I also asked the minister specifically about sexual violence support services because, as we know and as the commissioner herself acknowledged today, often sexual violence is left out of this conversation. But unfortunately, we have seen an 11 per cent increase in sexual violence in the past year, and we know the sexual violence support services are even more underfunded than the family and domestic violence support services. They are literally and figuratively the poor cousin, so I asked the minister: will there be any specific funding for sexual violence support services? I got some references to some of the good changes that have been coming out of this government in relation to some family law reforms and some sexual violence justice actions, which the Greens have supported, but I didn't get an answer to: will you fund those frontline rape crisis services? It was extremely frustrating to not be told why not. The other question I asked of the minister built upon the excellent work of my colleague Senator Dorinda Cox, who then initiated an inquiry into missing and murdered First Nations women that ran for many, many months and had incredibly powerful evidence and just culminated in the report last week. I asked whether or not the government would commit one of the suggestions made by my colleague to have an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander violence prevention framework for men and boys, because we know that community led responses are what can work. We know also that the rates of violence against First Nations women is even worse than the rates of violence against non-Indigenous women. I didn't get an answer to that either. We got some nice recognition of Senator Cox's work, but, again, we're not asking these questions just to have fun; we're asking because we want answers. We will not stop asking for frontline services to get the funding they need to help everyone that seeks it. We also want decent money for prevention work because it's clear that we will just keep chasing our tail. We've got some good prevention initiatives but, likewise, they are underfunded. The saturation model in Victoria is an excellent model that we should see replicated nationally, but it's going to take money and we are still waiting for the government to put that on the table. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 66 DOCUMENTS Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 66 Order for the Production of Documents 66 15:41 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The government response to the interim report of the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on the shutdown of 3G was tabled on Monday 19 August. The 3G shutdown has been thoroughly examined by the Senate committee, and the recommendations provided in the interim report are under active consideration by government. The government has sought to transparently support the Senate through its interim response to the committee and, indeed, through the committee process itself. Since the committee produced its interim report, there has been an important change. Telstra and Optus had planned to switch off their 3G networks from 31 August and 1 September respectively, but have delayed that switch until 28 October 2024, which is welcomed. In addition to delaying the switch, the government notes Telstra and Optus's plan to undertake a six-week national public media campaign to give Australians a greater opportunity to be informed of the impacts to devices and to upgrade incompatible devices in time. Our key message to the public remains: all Australians should act now to check if their device could be affected after the switchover in terms of access to triple 0. The government continues to closely monitor industry's progress to identify and inform impacted customers and ensure any public safety risk is appropriately managed. Any regulatory actions would be subject to consultation and procedural process because community safety is this government's No. 1 priority. The government encourages all Australian individuals and businesses to act now and upgrade impacted devices. Any customer on any network can text 3 to the number 3498 for an automatic response on whether or not their mobile phone is impacted, and I urge senators to take steps to communicate this important message to their constituencies. 15:43 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That the Senate take not of the explanation. I'll now explain to the chamber what it just heard. The Albanese Labor government is putting multinational telco company profits above human life, above Australian lives. For many people this is a matter of life and death. The Senate has pulled the minister in front of the chamber to explain: … why the Government has failed to place a single condition on the 3G mobile network shutdown … So 1,041,282 is the number of devices the telcos have told us will not function as sold when they shut the 3G network in just two months, yet the communications minister is sitting back and letting telcos Telstra and Optus just do it. That's thorough for the Labor Party. If our Senate had not fulfilled its role as the house of review and instead stood back and not intervened, telcos would have shut Australia's 3G network in 10 days time. Revelations from our Senate inquiry into the 3G shutdown led to a two-month delay. In two months, the communications minister will let telcos switch off the 3G network, even if a million devices still rely on it. I have simple questions for the communications minister: How much are telco companies, like Telstra and Singapore owned Optus, making from shutting down the network early? How much is an Australian life worth? Who will be responsible if telcos are allowed to flick the switch in two months and someone dies? There are Australians with 4G phones, not 3G phones, who will not be able to call triple 0 when the 3G network is shut down. There are emergency phones in lifts that will not work when someone gets stuck—and they didn't know that until a couple of weeks ago. Many fall alerts, medical alarms and pacemakers use 3G to alert an ambulance. This isn't just about upgrading old phones, although the telcos will certainly make more money from forcing people into new phones. There are non-mobile devices that will be affected as well. Telcos gave us the figures at the inquiry. Together they estimate there are 68,000 3G mobile devices still in use. These are old phones. An argument could be made that it's time for them be replaced. Yet the 4G phones are where it gets really interesting. There are 4G mobile devices that will be affected when 3G shuts down. Some 4G phones piggyback on the 3G network. They use 4G for data and default to 3G to make calls. These are referenced as non-voice-over LTE, or non-VoLTE. Telcos tell us there are 311,000 of these. When the 3G network is shut off, there will be 311,000 4G phones that won't make a phone call. Then for the final category, 4G phones that have VoLTE and will be able to make calls yet default to 3G for triple 0 calls, there are 52,000 4G devices that will appear fine until someone tries to call triple 0 and it doesn't work. Across the phones that are 3G only, 4G non-VoLTE and 4G VoLTE with no emergency calls, there are 432,000 mobile devices that won't work properly, and that's only half the story. There are non-mobile devices that will be cut off and will stop working. There are an estimated 608,329 of them. No-one really knows how many because telcos can't directly contact the users—that's thorough, according to the minister. These non-mobile devices include fire alarms; 200,000 medical alarms; emergency phones in elevators; warning systems; EFTPOS terminals; agricultural equipment like water pumps, water trough monitors and tractors; Internet of Things enabled products; routers; scanners and survey equipment; water meters; power meters; and much, much more. As the department said at the inquiry: … it's fair to say that we are learning new things as we reach out to different stakeholders. That was just a few weeks ago—thorough, huh? That means they have no idea how big the non-mobile device problem is. In total, 1,041,000 devices will be affected, potentially more, and the Minister for Communications is ready to let it happen in two months. Why the rush? It's a good question. Why not delay it further until Australians won't be put in danger? It's all about profits for these huge corporations, and the minister's ongoing timidity or apathy to not protect Australian lives. I thank the Liberal, Nationals and Greens senators for supporting my motion for this inquiry, especially Senator Canavan as chair. I note and appreciate James Parker's outstanding submission and testimony. The solution is simple. The communications minister must intervene and set safe, practical criteria or thresholds for the number of devices affected, before the shutdown can proceed. Instead of leaving Australians high and dry, put the onus on the telcos to take care of Australians. This is a matter of life and death. What value will the minister place on Australian lives? 15:48 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I commend Senator Roberts's comments on this matter. This is a very serious matter, and what we heard from the minister just goes to show how much disregard the Labor Party actually has for the seriousness of this issue. Maybe they have such disregard because where this issue actually matters, where it really makes a difference, is—surprise, surprise—in regional areas. But this is not something that happened yesterday or last night or even only as a result of the very thorough inquiry held by the committee. This is an issue that the Labor government was warned about as early as June last year, but also let me remind you that the telcos, Telstra and Optus, had given five-years notice. In June last year the Labor government was warned that there would be an issue with some 4G phones being unable to call 000. At that point in time, when that issue was made public, there were further investigations that went on, and rural and regional areas realised there would be issues with things like agricultural equipment—irrigators that send text messages to farmers to alert them when something is going wrong—medical devices and EFTPOS machines. These were all raised by November last year, and what did we see from the Labor government? Crickets. Absolute crickets. It was only in March when again the issue of 000 calls was raised, which was heightened by the failing of Optus when they had the blackout to 000, and the risks were realised that the communications minister finally woke up and thought, 'Maybe we have a problem.' Congratulations! What was this government's solution? 'We'll cobble together an industry working group which will meet behind closed doors, not report publicly' and from which we've heard nothing from since. It is only thanks to this inquiry by the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee that a lot of the true issues are now coming to light. This government did nothing. Telstra, of their own volition, in July, extended their shutdown to August, hoping that the increased publicity would actually activate people. Telstra and Optus now together, of their own volition, have agreed to extend the shutdowns to late October. Telstra, of their own volition, have sent compatible devices to their vulnerable customers living a certain distance away from a store and amenities so that those vulnerable customers are not at risk. And what is this government doing? It is saying, 'Hey, Telstra and Optus, while you're at it, can you run a public information campaign?' Seriously, this is a government that's willing to spend $14 million on false advertising about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan and $40 million advertising to people that they're getting a tax cut that has already past parliament, but it's not willing to try and help in a very serious public communications campaign to make sure people know the risks that they are facing. I'm not just talking about being able to call 000. I'm seriously concerned about medical devices, the ETFPOS machines, the agricultural devices and, as we heard during the committee inquiry, the elevators. Can you imagine—we're stuck in an elevator in this place and we go to press the button, but we get a 'beep, beep, this phone has been disconnected.' It's not good enough by the Labor government. It's not good enough for the people of rural and regional Australia. More needs to be done, and we need a proper response to this Senate committee's very thorough report. 15:53 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales So many things I agree with have been said here, but let's get down to the root of the problem: the industry still does not know what's going on. My industry sources say in the last month Telstra have identified another between 45,000 and 50,000 items that may be affected that they haven't picked up before. These are the things we're seeing going forward. If the industry is still catching up with the effects, how can we? I have some sympathy for the government and the telcos in that, if you have a 3G phone and you've been texted and messaged and have done nothing and are waiting for the last moment. I actually get that. That's maybe on you a little bit. But we've heard the issue of the 4G phones, the voice over LTE phones. People think they're safe because they have a 4G phone, but they aren't safe; they aren't aware. When we look at all these devices, those that have 3G phones have been communicated to plenty. They've got the chance. The 4G VoLTE and the devices are where we really come. Many of us in the chamber might have a skyview or something like that, and we may contract through third parties, not the original telcos, for the sim cards and the devices that go in them. It's the same with lifts. Who would know who provides the SIM cards for lifts or medical devices? You contract to a third party who has a contract with the telcos. They don't know. They don't know what it is. They buy something that has a SIM card in it, and it works. If I am a customer that has a medical alert and I am not the one who puts the communication device in it, I have no idea what technology is behind it; I don't know if it's 3G, 4G or two tin cans with string between them. All I know is I want it to work when it matters. There are methods the industry can do at direction of government that will minimise risk. There can be a shutdown where the call aspects of phones other than triple 0 go down a day, week or a period before the entire thing is shut down so that triple 0 calls still work. Let's not forget that this is the industry that gave us the Optus failure day, when triple 0 calls didn't work with Telstra and didn't work with Optus. This is the industry that has failures of networks all the time. This is the industry that, until a month ago, didn't know about the 45,000 other devices that are there. So we can't just rely on industry. I think they have had a very good public campaign on phones, but they aren't the things of concern—it is the ag equipment, the water pumps, the lifesaving equipment that is out there. If I've sold a medical device and changed the plan, changed the method I communicate with or changed the contracts, am I that engaged with you? You can't text a medical device. I did take the minister's advice just now, and I texted that 3498 number with the number 3. I did that, and it confirms my device. I get that the phone stuff is pretty sorted unless you've got a VoLTE. But you can't do that on a medical alert. You can't do that on a burglar alarm. You can't do that from a tractor. If the industry is still discovering tens of thousands of devices this late in the day, it is not a process that is sound and it is not a process that should be turned off. While the government are taking note and looking at the final response to the report—they've noted all the issues in the interim report—I would ask that they look at this more openly, more opaquely, with this industry group. Talk about processes, talk about methods, talk about ways that we can minimise risk. There will never be no risk; I accept that. With all the best efforts in the world, there will never be no risk, but if we do a staged shutdown of voice calls, of data, of triple 0 calls in that order, people will react. If I have a phone and I'm dialling and it doesn't dial out, I have an idea that I've got to change it. But if I need to make a triple 0 call—I don't want to find it out that way. This is the way: a more staged, more thorough and more managed plan with onus on government directing this to happen, so that if carriers do not comply there is real consequence. That is the way forward. My colleague Senator Canavan chaired this inquiry and uncovered stuff every day. As I said, there is more stuff coming out as we go forward. It is unknown, it is unsafe and it needs to be slowed down. 15:58 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I think the mess we find ourselves in with the 3G shutdown comes from an incorrect assessment of who should be in charge of this process. It became very clear to me and other members of the committee that I chaired that the government is taking a hands-off Pontius Pilate approach and have washed their hands of this. Their view is that this is a commercial decision of the telecommunication operators, and it should be them that leads this and decides on the shutoff and how it is done et cetera. I think that's wrong for a couple of main reasons. No. 1 is that there is an ownership or almost moral point of view here—an economic point of view, perhaps. No-one has really mentioned the fact that the spectrum we are talking about that 3G devices will no longer connect to is a public asset. It's actually not owned by Telstra or Optus or anybody else. They do lease it, they pay for it, but it is a publicly owned asset. Over the last 10 years, federal governments of different political persuasions have made $6½ billion from the sale of spectrum to Telstra and Optus and other people that use the spectrum. We have made money from that. We therefore have some kind of obligation here to ensure that those accessing that network, that public asset, continue to have reasonable use of it. But it's been pretty clear from the get-go that the government or the department have not been doing that. As others have alluded to here, through our inquiry, it became very clear that perhaps the otherwise diligent public servants were not across the level of detail regarding the devices that would be affected from a 3G shutdown. I do want to recognise Senator Roberts for bringing an inquiry forward to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee. It has, I think, highlighted these issues. It has led to a delay in the shut-off date, but, as Senator Roberts mentioned, the penny really dropped when, during our hearing with the departmental officials, it became clear that they had only found out that week—this is only a month or so ago—that the emergency phones in elevators may no longer work after the 3G shut-off date. They'd only contacted the elevator manufacturers that week to try and find out what was going wrong. This has been five years in the making, and we're a minute to midnight, working out something as critical as whether or not you'll be able to make an emergency call—keeping in mind your mobile phone often doesn't work in a lift—if the lift stops working. That's not on, and it's not really the responsibility of Telstra and Optus to make sure that elevators are working all around our country. They've got an obligation here in their own space, in the phone space, and there have been some shortcomings there. But there has to be a broader audit, led by the government, on what exactly will not work in a couple of months time and how we are going to fix it. We can't just leave it up to Telstra and Optus alone. That's why our committee did recommend that the government lead, with industry cooperation, an audit of all of these types of devices, like medical devices, security alarms and farm equipment—it was lots of things; we think it was possibly up to a million devices, but no-one knows for sure—to get to the bottom of this before the shut-off date. I have to say, unfortunately, I think the government's response to this has been totally inadequate. They haven't committed to do any more work, as far as I can tell from this response, to get to the bottom of it. There are clear inadequacies in what has happened and what has been done. The government keeps referring back to the fact that it set up working group to deal with these matters in March—four years after it was announced that the 3G shut-off was going to happen. It took until March this year for the government to actually establish some kind of group that would look at these issues. It is not enough time, in my view, to give Australians six or so months from the creation of a working group to change their security systems and to work out whether lifts in buildings will work and also, may I add, whether the phones will work. Even though we have largely got to the bottom of that, I think it's still unreasonable to expect Australians to have to buy new phones with just months notice. We only found out a few months ago the exact number of phones that will be affected. The clear issue here is just to pause. We have to do this. We should do this. It's right for our future to turn off the 3G network at some point, but let's get this right. I don't think an extra extension of a couple of months is going to be enough time to tackle the issues that we've dealt with, but we are now in the situation that, if there are major issues occurring on farms or in lifts or in hospitals in the next few months, it is clearly on the government's head, because they've been warned. They were told to do something different, and they continue to wash their hands of this, incorrectly. 16:03 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland I, too, rise to speak to the matter of the 3G changeover date, and I cannot emphasise enough many of the points that have already been made by those people who've spoken before me about how important telecommunications is in regional and remote parts of Australia and that we are completely unprepared for this changeover date. The minister has acknowledged that there are hundreds of thousands more devices that are still 3G that people either have not realised need to be changed or have no ability to change over. As I go around, I now ask every business I walk into: 'Are you aware of the changeover? Have you checked your EFTPOS machine? Have you checked your petrol bowsers? Have you checked your security and data devices? Have you checked what's out on your water monitoring equipment?' With all of these things, they need to be assured that they have understood whether or not they are still running on the 3G network. In the absence of that understanding, we will run the very real risk of having, on 1 November, failed systems that could put people's lives at risk and could put people's businesses at risk and there being no solution. As I go around the state, though, what I see is a system that is in complete collapse. The telecommunications providers will say that they are overworked and that there is not enough broadband or capacity. This is crazy. In the last couple of months, I was at the Richmond Field Day, and people had taken satellite dishes off their roof and brought them down to the field day so that businesses could continue to take money. There was absolutely no mobile connection at all in that region because Telstra had failed. It was part of their preparations for the upgrade away from 3G. At the Boulia Camel Races the same thing happened. Can you imagine a more isolated town: three hours from Mount Isa and no telecommunications for the weekend? By this stage I thought, 'I'm going to get ahead of this.' I rang Telstra up to say, 'Make sure, for the Tully Show that's coming up, you're all across this and you wheel out your emergency NBN van, or whatever it is you do for disasters, because you'll have pressure on the network.' Guess what? No support—no telecommunications. How can we have any confidence? Sorry, I've got one more to add; Tara had their races and camel races just a month ago. This is a joke. When you have no telecommunications at all, you've got no ability to ring somebody, to pay for anything or to take money. These are important communities. Sometimes, thousands of people are there. This is the highlight of their year. This is their opportunity to make money and showcase their region and, because it is a large gathering of people, this is the time when they might need medical assistance. Yet, under the current regime, there is no support. I don't know, for those people who live around Canberra, if you've got any idea what it's like to be so completely disconnected—nothing. You may not even be able to drive to the next town, because the petrol pump is not working. This is incredibly serious. So I now have incredibly little faith in the telecommunications providers being able to transition us from 3G in any sort of timely manner, because they are failing right now. The upgrades that they're doing mean that there are whole communities without phones or data and without the ability for businesses and hospitals to run or for people to make the most rudimentary connections. That's happening right now—today—yet we're expected to trust that on 31 October they'll be able to switch over the system and it will go in any way smoothly. I do not trust that now. The minister has an opportunity to say, 'We're not ready.' These are public assets that have been put into many of these towers. People have a right to consider that they have the basic connection facilities, and they currently do not. Minister, please, I'm asking you: you have got to put this on hold until you have any confidence to know exactly who it is you're affecting and what it is you're affecting and to know that the telecommunications providers have any capacity at all to make that transition. Question agreed to. NOTICES 70 NOTICES Presentation 70 Postponement 74 BILLS 74 BILLS Building and Construction Industry (Restoring Integrity and Reducing Building Costs) Bill 2024, Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Removing Criminals from Worksites) Bill 2024 74

Building and Construction Industry (Restoring Integrity and Reducing Building Costs) Bill 2024

Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Removing Criminals from Worksites) Bill 2024

First Reading 74 16:09 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I indicate to the Senate that these bills are being introduced together. After debate on the motion for the second reading has been adjourned, I will be moving a motion to have the bills listed separately on the Notice Paper. I move: That the following bills be introduced: A Bill for an Act to establish the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner, and for related purposes. A Bill for an Act to amend the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009, and for related purposes. Question agreed to. Senator CASH I0M I present the bills and move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 74 16:10 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I present the explanatory memoranda and I move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY (RESTORING INTEGRITY AND REDUCING BUILDING COSTS) BILL 2024 I move that this bill be now read a second time. Since 2007 the unions in this country have donated approximately $100 million to the Australian Labor Party. One of the first actions this government took was to repay them in spades by abolishing the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Bob Hawke, Kevin Rudd and even Julia Gillard knew of the need to stand up to militant unions. Those opposite cannot simply ignore the continuous succession of court judgments that document the need to do so. Since 2003, the CFMEU and its officials have broken workplace laws on more than 2,600 occasions, been involved in approximately 213 proceedings and have been penalised over $24 million in penalties by the Courts. The ABCC routinely filed new court cases which called out abhorrent behaviour with a success rate of 91%. The industry watchdog has an exemplary track record in cracking down on union intimidation, thuggery and criminal behaviour in the construction sector, especially the harassment and abuse of women on job sites. It was a highly effective body, which is why John Setka wanted it abolished and Anthony Albanese obliged. The Government continues to repay them in spades. It's business and taxpayers who pay the price. Governments—both state and federal—are a key buyer of construction services to build public service and transport infrastructure. Labor state governments have mandated across-the-board pay increases to appease CFMEU demands for its preferred wages and conditions. What have we seen as a result? We've seen these higher labour costs increase construction costs. We've seen major project cost blow-outs—sometimes by as much as 30 per cent under what has been coined the 'CFMEU tax'. We're seeing the return of conduct and practices that many people thought were consigned to the dustbins of the last century. We need to be building more. We know that the government has brought in a million people over the course of the last two years. But we have only built 265,000 homes. And that's why this government has created a housing crisis. We have builders who are going bankrupt at a record rate. We have building costs which are escalating, and the government says, 'The CFMEU doesn't have an influence in relation to the residential sector.' Of course they do. Builders have told this government time over that they can't retain their workforce, because people are going to work for $150,000 or $200,000 a year on a CFMEU site on a stop-and-go job. One of the worst examples of these is the return of 'union veto' over the right for a business to decide who it does business with, or who works on their sites. Companies in Victoria bidding to supply labour on major projects pay double the price to secure deals because they are aligned with the CFMEU. The impacts of such arrangements are as obvious as they are unfair. It means that those who get the work aren't those who can do the best job, or do it most effectively—instead, you only get the job if you've been 'approved' by a union. It's no longer the best person for the job—but the person a union dictates. This is unfair to businesses, particularly small businesses and family subcontractors, and only results in higher costs and blowouts in getting work completed. It is anti-competitive, anti-small business, stifles innovation and undermines the right of a business to freely decide who it does business with, and the terms under which that work is done. For consumers and for taxpayers, this means things cost more, and take longer to deliver. Under this Bill, we will reinstate the Building Code to ensure that they prohibit any arrangement or conduct that gives unions the right of veto over the choice of business about who they work with, and which subcontractors they engage. We will require builders to abide by the law or risk sanction from tendering for Commonwealth funded work. People are paying more for builders, they're playing more for plumbers, they're paying more for electricians, they're paying more for tradies—in their businesses and their homes—because the CFMEU conduct has a contagion effect across the economy. Changing the industrial relations system is one of the strongest economic levers that any government has at its disposal. It is undeniable that abolishing the construction industry watchdog has had substantial negative flow on effects to our economy. This government seems to think that, somehow, the activity of the CFMEU is not inflationary. It is. And in 2022, the Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles said winding back the ABCC to the bare legal minimum would not oversee a revival of union militancy. "No, it won't" Mr Marles told Sky News. Yet fresh revelations involving allegations of criminal activity involving the CFMEU and links to organised crime have once again exposed the unlawful conduct and toxic culture that thrives amongst its ranks. This Prime Minister and his Government's position is that they had no idea about law breaking in the CFMEU just isn't credible. Former Federal Police Assistant Commissioner Mark Ney said on 60 minutes, when asked who was policing the construction industry in Australia, "There is no one at the moment, it's in a vacant space, there's a gap there." This Bill I move today will reintroduce the ABCC and restore its powers to enforce workplace laws in the building and construction industry. The ABCC will have the authority to investigate and prosecute breaches of industrial laws, including unlawful industrial action, coercion, and breaches of right-of-entry provisions. It will have increased resources and capabilities to monitor compliance with workplace laws when compared to the current inadequate resourcing of the Fair Work Ombudsman. This will lead to improved productivity and economic benefits for all Australians. It will protect workers and businesses from criminal coercion. And ensure that businesses can compete fairly. Together with our Removing Criminals from Worksites Bill, the Coalition is taking strong leadership to enact a powerful deterrent against unlawful across this industry. The union's repeated contravening is reflective of its organisational culture and attitude toward compliance with the law. Now more than ever, we need an industry watchdog with teeth. Labor's so-called tough stance is too little, too late. The Prime Minister should admit that his decision to abolish the ABCC was a catastrophic mistake which gave control of the construction sector in Australia to their mates in this militant union. I urge those opposite to see the error of their ways and support this important legislation. If they oppose it, you have to ask yourself who runs this government—the Labor Party or the CFMEU? I commend the Bill to the Senate. FAIR WORK (REGISTERED ORGANISATIONS) AMENDMENT (REMOVING CRIMINALS FROM WORKSITES) BILL 2024 Registered Organisations are not above the law. Section 5 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (RO Act) provides that the Parliament "…recognises and respects the role of employer and employee organisations in facilitating the operation of the workplace relations system". Associations that become registered organisations have privileges and rights under the RO Act and Fair Work Act 2009 that allow them to represent the interests of their members more effectively in workplace matters, this includes: in the case of employee organisations, having a right to enter workplaces providing they meet a number of statutory requirements, assisting or representing their members during Fair Work Commission proceedings, and making an application to vary a modern award outside of the four-yearly modern award review process. These privileges and rights must be respected and complied with. Therefore, if existing sanctions are not working effectively to deter lawbreaking, then government needs to develop stronger sanctions. If penalties are not working, then the courts need other options. It's clearly the case when it comes to registered organisations like the CFMEU. This organisation has for decades had an appalling culture characterised by bullying, thuggery and intimidation. Hundreds of Federal Court judgements have forensically and methodically identified the individuals and conduct giving rise to this culture. Since 2003, the CFMEU and its officials have broken workplace laws on more than 2,600 occasions, been involved in approximately 213 proceedings and have been penalised over $24 million in penalties by the Courts. Separately, there are still instances of officials being involved in legal matters outside the Fair Work regime including numerous officials being charged with serious assaults. One official, who is a convicted drug dealer, was able to obtain a Right of Entry permit, only to have it revoked when he was penalised by the Court for failing to comply with the said permit. Yet still, this Parliament has refused to pass a law that seeks to remove these individuals from our worksites and protect people in small business when unions threaten, coerce and bully them. This must change. The Bill I move today will introduce stricter measures to disqualify individuals from holding office within Registered Organisations if they have been involved in criminal activities or breaches of various workplace laws. This is a sensible change consistent with the treatment of directors disqualified from running corporations. Courts must be able to disqualify officers who keep breaking the law— suspending or removing them from office or taking from the organisation itself the enormous rights and privileges afforded to it by virtue of registration. The Federal Court should have the power to cancel the registration of organisations or impose alternative orders to fight against the kind of rampant misconduct that the CFMEU has come to embody. The inclusion of alternative orders in this Bill, such as suspending rights and privileges or restricting the use of funds, is crucial for stripping the CFMEU of its ability to continue its unlawful activities. These measures ensure that the union cannot simply reorganise and carry on as if nothing happened, something Labor has allowed them to do for far too long. Putting the CFMEU into administration is not enough. We need to ensure that the lawless individuals who have held our construction sector to ransom are dealt with permanently. The vast majority of unions and their employer groups manage to perform these functions perfectly well. They work hard for their members, but they do so inside the confines of the laws recognised by the Australian people. The bill simply deals with those registered organisations and unions who have shown an absolutely unfettered disregard for the law, who break the law—civil, workplace and criminal—repeatedly and mistreat hardworking Australian men and women in the workplace, particularly in construction. The measures in this bill have come before this Senate in 2017 and 2019. The Labor Party voted against them. This Prime Minister and his Government's position is that they had no idea about law breaking in the CMFEU. He is prepared to turn a blind eye to their conduct, which is resulting in, literally, a multi-billion-dollar fraud on the Australian taxpayer. If Mr Albanese really wants to tackle the appalling culture in the CFMEU, which he ignored for years, then he must support this legislation. A union whose persistent, entrenched and unacceptable conduct has been described by the judiciary as "the worst union behaviour possible" perpetrated by "the most recidivist corporate offender in Australia's history". With its gang-like conduct, the CFMEU is hiking costs on the projects it controls by some 30 per cent. People are paying more for builders, they're paying more for plumbers, they're paying more for electricians, they're paying more for tradies—in their businesses and their homes—because the CFMEU conduct has a contagion effect across the economy. Under Labor's watch, this union has operated with impunity, all while funnelling millions into the coffers of the Labor Party. How can this Prime Minister guarantee that donations received by the Labor Party did not originate from the proceeds of crime? President, holding office in an Australian registered organisation is a privilege. This bill only poses an issue for unions and employer groups who abuse that privilege, who break the law and betray the trust of their members. It's time that union officials who don't live up to their obligations, face real and meaningful consequences, as the community expects. We can no longer allow the CFMEU to have nothing but contempt for the law and treating fines as simply "the cost of doing business". Conduct which has manifested into costly delays to key infrastructure projects that should be benefiting the community. We must reduce the unnecessary costs and delays that law-breaking unions can cause and make sure that building vital infrastructure like hospitals, schools and roads is affordable. Taxpayers deserve better. Australians are sick of this Government's protection racket of this militant union which continues to break the law. .This Prime Minister is weak on border security. He's weak on crime. He's weak on policing the construction industry because he's bought and paid for by the CFMEU. This is a weak leader who stands for nothing. Nothing in this Bill will adversely affect workers. These measures aren't anti-union. These measures are common sense. They should be uncontroversial. They are necessary to protect members of trade unions and employer groups from unlawful behaviour and uphold basic community expectations in terms of the standards of workplace conduct and enables those who fail to meet those standards to be held accountable. Passing this vital legislation will take a significant step towards curbing the behaviour we have seen threaten the rule of the law in Australian workplaces. I urge all parties in this parliament to support these reforms. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Senator CASH I0M I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 78 DOCUMENTS Attorney-General's Department 78 Order for the Production of Documents 78 16:11 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania On behalf of Senator Dean Smith I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 578 standing in his name for today relating to an order for the production of documents. Leave granted. Senator ASKEW 281558 I amend the motion in the terms circulated in the chamber. At the request of Senator Dean Smith, I move the motion as amended: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by no later than midday on 30 August 2024, all written or digital correspondence, briefing notes, file notes, meeting notes, meeting agendas or minutes, or other records of interaction since 1 January 2024 between: (a) the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and the Attorney-General; (b) the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury; (c) the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner and the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission; (d) the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission and the Attorney-General; and (e) the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission and the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury; and (f) the Attorney-General and the Assistant Minister for Competition, Charities and Treasury; in relation to the undertaking and subsequent ending of an investigation by the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner into the charity telemarketer Pareto Phone's data breach, in which the information of up to 50,000 donors from more than 70 charities was leaked. Question agreed to. Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and The Arts 78 Order for the Production of Documents 78 16:12 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, by no later than midday on 21 August 2024, all permits with conditions issued by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority in respect of helicopter flights relating to the national fire ant eradication program for the period from 1 July 2022 to 30 July 2024. Question agreed to. BILLS 78 BILLS Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024 78

Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024

First Reading 78 16:13 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I move: That the following bill be introduced: A Bill for an Act to amend the Housing Australia Future Fund Act 2023, and for related purposes. Question agreed to. Senator BRAGG 256063 I present the bill and move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 78 16:13 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I present the explanatory memorandum and I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— As it stands, the disgraced CFMEU will play a key role in Labor's Housing Australia Future Fund (HAFF). This cannot take place. This Bill would amend the Housing Australia Future Fund Act 2023 to prohibit the HAFF from investing into housing assets or entities financed by Cbus Super. By inserting an additional limitation in the HAFF's governing legislation, this Bill will prohibit investments into housing-related projects that Cbus has or will invest in. The Bill reaffirms that the HAFF is an ineffectual solution to the housing crisis, which shows that Labor has given up on home ownership. It was recently revealed that the agency tasked with delivering the HAFF, Housing Australia, has spent $30 million of tax payer funds on external consultants and executive salaries despite not yet delivering a single completed house. Labor is not only promoting institutional home ownership at a time when it has never been more difficult for Australians to break into the housing market, but its HAFF is also yet to deliver a single home. Cbus' formal and legal affiliation with the CFMEU has made it an untenable party with which to do government business. Allowing Cbus and its affiliate union, the CFMEU, to participate in the HAFF further risks the integrity of taxpayer funds locked in the misguided scheme. In November 2022, before the scheme had even been legislated, Wayne Swan committed $500 million of Cbus members' money to the HAFF. The CFMEU currently has three board members on the Cbus board. This includes CFMEU National Secretary Dave Noonan, who is also on the board of Cbus Property. Following allegations of thuggery, organised crime and corruption, no steps have been taken at Cbus to remove those board members. This also follows allegations from state and federal detectives that CFMEU NSW State Secretary Darren Greenfield boasted to corrupt building firms that he could secure them lucrative contracts on major construction projects financed by Cbus because of his influence at the fund. The Australian Financial Review reported that Greenfield previously told a building company owner he would exert his influence over Cbus to ensure the fund instructed the lead contractor to use subcontractors favoured by the CFMEU. The CFMEU's thuggery and corruption has had a significant impact on construction costs. Numerous sources, including the Real Estate Institute of Queensland, have highlighted that the conditions of the CFMEU Enterprise Bargaining Agreements are leading to a 30% increase in construction costs. The consequence is that construction of the homes we need to fix the supply crisis becomes more expensive and slower. Despite purporting to take a hard-line against the criminality in the CFMEU, Labor has refused to consider deregistering the union. Labor and Cbus have refused to recognise any issue with CFMEU representatives sitting on the board of a $94 billion fund. Cbus has refused to cut its ties with the CFMEU. This is despite Labor suspending its affiliation with the construction arm of with the CFMEU, and its national executive supposedly banning any donations. On 14 August 2024, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) ordered Cbus to conduct an independent review of whether their CFMEU-linked directors were fit to remain board members of Cbus, noting its concern about recent allegations of CFMEU misconduct. With-respect-to the allegations, APRA said they are concerned about the potential impact on trustees", given the CFMEU is a shareholder of the trustee of Cbus and has three of its members on the board. Meanwhile Cbus has paid $1.25 million to the CFMEU during the 2022-23 FY according to their disclosures. This included $233,000 to the Construction and General Division (Victorian Branch) of the CFMEU. I urge APRA to investigate these payments. Labor knows that the CFMEU cannot be trusted in the construction industry. The Hon. Tony Burke MP made the following statement in relation to the allegations: It is abhorrent and it is intolerable. I said that we'd take strong action to address these issues and we are … There can be no place for criminality or corruption in any part of the construction industry. The Hon. Bill Shorten MP also commented: The clear evidence emerging is there's a level of penetration in some parts of the construction sector by organised crime which is far beyond acceptable. But Labor has not acted on Cbus. This Bill takes action to protect taxpayers' money from corrupt union influence by banning any Cbus involvement with the HAFF. From this Bill, the expectation is that there will be no payments sourced from the HAFF to Cbus or housing related entities financed by Cbus. The drafting is intended to extend the prohibition to follow through to the payments end of the HAFF scheme. Furthermore, one of the conditions of the prohibition is that the CFMEU must be an entity under administration. I call on the new Housing Minister, Claire O'Neil, to show leadership and maintain integrity over taxpayer funds by supporting this bill banning Cbus from any involvement in the HAFF. Labor must axe Cbus from the HAFF. It's time for the Parliament to act. The Parliament must protect taxpayer funds from being funnelled into the hands of criminal elements at the CFMEU via Cbus. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Senator BRAGG 256063 I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. COMMITTEES 80 COMMITTEES Northern Australia Joint Select Committee 80 Reference 80 16:14 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I seek leave to amend the motion in the terms circulated. Leave granted. Senator McKIM JKM At the request of Senators Cox and McDonald, I move the motion as amended: (1) That the following matters be referred to the Joint Select Committee on Northern Australia for inquiry and report: (a) the context and extent of energy, food and water security in Northern Australia; (b) the challenges and potential actions to improving energy, food and water security; (c) the impact this has on communities, particularly remote communities; (d) relevant Closing the Gap targets; (e) the extent and efficacy of policy, legislative, regulatory and funding frameworks, including the overlap or any gaps between federal, state and territory frameworks; and (f) other related matters. (2) That the committee present an interim report by 28 November 2024 and its final report by 29 May 2025. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 80 DOCUMENTS Australian Human Rights Commission 80 Order for the Production of Documents 80 16:15 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Attorney-General, by no later than 9.30 am on Tuesday, 27 August 2024, all documents, advice and correspondence between any of the organisations listed below and the Australian Human Rights Commission relating to past and current staff of the Australian Human Rights Commission over the last 12 months: (a) Executive Council of Australian Jewry; (b) Zionist Federation of Australia; (c) Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council; and (d) New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies. 16:15 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator LAMBIE 250026 Senator Faruqi calls out racism a lot. There's nothing wrong with that. We all should. In 2022 she told the chamber: We are also gaslighted by those who think engaging in racist attacks constitutes a debate, even though the line between genuine, robust debate and racism and discrimination should actually be clear to everyone. Reading this motion, I would suggest to Senator Faruqi that her motion completely crosses the line. Now it's Senator Faruqi who is gaslighting the Human Rights Commission and Jewish-Australian organisations. Just two weeks ago Mike Burgess, the head of ASIO, called on Australian leaders to be careful with their language, to do everything they could to lower the temperature and not to stoke division. But here we are again. Here are the Greens going again: stoking division and whipping up hate. Imagine if there was a motion put up in this place asking for all correspondence for Muslim groups and staff correspondence with the Human Rights Commission. The Greens love talking the progressive walk. They are hypocrites. I hope your voters punish you at the next election. Senator Lambie 250026 You are religiously being racist! The PRESIDENT 112096 Order, Senators Lambie and Faruqi! Senator McKim? Senator McKim JKM On a point of order. The last words Senator Lambie uttered after she sat down— The PRESIDENT 112096 If you think they're offensive, ask me to ask her to withdraw. I don't want them— Senator McKim JKM I think they're offensive, and I ask her to withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Lambie, there were interjections in the chamber, if you— Senator Lambie 250026 I withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you very much. Senator Duniam? 16:17 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator DUNIAM 263418 One of the issues that Jewish groups have raised in the last 12 months is the involvement of AHRC staff in the doxxing of Jewish creatives, which has made so many Jewish Australians feel unsafe in their own country. This motion seeks to use the processes of parliament to double down on that doxxing, and it's not an appropriate use of parliamentary powers at all. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x The question is that general business notice of motion No. 582, standing in the name of Senator Faruqi, be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:22]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Polley)

12 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. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 28 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Duniam, J. R. Fawcett, D. J. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. Pocock, D. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Urquhart, A. E. Van, D. A. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

MATTERS OF URGENCY 81 MATTERS OF URGENCY Education 81 16:24 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x I inform the Senate that Senator McKim has submitted a proposal under standing order 75 today which has been circulated: Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today the Australian Greens propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The Labor Government's failure to fully fund public schools while pouring record money into over-funded private schools, condemning another generation of kids to an underfunded education." Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 16:24 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland On behalf of Senator McKim, 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: The Labor Government's failure to fully fund public schools while pouring record money into over-funded private schools, condemning another generation of kids to an underfunded education." I rise to speak in favour of the motion because it is indeed a matter of urgency. When I was elected in 2022, I walked straight out of a classroom into the Senate, so I know first-hand what it means for public schools to have experienced over a decade of systematic underfunding. Underfunding looks like teachers having to be social workers, psychologists, nurses and IT departments as well as being responsible for teaching. Underfunding means being a teacher for maths class— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x If people are not participating in the debate, please leave the chamber if you want to have a conversation. Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 It means standing in front of a maths class with range of students with complex needs and only being able to get a teacher's aide or a support person for one lesson in three. It means being a head of department and having to tell your teachers that they can only have two pieces of photocopy paper per student per lesson. It means standing in front of your teachers and telling them they can't even photocopy in colour, notwithstanding that is more engaging for students, because the department can't afford it. It means working in classrooms that are too hot or too cold but that don't have enough paint or that have leaky ceilings. Today in this building, our students, teachers and parents are pleading with the government to fully fund public education. Today I heard from a teacher who told me they are continually having to merge classes because they don't have enough teachers, because teachers are leaving the profession in droves because they don't have the resources, the time and the support they need to adequately provide for students in our public schools. I heard from a young student who said that their school is no longer able to offer science classes to year 7s and 8s. Public schools are having to rely on family members and teachers and other members of the community to do basic maintenance in their schools. Fairhills Primary School in Victoria has a teacher's husband who is currently going around fixing the fences and the gates because the school does not have enough money in its budget to fix them. Right now, the Labor government, who went to a federal election promising every Australian that they would fully fund our public education system, has a deal on the table—or a take-it-or-leave-it offer on the table—that would lock in another decade of underfunding for our public schools. In the last decade, the amount of money flowing into the private education system has increased at double the rate of the increase in funding to our public schools, despite David Gonski and the Gonski review panel saying over a decade ago that we need a funding model that reduces the inequity in our education system that is needs based and sector blind. For over a decade, teachers, parents, carers, students and other members of the community have been campaigning year after year after year to get the government to fully fund public education. The public education system is in crisis. We are seeing parents fleeing the public education system, particularly when their young person goes from primary school to secondary school, because they don't have the confidence that their public school has the resources and support that their young person is going to need. I heard a story today of a teacher who works in a public school that backs onto a private school, and students are actually starting to ask their teachers why is it that the kids on that side of the fence have fantastic ovals and beautiful facilities and they can't even get new paint on their walls? When kids are starting to ask questions about why the school that they are in is not adequately funded, I think that says everything you need to know about how dire the situation is. This has gone on for too long. We need to fully fund our public schools, and it's time for Labor to decide if they actually believe in public education. 16:30 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I'm pleased to rise and speak on this matter of urgency about public school funding on a day when state Labor education ministers are protesting outside Parliament House against the Albanese government over public school funding—what an absolute fiasco! As I referenced in my speech earlier today, it takes a special sort of incompetence from education minister Mr Clare for things to go this far off the rails. I have continued to criticise the Albanese government because, in delaying the National School Reform Agreement, this government is delaying the critical reforms that are needed in every classroom—that is, evidence based teaching methods, which we know will turn the ship around and which will raise school standards in every classroom. I am pleased to again note that, on ABC Radio National this morning, Victorian Labor education minister Mr Carroll applauded the former coalition government for delivering increased funding to government schools, declaring that our government had done a better job at funding public schools. Mr Carroll reiterated that Senator Birmingham, when he was education minister, increased the Commonwealth's contribution to the Schooling Resource Standard from 17 per cent to 20 per cent as part of our investment in schools' funding, which almost doubled over nine years from $13 billion to $25 billion. In this debate, it's also very important to put the facts on the table, and the Greens do not have a good history of doing so. A core feature of the Gonski funding model is that the states and territories primarily fund government schools, with the Commonwealth carrying most of the funding responsibilities for non-government schools, including many low-fee Catholic and independent schools. I just also want to place on record that the latest data shows that per-student funding for non-government schools stands at $14,032 compared to $22,511 for each student in government schools. That's a very marked difference, and it's very important, in this debate, that the Greens do not mislead anyone about the current funding envelope. A student at a government school attracts much more funding, pursuant to the Gonski funding model, than students who attend non-government schools. I have to say though, we have seen many examples of this government not treating all schools fairly, and I do say it is pretty shameful that, when the minister rolled out teaching scholarships, which were meant to address the teaching shortage pressures and, in some cases, crises, he discriminated against non-government schools, ensuring that those very valuable teaching scholarships, which were worth up to $40,000, would go only to government schools. There were also some other very disappointing indications of this government's contempt for non-government schools. We've had a considerable debate over the importance of deductible gift recipient status for all schools, including some 1,200 or more public schools which have school building funds, scholarship funds and library funds, and that tax deductibility status is incredibly important in driving funding to both government and non-government schools. As I say, we are seeing an absolute mess courtesy of the Albanese government. And this is a mess of Labor's own making. It's a mess of Labor's own making because Labor went to the election promising full and fair funding and this Minister has continued to mislead Australians, as well as, frankly, the states and territories, by not making it clear that the current very significant shortfalls in school funding are because of the actions of the states and territories—except for the ACT—not the Commonwealth, under the current agreed funding model. But, as I say, this education minister is failing badly, and he needs to do better. (Time expired) 16:35 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia It does give me great pleasure to rise and contribute to this debate. I'm not sure if Senator Henderson is the shadow minister for this area—I know she's the shadow minister for something. I hope you're not, because half of what you said are absolute falsities. I'll put that through you, Chair. It's just absolutely ridiculous. We're cleaning up the mess that your lot made—Morrison's leftovers. So you get your five or 10 minutes to make all your statements that you can't back up. Half of them aren't even truthful. But I will have a go; we'll lay some facts on the table. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB Senator Sterle, resume your seat for one moment. Senator Henderson. Senator Henderson ZN4 Point of order— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB Senator Sterle, please be seated. Senator Henderson. Senator Henderson ZN4 Firstly, for the senator's benefit, I am the shadow minister for education, and, secondly— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB That's not a point of order. Senator Henderson ZN4 I would ask him to withdraw his reflection on me. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB Senator Sterle, in the interest of goodwill, could you withdraw please? Senator STERLE e68 For you, Madam Deputy President, I would do anything. So I will withdraw that— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB Thank you, Senator Sterle. Please continue. Senator STERLE e68 because I like you; you're one of the good ones. I just want to make it quite clear. I don't know about the rest of anyone in this building, but I came through the public school system, and I'm quite proud of going through the public school system. I think there are many, many fine Australians who have come through the public school system. I didn't go through the private system, not because I didn't want to but because my parents couldn't afford it. It is quite simple, and I'm not ashamed of that. I was rapt to go through Langford Primary School and Thornlie Senior High School—not a problem. So it does grieve me when we hear those on the other side—and the Greens—who can't wait to pull the class wars out. Some of the debates in this place in the last year have just been the worst in my 19 years. But, anyway, it happens; I've got to put up with it. It's unbelievable. Senator Allman-Payne 298839 Why isn't the Assistant Minister for Education speaking on this topic? Senator STERLE e68 There's nothing better than having a working class background and going through a public school— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB Senator Allman-Payne, could you stop interjecting? Senator STERLE e68 Sorry, is there an echo in here? Is the room echoing? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB Sorry, Senator Sterle. Continue. Senator STERLE e68 They can't take it. This is the problem when you come in here for a balanced debate, when people start putting out falsities. Senator Allman-Payne 298839 It's a valid question. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB Resume your seat, Senator Sterle, please— Senator STERLE e68 Again? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB Yes, sorry. Senator Allman-Payne, you were listened to in silence. Please give the other senators the same courtesy. Senator Sterle. Senator STERLE e68 I really do appreciate that protection. Thank you so much. So I have to say this very clearly. It made me feel so proud to be part of the Albanese government when the Albanese government negotiated with a grown-up government, the Western Australian government. It is absolutely lifting that that fantastic state over there, full of its teachers and a great government, could actually sit down—don't shake your head—and have deals being done. What we do know is that the schools should be funded by the states. That's their job. The states need to do the public funding. The model was this: 75 per cent by the feds, 20 per cent by the states and five per cent just left out there floating. But the Western Australian government, under the best premier in this nation and the best premier Western Australia— Senator Allman-Payne 298839 Thank you for putting that on the record, Senator Sterle! It's an artificial cap. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB Senator Allman-Payne, if I can hear you, your interjections are way too loud. Please desist. Sorry, Senator Sterle. Senator STERLE e68 Thank goodness you're here, Chair; this is really putting me off! But what actually happened was that no-one wanted to pay the other five per cent—the mess we got left from that side over there. So the grown-ups got in the room, and the minister in Western Australia, Minister Tony Buti, and Minister Clare here in the grown-up government in Canberra got together and nutted out an agreement. The feds agreed to continue their 75 per cent, plus 2½ per cent. The states shook hands and said the states would pick up the other 2½ per cent. I don't know, Senator Allman-Payne, your background—I know you were a teacher—but I actually had my own small business, and I've been around a little bit in my one industry. Half of the successes that we have are when you actually sit down like grown-ups and you negotiate. Instead, we have seen state ministers throwing their dummies out of the cot because they don't want to pay their half of the five per cent or to negotiate. It is all very well to kick and scream and carrying on. What is wrong with grown-ups coming to a negotiation? When all is said and done, I have a different view of the world from the Greens because of my business background and my working class background. My wife and I had a trucking business. When we wrote a cheque and made the decision that we were going to invest in a new truck or put in a gearbox, we actually paid with our own money. So we get that. We understand that when you start talking about dollars they've got to come from somewhere. Unfortunately, the Greens have not been in the real world—most of them. I'll take that back because Senator Whish-Wilson has got a fantastic background, and he's done a bit. The rest don't come from the real world. You've never had to do anything with your own money in a business. If you ever knew how to run a business— Senator Hodgins-May 310860 She's a teacher! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB Senator Allman-Payne, I have not given you the call. There have been very loud interjections from both of you up that end. Please desist. Senator Allman-Payne 298839 A point of order: the senator is making a poor reflection on me. By singling out Senator Whish-Wilson, he's made it very clear— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB That is not a point of order. People listened to you in silence; please show the same courtesy to other people. It's not difficult. Senator Sterle, please continue. You've got 22 seconds. Senator STERLE e68 Thank you, very much. I am happy to say one thing. The Western Australian government and the federal Albanese government have done a deal. The grown-ups were put in the room, and it's about time the states actually sat down and negotiated in all fairness too. Stop trying to run the divide. It's typical of the Greens to have conflict. You're not happy unless you're stirring up conflict. Thank God, you'll never be in government! (Time expired) 16:42 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania This morning, I met Sarah from Don College, my old school. Don College is a public senior secondary school in Devonport. Sarah told me that her younger brother desperately needs support, but the school doesn't have any support staff. She also told me that when her maths teacher broke her hip her relief teachers weren't even maths teachers. Don College also has no wi-fi, and they couldn't have a school camp because they simply didn't have the money. Meanwhile, when the government announced $30 million for school infrastructure upgrades, some of that money went to Tasmania's most expensive private schools. What is wrong with this picture? The Gonski report was released in 2012. It laid out a plan for needs based funding. The more in need the kids were, the more government funding that school would get. The Gonski report also recommended that governments reduce payments to over-funded schools that didn't need them and redirect funds on a needs based model. As Gonski put it at the time: … differences in educational outcomes should not be the result of differences in wealth, income, power or possessions … Gonski's family came from humble beginnings. He knew what difference a good education made. The report's key recommendation was the schooling resource standard, the SRS—a base rate of funding per student with additional loading for disadvantage. The SRS would determine the required funding needed for each school, but, a decade on, most public schools are yet to reach their full funding, and more funding has gone to the less needy schools. In 2010, Prime Minister Julia Gillard insisted that your postcode shouldn't determine how well you do in life. But, in 2024, apparently it still does. On average, our poorest kids are three years behind the kids from our wealthy households. Gonski was a Labor reform, and the education minister Jason Clare has vowed to fix the funding gap. The states are close to giving their 75 per cent of funding together, but now the government is offering only 22.5 per cent. Just do the right thing and lift another 2.5 per cent and give them their 25 per cent. That is what they are asking for. While private schools are getting taxpayer dollars to build libraries that look like castles—that's a true story; believe me that is a true story—and sport centres with Olympic swimming pools, the demountables that are at Don College were there when I was there. We won't say how many years ago, but it was many years ago. I'm telling you that this is really not fair. Our poorest kids are now starting to slip even lower because we are not funding those public schools, and there is a significant difference between those rich schools and our public schools. We have a serious class problem in this country. We seriously do. And if it means taking some funding off the rich and giving to the poor then maybe it's about time we did that. I'm sorry, but I don't want these kids, the most disadvantaged out there, missing out any more. It is not fair. I've absolutely had a gut full of class in this country! 16:45 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Senator McKim, through his motion, is fabricating a false dichotomy, a false divide. It's not public schools versus private schools; it's parents versus woke education departments. The real issue is an undernourished education. Maria Montessori, arguably the most comprehensive studier of human behaviour and human development, said that the critical years for the formation of both character and intellect are birth to six. We form our view of ourselves, we develop our ego and our view of the world before reasoning develops, because reasoning doesn't start kicking in until around the age of nine. Babies are sponges. They focus on their parents, and the parents' role is absolutely crucial—especially from zero to three, and then continuing from three to six. That is primary. So what do we see? We see the Greens policies destroying families and the role of parents. We see Senator Waters recently speaking enthusiastically in the Senate about increasing women's participation in work. The corollary is that women are not participating in family. That's the shame. Parents—fathers and mothers—should have a choice as to whether both work or one stays at home. Parents should not be forced to leave their children in the care of someone else for economic reasons—the rising cost-of-living expenditure due to government and Greens policies; higher energy prices due to Greens policies; higher housing prices due to rampant immigration, due to Greens policies; taxation; high interest rates. Whether the mother or the father stays at home should be a choice for each couple, but one of them should have the opportunity to have that choice. The Greens want the parenting role contracted out to government indoctrination. The Greens are pushing globalist policies through the United Nations and World Economic Forum alliance, and their stated goals are to destroy families. The Greens policies are destroying families and parenting. I make the point that it certainly would be better to have charter schools introduced into this country because the government allocates money to the child, and that money follows the child to the school. If the parent wants to choose a private school, they have the funds. If the parent wants to choose a public school, the money goes to the public school. Then we'd give power to adults and parents and principals, not bureaucrats. 16:47 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania None of us want public schools to be underresourced or underfunded. We've all heard about the teachers using their own money to buy stationery supplies for their classrooms so that their kids don't miss out, or the playground equipment that is broken and needs replacing so it's off limits for the kids of that school. These are clear examples of when funding is falling short, and it's our kids who are missing out. Kids who go to public schools deserve the same resources as those who go to private schools, but we know that it isn't always the case. Education should not be something we quibble about. Education should be equitable. Private schools don't need more money—I agree with Senator McKim on that point. Between the funds they receive from the government, the fundraising they do themselves and the fees they charge, private schools are doing alright for themselves. But we have to be careful where we're talking about who gets what when it comes to pots of money for education. Under the Australian Education Act the government gives block grant authorities capital funding for independent schools. Those authorities disperse that money to independent schools around the country based on grant applications the schools submit. The term 'independent school' covers private schools—sure—but also religious schools, special assistance schools and schools for Indigenous students. Independent schools don't automatically equal a school that educates children of wealthy families. Giant Steps Tasmania is an independent special school in Deloraine for children on the autism spectrum. There are nine indie schools across Tassie's three regions offering alternative kinds of education for kids who don't learn best in traditional learning environments. These schools fill a gap in our education system, and they do it really well. They provide education for Tassie kids who might otherwise fall through the cracks, and they do it with funding from multiple sources, including grants provided under the Australian Education Act. Cutting funding to independent schools would be bad for Giant Steps Tasmania and for Tassie's nine indie schools. They're helping our most vulnerable kids. Denying funding to those independent schools would mean denying our kids opportunities, and that I cannot support. 16:50 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia In the two minutes I have, I rise to include my reflections on the matter of urgency before the Senate, put by Senator McKim, on public school funding. This morning I had the privilege of meeting with members of the Australian Education Union, school teachers and students from Western Australia. Their stories are a stark reminder of what's at stake in our public education system. They spoke of classrooms bursting at the seams. They spoke of students with disabilities and special needs not receiving the care and attention they require. They spoke of outdated resources, high staff turnover and teachers stretched thin, desperately trying to give every child the education they deserve. What have we seen from this Labor government? A glaring failure to fully fund our public schools. Instead, they continue to funnel record amounts of money into private schools. This is not just a matter of budgetary allocation; it's a question of values and priorities. By neglecting public schools we are condemning another generation of Australian kids to an underfunded education. We are telling them that their futures matter less because of the postcode they were born in. This is unacceptable. Education is the great equaliser, but only if it is adequately funded. It's time we stopped paying lip service to the importance of public education and started giving it the resources it needs to truly thrive. We need to bridge the jarring equity divide. I urge my colleagues to support this motion and send a clear message: every child, regardless of their background, their postcode or their parents' income, deserves a fully funded high-quality education. Let us not fail them. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion as moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:56]
(The President—Senator Lines)

12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 25 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chandler, C. Fawcett, D. J. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Kovacic, M. (Teller) Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

Taiwan 87 16:58 The PRESIDENT 112096 (): The Senate will now consider the proposal from Senators Fawcett and O'Neill which has been circulated and is shown on the Dynamic Red: That United Nations Resolution 2758 of 25th October 1971 does not establish the People's Republic of China's sovereignty over Taiwan and does not determine the future status of Taiwan in the United Nations, nor Taiwanese participation in UN agencies or international organisations. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The PRESIDENT 112096 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 16:58 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I, and also on behalf of Senator O'Neill, move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: That United Nations Resolution 2758 of 25th October 1971 does not establish the People's Republic of China's sovereignty over Taiwan and does not determine the future status of Taiwan in the United Nations, nor Taiwanese participation in UN agencies or international organisations. This is urgent because of the growing risk to the security and the stability in the Indo-Pacific. One of the key risks in this whole process is the status quo across the Taiwan Strait. It's important not just for the human rights of the 23.5 million people in the democracy that is Taiwan but for the impact that a decrease in security and a conflict there would have on the rules based order that underpins peace and security around the world, as well as for the global economic impact, which Australia would not escape. David Uren, in a paper for ASPI, highlighted that Australia's GDP would go back by six per cent and per capita take-home pay would decrease by 14 per cent if there were conflict across the Taiwan Strait. What does a 1971 resolution in the UN have to do with these risks? If we go back to documents from the time, the then national security adviser Henry Kissinger, speaking with the then Premier of China, Zhou Enlai, established the fact that the PRC was concerned that what was then known as the Albanian resolution did not mention Taiwan. It did not address the status of Taiwan. It did not establish PRC sovereignty over Taiwan, and it did not determine Taiwan's participation in international bodies. That is in accordance with Australia's one-China policy, and many countries similarly have a policy that recognises the original intent of that motion, as opposed to what the PRC call their one-China principle, which they, since that time, have sought to impose. What does that look like for Australia? We saw, in 2018, Qantas, along with 36 airlines around the world, be coerced by the PRC to change how Taiwan and Taipei were listed on their websites. We see the Marriott Hotel coerced into changing their practice. We see pressure placed upon UN bodies such as the World Health Organization to limit the ability of Taiwan to participate. We see the UN Office of Legal Affairs changing their language from the original intent, which included the ambiguity, to adopt the PRC narrative. We see the UN refusing accreditation to civil society bodies and NGOs that don't toe the line on the PRC narrative. We see universities in Australia coerced and pressured by the PRC to adopt their narrative because of funding for institutions, student bodies et cetera that are there. We also see at events, such as the Kimberley Process, unruly and unprofessional behaviour by Chinese representatives seeking to shut the process down until Taiwan's representatives are excluded. This rewriting of history is what George Orwell foresaw when he said that, if you can control the past, you can control the future. Cognitive science indicates a thing called the illusory truth effect—that, if you say it often enough, people will start to believe it. That means the perception of truth will increase and therefore the potential for legitimacy will increase. That also increases the risk of conflict. The stakes of that conflict are high. If the PRC wins acceptance in the international community for its position in this matter, then Taiwan's security and the status quo in the Taiwan Strait are at increased risk. The PRC will continue to advocate and claim that legally and politically it would be lawful for them to use force to achieve unification. The PRC would argue that measures by the international community to prevent or deter that are unlawful, and, more broadly, acceptance of the PRC's views and the legal meaning and impact of resolution 2758 would weaken the UN's integrity and increase challenges to the interational rules based order. In the interests of peace, security and stability in our region, it's important and urgent both to restore the status quo for the peoples of Taiwan with respect to engagement and international bodies and to restore an accurate understanding of the original scope and intent of UN resolution 2758. Debate interrupted. FIRST SPEECH 88 FIRST SPEECH Darmanin, Senator Lisa 88 17:03 The PRESIDENT 112096 Pursuant to order, I now call Senator Darmanin to make her first speech and ask that honourable senators extend the usual courtesies to her. 17:04 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria Thank you, President, for your welcome. I want to acknowledge the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people, who have called this place home for tens of thousands of years. I acknowledge their continuous connection to this land and pay my respects to community members and elders past, present and emerging. Sovereignty was never ceded and never will be. I also pay my respects to the First Nations people across Victoria, who have been enduring custodians of the beautiful state I have called home my whole life. We must listen, learn and start a real dialogue about what has happened throughout our history, what is happening now and what needs to be done to advance justice and equality for all First Nations people. It would be impossible to begin today without acknowledging my predecessor, comrade and dear friend Linda White. During what has been a challenging time, I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, Tim Ayres and Andrew Giles for their unwavering support for Linda, her staff and me. Linda was a giant of our movement and her legacy and impact on the lives of working people in this country is immense and everlasting. I worked with Linda for all my 24 years at the Australian Services Union until her election to the Senate. Among other things, Linda was a walking, talking masterclass in smart and fierce advocacy. Linda and I spent a lot of time in the trenches together, always focused on the path to a win and never forgetting the people in politics. She was always driven by the people she met along the way and she carried their stories, struggles and aspirations those fights. Linda's ASU office was always open to members and her Senate office was always open the community. I will work hard to live up to that standard. Linda's passing forced me to think about the times in our lives when we have an opportunity and a responsibility to make a difference beyond our own lives and families. Ultimately, as I stand proud in her shoes today, it was Linda who led me here. That sense of responsibility runs back to my earliest memory of politics, or, as I understood it as a kid, standing up for what is right. My dad, Vince, was a fitter and turner at a Melbourne glass factory and a proud Australian Manufacturing Workers Union delegate. During the Kennett years, while bargaining, his employer locked him out of his workplace and sent police to break up the picket line. They stopped his pay for three months during that strike. My first part-time job was at Safeway, where I helped pay for family food and bills during that strike and, of course, I was a member of both the SDA and the Meat Workers Union. It is fair to say I have been on a few picket lines since then, more recently with my own kids, and I never fail to be moved by the power of working people, risking everything they have to demand dignity and fair treatment for themselves and other people. I have also been inspired by countless members and delegates from the mighty ASU, many of whom are here tonight: Melanie, Barry, Marie, Simon, Kim-Ann and so many more. They are from every part of the state and the country and all walks of life, making our workplaces and communities fairer for everyone. They come from hundreds of different professions: social and welfare work, town planning, road maintenance, aged care, horticulture, customer service and finance, just to name a few. Members and delegates are the lifeblood of our union movement. They right wrongs on a daily basis, stand up for workmates, negotiate price agreements, safeguard democracy in our unions, and win extraordinary workplace reforms like pay equity and family violence leave. They do all of this as volunteers, often at a personal cost, fuelled by the cause and by helping their fellow workers. Every job, whether you are an engineer, an aged-care worker or a street sweeper, should provide dignity through fair pay and conditions. Unions, powered by their members, are the backbone of protecting and advancing rights. It is our duty to ensure that the principles of fairness, honesty and integrity guide everything we do, creating a community where everyone is treated with the respect they deserve. At the Australian Services Union, I represented thousands of underpaid and undervalued workers across local government and the community sector. It has been the highlight of my career to fight alongside them, to win improvements that make people's lives easier and workplaces fairer. This includes working alongside giants like Linda, Sally McManus, Michelle O'Neill, and so many other colleagues here tonight, on the landmark equal pay case for the community sector, along with enterprise agreements covering tens of thousands of workers in dozens of industries, where members have won additional entitlements and flexibility. I am especially proud of working with Victorian Labor to achieve portable long service leave in the community sector. I want to thank my Victorian state Labor colleagues for their support, some of whom are also here tonight. Another highlight was when Surf Coast Shire Council became the first workplace in the world to enshrine enforceable entitlements to paid family violence leave. Not many people here would know that. The campaign for family violence leave started at a regional Victorian council in a community known more for waves than workers' rights. That was achieved through the courage of a workplace delegate talking about her own experience of family violence; the support of the Geelong Trades Hall women's committee; and the skill, smarts and solidarity of people like Julie Kun and Barry Miller to make the case with management. Following this, ASU members fought to make this a state and national standard, and, in 12 years, we completed the job under the Albanese government. Thank you to my ASU comrades, who truly embody the saying, 'When the going gets tough, the tough get going,' and to Emeline Gaske, sister, for your unwavering support and solidarity. To Billy, Wayne, Imogen, David, Cassie, Neil, Jenny, Abby, Scott, Angus, Alex, Graham and Robert, your loyalty and determination are unparalleled. And to Michelle Jackson, the toughest and most courageous person I know: you have taught me the value of doing what's right even when it's not popular. To Tash and Zoe, the next generation of ASU Vic/Tas trailblazers: I am excited to see what our beloved union is capable of under your leadership, together with Ty, Leon and the whole team. Leonie Morgan, your mentorship has been invaluable to me. Thanks for guiding me and supporting me through my journey. Your wisdom and encouragement have profoundly impacted my life and career. Another win where ASU members and the union movement stood tall is the reform to pay superannuation on government paid parental leave, which disproportionately affects women, who take 99.5 per cent of government paid parental leave in Australia. This would not have been possible without fierce ASU members like Adele, who trod these halls with other working women to talk about their fears of retiring in poverty after a lifetime of work. Throughout my career, I have been deeply involved in industry superannuation as the custodian of workers' retirement savings. Superannuation is a proud legacy of Labor governments, and the success of universal superannuation is critical to working people's security and their dignity in retirement. It is a model to be proud of, reflecting the common good and a strong partnership between employers and employees. Before this job, I loved every minute of being the chair of Vision Super, a $13.5 billion fund covering 85,000 members working in local government in Victoria and other industries. Australia's superannuation system is the envy of the world, and it should continue to be. It must not be used as a national bank account, as some would like see. I will always be a fierce advocate for a dignified retirement as not just a privilege for the rich but a right for every worker after a lifetime of hard work. Nevertheless, there are still inequalities in our current system—women punished for taking time out of the workplace to care for families; younger workers, who often juggle multiple jobs; and those in insecure work, facing a range of challenges. I look forward to tackling these. More broadly, respect for women and their work is still unfinished business in this country. This needs to change. I have worked for most of my career seeing professional and dedicated care workers forced to beg for public funding crumbs in order to be paid what they are truly worth. Their work is demanding. It requires the head and the heart, and the skills to navigate flawed systems. It's their work that builds critical social infrastructure for all of us. These are jobs that require not only tertiary qualifications but incredible skill and judgement, where decisions some workers make on a daily basis could mean the difference between life and death for the people they support. While we see the true costs of physical infrastructure budgeted and covered, the people who build our social infrastructure are left to argue why their work matters, over and over again. Fair pay, secure employment, pay increases and indexation should be built into funding agreements, rather than seen as luxuries. Australia's Workplace Gender Equality Agency indicates that reducing the gender pay in Australia will have a multiplier effect on the economy. For every one per cent reduction in the gender pay gap, the Australian economy could gain an additional $8 billion. Fixing the gender pay gap should be seen as an economic priority, as well as a social one. We have made leaps with Labor: equal pay for community workers; a 15 per cent pay rise just this month for early childhood educators. We must continue on this trajectory and continue to invest. This will strengthen economic performance by driving women's participation in the labour market and increasing productivity. It will ensure better retirement outcomes and it will begin to level the playing field. We will have slammed the door shut on the gender pay gap once and for all. I am excited by the government's new gender equality strategy, which has already done important work in shining a light on unacceptable corporate practices, such as 38 companies with a gender pay gap of over 50 per cent. Just last week, ABS data showed that our national gender pay gap is now the lowest on record, falling to 11½ per cent. This is no coincidence. Banning pay secrecy, enforcing gender pay gap reporting and putting gender equity at the heart of the Fair Work Commission's decision-making are deliberate policies of the Albanese government. The government's strategy, very importantly, also tackles how we must confront violence against women. We all have a role to play in addressing this national crisis, and I intend to use my position to be a part of that collective effort. We know the numbers: a woman is killed every 11 days by a current or former partner; one-quarter of Australian women will experience intimate partner violence in their lifetime. This is unacceptable. For our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sisters, rates of violence are disproportionately higher. First Nations women are six times more likely to be killed by their intimate partners or family and 33 times more likely to be hospitalised due to family violence related assault. This is more unfinished business. I am proud to come from the state of Victoria, where I spent some time working in family violence reform. At that time, our Victorian state Labor government had invested more than all other states and the Commonwealth combined to lead this work, beginning with the royal commission in 2016. I am proud that the Albanese government is leading a renewed national effort to address the drivers of violence against women through the national plan. And so I come back to workplace equality measures. Like closing the gender pay gap, gender inequality must be addressed if we want to prevent violence against women. When women are paid less based on gender assumptions, it sends the message that they are of less value than men and less worthy of respect, making violence against them more likely. If we want to accelerate an end to family violence, then we must fund this work properly. We must encourage women's independence and decision-making at work, at home and in public life. We must inform boldly and construct new social norms. Australia as a nation and Australians of all gender identities will be better off for the work that we do today. Like most of us, the first collective that I was a part of was my family. My mum is a second-generation Australian whose parents hail from Rochester in central Victoria. She is the embodiment of quiet dignity, determination and care. Growing up, she was—and still is—always there to support my two sisters and me. Mum was a student at the same primary school that my children now attend, and she lives around the corner in a house that my grandpa, Tom, renovated many times over when they relocated to the city. Mum has helped Luke and me keep it all together for our family, often helping out at very short notice. She carries the load without hesitation or complaint. Without you, Mum, I would not be the person I am today. There she is. I mentioned my dad, Vince, who migrated to Australia from Libya in the 1960s as the 10-year-old boy without a word of English. Like many other Australians, his family left home searching for safety and a better future. I am fortunate to know his history and to also be connected to my Italian heritage. Thank you to my dad, uncle and aunty and other family members who are here tonight. You have helped me understand and appreciate where I come from. Growing up, my primary school tuckshop sold homemade spring rolls for 20c. My mates' mums made them, by their family recipes that they carried here in their heads as refugees from the Vietnam War. Decades later, I see the same pattern at work in my kids' primary school, where 65 per cent of students speak a language other than English at home, like Urdu, Nepali and Persian. Diversity and difference are the magic that make our local communities into the places we love and Melbourne into one of the most vibrant cities in the world. The politics of fear and division help no-one and hurt us all. We must stand up for what's right, because hope will always triumph over hate. Thank you to my husband, Luke—there he is—who shares the family and professional load as we raise our two sons, Harvey and Daniel. I wouldn't be standing here today without your encouragement. Since Luke and I first met, our endeavours for a better world have always been a joint project. I treasure your calm influence, wise counsel and unwavering support. Thank you for being the best father of young boys any feminist mum could ever want. And to my two boys, Harvey and Daniel: you are clever, curious and very, very energetic! You've been campaigning since you were born, and I can already see that these experiences have taught you the value of standing up for what you believe in. I want to make you proud of what I can achieve in this place. Your generation will face a tougher world than mine in many ways, but you and your friends give me great hope that the kids are up to the challenge. The third prong in my support crew is the Glenroy West mums village. Charmaine, Kaori, Donna and, especially, Debbie and Matt, thank you for your friendship, humour and sometimes very last-minute support in the chaos that is our lives! Finally, a shout-out to my sisters, Kristin and Erin, who have always been my biggest fans, standing ready to provide frank, fearless and honest feedback whenever I need it. And yes, I am finally willing to concede that singing and dancing in the Johnny Young Talent Time crew was not the career path I thought it would be! Thank you to my extended family members who've made the trek from Queensland, country New South Wales and Victoria to be here tonight. Special mention to grandma Grace, still sharp as a tack at 94, who I know is watching this live from Melbourne. One of my reasons for being here is that I have seen firsthand what good governments are capable of. I know what government is for. Governments hold a unique responsibility, delivering high quality public services that are essential to the wellbeing of our communities. It can be the difference between violence and safety, crisis and hope, and two completely different paths in life. Government funding underpins our social, health and economic safety nets, Medicare, Centrelink, public schools, the NDIS and vital community sectors like family violence, homelessness, mental health and legal centres. More than that, they are sporting clubs, public parks and playgrounds, libraries, swimming pools and community centres. We rely on government services every day of our lives. Most Australians might never expect to face a natural disaster or emergency or anticipate needing early intervention or crisis services, but we all should care that they are well funded and ready to respond when we do. These services are the foundation upon which individuals and communities can thrive. They are a promise that everyone matters and that governments will have our backs when the worst imaginable things happen. A key measure of any government's success is how it values and invests in its most disadvantaged members. Not only is it the right thing to do, but the social, economic and community cohesion benefits are immense. On that note, I am excited to join the Albanese Labor government. This government is working hard for people and their aspirations. I joined the team with a sharp understanding of the importance of making time in government count. At the same time, every government needs strong voices within the caucus and advocates in the community to help keep them on track. I will be one of those voices speaking up when it matters, even when that might be difficult—or, as Linda would often say, sometimes we need someone else to show us our best selves. In all the roles that I have held, I have loved elevating everyday people's voices and fighting alongside them for change. I might be on the other side of the desk now but I want to keep elevating community voices and ensuring decision-makers can hear them loudly and clearly. My promise to the parliament and to the people of Victoria, as their representative, is to be on the side of working people, removing the barriers to dignity at work and good jobs and working to ensure everyone can enjoy a good retirement when they've done their time in the workforce. It's been a great privilege to learn from and work alongside so many union and Labor colleagues in Victoria for decades. I'd like to thank colleagues and comrades from the United Workers Union, the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, the Electrical Trades Union, the Community Public Sector Union and the Finance Sector Union, along with Mat Hilakari, Kat Hardy and Casey Nunn, for their support. And thank you to all the Victorian Labor members who have supported my journey to this place. To my office staff: we've been working together for a relatively short time but I already feel so very lucky that you've chosen to work with me. Amit, Eade, Ekta, Grace and Rose, thank you for your energy, professionalism, good humour, fine appreciation of excellent treats and the team nickname 'Darmanites'. I thank my caucus colleagues for their very supportive and generous welcome to this place. The Labor Party's core values—fairness, equality, dignity and justice—are our collective strength. We can only achieve the transformative change our community needs from us by working together to deliver on the promise of government, the services people need, fair pay and work for all, and just social economic and environmental outcomes for today, tomorrow and generations to come. I stand here with a strong sense of responsibility to make my time in the Senate count and to make our time in government matter. MATTERS OF URGENCY 91 MATTERS OF URGENCY Taiwan 91 17:31 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales It's a privilege to rise and speak in support of this motion and co-sponsor it with my colleague in the chamber Senator David Fawcett. I've spoken many times in this Senate chamber about the importance of every member of our parliament, particularly in our outreach and interactions with the international community, being impelled to promote the fundamental principles of democracy: equality, freedom, solidarity and respect for the rule of law. Not only do these values and practices apply to Australian society but they are the observable moral benchmarks of all authentic and functioning democracies. Sadly, they are not universally evident. It was a privilege, along with Senator Fawcett, to attend the recent IPAC conference in Taiwan. I now stand with him to move this urgency motion, with the intent of supporting United Nations resolution 2758 and Australia's official position on matters related to Taiwan. In 1971, United Nations resolution 2758 was passed, with the intention of granting the seat occupied by the Republic of China in the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council to the People's Republic of China. The resolution does not mention Taiwan or address its political status. Despite this fact, there is an ongoing and egregious campaign currently under way from the PRC to reinterpret the resolution and misrepresent what the resolution actually does. It must be made crystal clear and affirmed without question or doubt in this place that resolution 2758 does not establish PRC sovereignty over Taiwan. Any assertion to the contrary is not just false but should be considered an active attempt to undermine the true and genuine objectives of the resolution. We must be diligent in opposing such disinformation, because attacks on truth are also attacks on democracy. It is deeply regrettable that representatives of the PRC continue to distort the meaning of resolution 2758 in support of the One China principle, and to alter historical documents to change 'Taiwan' to 'Taiwan, province of China'. We cannot allow any individual or group to undermine the genuine meaning and importance of resolution 2758, as such action is in direct opposition to both Australia's initial intention in supporting the 1971 resolution and our current position on China and Taiwan. It is crucial in this place and throughout the world that we are strident in our condemnation of deceit and resolute in our promotion of truth and historical fact. It is regretful that the People's Republic of China misrepresents Australia's own One China policy. Australia's longstanding and bipartisan One China policy facilitates political ties with the People's Republic of China and also close unofficial ties with Taiwan. Taiwan is a leading Indo-Pacific democracy and an important partner for Australia. We share with Taiwan an interest in an open, inclusive and stable Indo-Pacific region. We maintain close positive trade and economic ties with Taiwan, including working with Taiwan on the Green Climate Fund and the UN development program to fund the Tuvalu Coastal Adaptation Project. Australia is Taiwan's next second most popular destination for overseas education, and around 200,000 Taiwanese have had working holidays in Australia. Australia has long supported Taiwan's meaningful participation in international organisations. It's not in the interest of the international community to have 24 million Taiwanese excluded. The International Civil Aviation Organization and the World Health Organization are global bodies. They are examples of critical information sharing and global planning bodies that require global representation. In the context of active misinformation, it is also crucial to put on the record that Australia's official policy does not preclude parliamentarians from meeting with the Taiwanese community or, indeed, travelling to Taiwan. Just last month, I was privileged to travel to Taipei with Senator Fawcett and New South Wales MLA Hugh McDermott to engage with parliamentarians from Taiwan and around the world to discuss the importance of regional stability, democracy and respect for sovereignty. Let me be clear. Australia does not want any unilateral change to the status quo across the Taiwan Strait. We share with all people and nations of goodwill a deep interest in peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait and within our region. Australia's leaders across the parliament have expressed concern, and we seek to create no confusion about United Nations resolution 2758. 17:37 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania For the past few decades democracy in our region has been balanced on the knife's edge. We walk round on eggshells trying to balance our massive trade with the Chinese Communist Party, not being too critical so that their heavy-handed trade sanctions won't cripple us again. We have welcomed the premier of China into this place, celebrated by a gun salute and a drop of our finest wine, but I have to ask: what was the Albanese government toasting? Were you toasting the deliberate injuries inflicted on Australian Navy divers last November by sonar pulses from a Chinese warship? Were you toasting the crippling trade sanctions on Australian agricultural products? Were you toasting locking up innocent Australians like Cheng Lei in Chinese prisons? Were you toasting the more than one million Uighur people who have been held in detention by the Chinese Communist Party since 2017? Or were you toasting the Chinese Communist Party's erosion of democracy in Taiwan? As a middle power, Australia has a role to play in ensuring that Taiwan's future is as bright as its democratic past. Like many territorial disputes, this is not an issue that has been brewing for a couple of years or even decades. China's dispute over Taiwan goes back centuries. Once upon a time, China controlled Taiwan for just 212 years out of the 30,000 years of people living in Taiwan. The people of Taiwan continuously reject reunification with the Chinese Communist Party, with less than five per cent of support for the reunification in Taiwan. The Chinese Communist Party has no business in destroying democracy in Taiwan. The people of Taiwan need an international community with a spine. Australia must stand up against the Chinese Communist Party and back the more than 22 million people of Taiwan who choose democracy and freedom over the authoritarianism of the Chinese Communist Party. 17:38 Senator BIRMINGHAM H6X South Australia I acknowledge Senator Fawcett and Senator O'Neill in their moving of this urgency motion, and, in doing so, I recognise them as two of many parliamentarians, myself included, who, over many years, have visited Taiwan and done so as part of the respectful relationship that we have—and I expect many more to visit in the years ahead. In 2022, Australia marked the 50th anniversary of diplomatic ties with the People's Republic of China, established in the joint communique between our nations in 1972. Although our relations had ebbed and flowed throughout this time, the strength of our people-to-people and business-to-business relations are a testament to the goodwill of citizens in both our nations. Australia's act of establishing diplomatic relations with the PRC followed United Nations resolution 2758 on 25 October 1971, which, after 22 years of debate, recognised the international standing of the People's Republic of China as the 'only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations' and also as 'one of the five permanent members of the Security Council'. UN resolution 2758, however, did not mention Taiwan and did not determine sovereignty over Taiwan. Australia's joint communique of 1972 with the PRC establishing our diplomatic ties did mention Taiwan but, similarly, did not determine sovereignty over Taiwan. Instead, it simply acknowledged the position of the PRC that Taiwan was a province of the PRC. This established the principles that have consistently guided Australia's one China policy since 1972. We do not recognise Taiwan as a country but we maintain unofficial contacts with Taiwan, promoting economic, trade and cultural interests. Indeed, just as our people-to-people and business-to-business ties with the PRC have grown through the ensuing 52 years, they have also grown with Taiwan, which we welcome. Taiwan is a major trading partner for Australia and supplies critical componentry into global supply chains. A strong Taiwan is good for Australia and good for all economies in our region, contributing to growth that all regional partners should be striving for. We in Australia respect the will of the Taiwanese people, including the democratic principles they share with Australia, and we look to strengthen Australia's ties with Taiwan, as we also seek to grow areas of mutually beneficial cooperation the PRC. Australia has consistently reiterated continued support for a peaceful resolution of cross-strait issues according to the will of the people and without resorting to threats or coercion. There should be no unilateral change to the status quo. There is no justification for the escalation in military activities or acts targeted at Taiwan that we have seen too much of in recent years. Such actions risk instability, miscalculation or misadventure and they should cease. We also support Taiwan's meaningful participation in international organisations as a member where statehood is not a prerequisite, and as an observer or guest where statehood is a prerequisite for membership. One example is our support for Taiwan's meaningful participation in the work of the World Health Organization and Taiwan's participation as an observer in the World Health Assembly. As was demonstrated during the COVID-19 disaster, such viruses do not respect borders. Taiwan's meaningful participation in forums and technical committees of the WHO would be to the benefit of the people of Taiwan and the world. As a former trade minister, I note that Taiwan enjoys a status in the World Trade Organization under international trade law equal to that of the PRC or Australia or indeed of Hong Kong. On trade policy, we should approach any engagement with Taiwan or requests from Taiwan on the merits of the case presented, as it should be the case in all matters consistent with the principles I have outlined. Taiwan and the PRC are important, valued partners of Australia. Our relations with each are clearly defined and they should never be misrepresented. Our ambitions are positive and peaceful towards all, and this is an approach we urge all partners to share in. 17:43 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I also rise to add my contribute to this urgency motion proposed by me and my good friend Senator O'Neill. Australia has long endorsed Taiwan's meaningful participation in international organisations, and this is a view that the government reiterates today. Excluding Taiwan and its 24 million inhabitants from international organisations would constrain the world from being able to engage effectively and develop solutions on the transnational threats that we are facing. Bodies like the World Health Organization or the International Civil Aviation Organization require international representation, and the government will continue to uphold this view. It is important to note, as we've heard from previous speakers, that United Nations resolution 2758, as adopted in 1971, doesn't address the political status of Taiwan. It doesn't authorise the People's Republic of China, the PRC, to represent Taiwan in the United Nations system. It doesn't extend the PRC sovereignty over Taiwan. It is rather regrettable that, as years have passed, so too has the push by the PRC and its representatives to reinterpret resolution 2758, in support of its One China principle, and to change the meaning of these historical documents. Australia has a longstanding and bipartisan One China policy and maintains close unofficial ties with Taiwan. In May this year, I was very proud to co-lead, with Senator Fawcett, a bipartisan parliamentary delegation to Taiwan for the inauguration of the President and the Vice-President. The visit for the inauguration was entirely consistent with Australia's One China policy. During this historic event, I had the great pleasure of meeting the President and the Vice-President to reaffirm Australia's relationship with Taiwan and our very strong people-to-people ties. Australia enjoys a very strong Taiwanese diaspora of 50,000, and around 200,000 Taiwanese have had working holiday arrangements in our great country. Indeed, the economic, trade and cultural interests Australia shares with Taiwan cannot be understated. Taiwan is one of Australia's top 10 two-way goods and services trading partners, worth around $33.6 billion, and is the sixth largest destination for Australian exports, worth around $23.5 billion. Australia is also Taiwan's largest energy supplier—many people will not know this. We contribute around two-thirds of Taiwan's coal and almost half of its natural gas. We'll continue to advance this energy cooperation by supporting Taiwan in its uptake of renewable energy, on its pathway to reach net zero emissions by 2050. Most importantly, Taiwan shares Australia's interest in, and a steadfast commitment to, a rules based, open, inclusive and stable Indo-Pacific region. As Indo-Pacific democracies, both countries firmly believe in a peaceful and stable region. This shared interest is important today more than has ever been the case. As has been reiterated by our Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong, Australia doesn't want to see any unilateral change to the current status across the Taiwan Strait. The government has repeatedly expressed its concerns about the PRC's military and coastguard activity around Taiwan in recent times. The military brinkmanship is reckless and irresponsible. Pursuing peace and stability is in all our interests because the alternative is too catastrophic to consider. Australia will continue to engage constructively and take steps to promote stability and transparency so that the region can live in a peaceful and prosperous manner and continue to be a region in which sovereignty is respected. In this place, I will continue to advocate for the right of Taiwanese people to live free from the threat of violence against them and their vibrant democracy. 17:48 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I welcome this motion, regarding the sovereignty of Taiwan, and the opportunity to speak to it. I believe Australia and the rest of the world should recognise Taiwan for the independent sovereign nation it has effectively been since the 1950s. Taiwan is highly industrialised, technologically advanced, socially cohesive and democratic. Taiwan has all the features, characteristics and institutions of a modern nation-state, including self-determination. Taiwan is Australia's sixth largest export market, with two-way trade valued at over $40 billion. Taiwan is also a critical source of Australia's refined petroleum imports—almost $4 billion worth—and it produces about 90 per cent of the world's advanced semiconductors. I believe communist China has no legitimate claim on Taiwan, or the South China Sea, for that matter. The nationalist party, which governed Taiwan for a long time after its retreat from mainland China, had ambitions to return and overthrow the communists, but Taiwan formally renounced any claims in the 1990s. Communist China has not reciprocated. The regime's highest priority is to capture Taiwan, most likely by force, and turn that beautiful island nation of 24 million free people into another oppressed, polluted, communist hellhole. Communist China's frequent military harassment of Taiwan is aimed at provoking a confrontation to justify an invasion. It's extremely dangerous brinkmanship that puts lives at risk. The only thing keeping the communists in check is the formidable power of Taiwan's military, another feature of its independent sovereignty backed by the United States. The so-called One China policy is a polite farce that does not reflect reality and appeases a communist regime. There is communist China and there is— (Time expired) 17:50 Senator CHANDLER 264449 Tasmania I rise to speak in support of the urgency motion, and I commend Senator Fawcett and Senator O'Neill for moving it. It is unquestionable that there has been a concerted attempt by the Chinese government and, unfortunately, by some here in the Australian community to make incorrect claims about the sovereignty of Taiwan and the position of both the United Nations and Australia in regard to Taiwan. This is an urgent matter because it is of great concern for peace and security in our region. As this urgency motion makes clear, the United Nations resolution 2758 does not establish the People's Republic of China's sovereignty over Taiwan, nor does it determine Taiwanese participation in international organisations. In regard to Australia's policy, the Australian position is not that we agree with the PRC's One China principle. Australia's policy is that we acknowledge that the Chinese government holds a particular position regarding Taiwan, not that we endorse that position. That is a significant distinction, and it's important that Australia's position over such a critical issue is not misrepresented in our country either inadvertently or deliberately. It matters because the Chinese government has made repeated public statements about what it refers to as 'reunification of Taiwan' and has specifically stated that it does not rule out any measures, including military force, to achieve that aim. The Chinese government has, on a repeated basis, conducted military exercises practising encirclement of Taiwan and regularly sends fighter jets into Taiwan's air defence zone. Nobody in Australia wants to see conflict in our region, but we have to be clear-eyed about the Chinese government's stated intentions and their aggressive and dangerous behaviour. The justification that the Chinese government puts forward for the threat of using force to take over governance of Taiwan is its claim that Taiwan is part of China and must be recognised as such. When people in Australia repeat that claim, what they are doing is supporting a justification being put forward for the use of military force by the Chinese government, and that is why it is so egregious for a former Australian prime minister, Mr Paul Keating, to label Taiwan 'Chinese real estate', as he did in a recent interview. Mr Keating falsely claims that the whole world recognises China and Taiwan as one country. This is false, and it is not simply a matter of a private citizen expressing a view, as some claim. As a former prime minister, the Australian taxpayer pays for Mr Keating to maintain an office. I think there are questions to be asked about why Australians should pay to support private office for a former official who consistently pushes a false narrative about Australia's policy, especially when that false narrative aligns with that being pushed by foreign regimes such as the Chinese Communist Party. 17:53 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia I, too, rise to very strongly support this urgency motion, and I commend both Senator Fawcett and Senator O'Neill for their leadership in putting this forward as members of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China—an alliance of 40 like-minded nations who are doing a very important job in highlighting the bad behaviour, to put it politely, of China. The brutal reality for those of us in this place, and for all Australians, is that we now have a four-nation axis of dictatorship and authoritarianism, the members of which are now working together in ways that we never previously thought possible. This alliance is seeking to increase quite rapidly its sphere of influence and part of that is through a wide range of multilateral fora and international agreements, by stealth and, as other people have said, by gaslighting—in China's case—Taiwan. As I said, this alliance is cooperating in ways that we had not thought possible. They have come to understand that an enemy of my enemy is my friend—or something similar to that. But each of them do understand the importance of collaborating and joining their industrial bases to support each other's aims. We have seen for many years the impact of that in non-kinetic attacks on our nation in a wide range of areas. Sadly, it has never been more important for us to stand with like-minded democratic nations against what these four nations are now doing and the threats they present. We now have two kinetic wars. It is not just non-kinetic war anymore. We have Russia in the Ukraine. We have Iran in Israel and the Red Sea using three proxies, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. China are now preparing very rapidly to cross the Taiwan Strait. And of course, North Korea ever-longingly looks across the DMZ at the Republic of Korea. With what is happening globally, we see with very clear eyes now the threat of China and the other three nations in the new axis. We have to stand up, in this case against, as other colleagues have said, what they are now trying to do—to change this definition of Taiwan—is wrong, like so many other things they are seeking to do. We have to stand up. Question agreed to. COMMITTEES 95 COMMITTEES Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee 95 17:57 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit I table a statement relating to the appointment of a new Auditor-General. Treaties Joint Committee 95 Report 95 17:57 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the Chair of Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the 219th report of the committee. Scrutiny of Bills Committee 96 Report 96 17:58 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales On behalf of Senator Dean Smith, I present the Scrutiny Digest 10 of 2024 of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 96 DOCUMENTS Australian Human Rights Commission 96 17:58 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales by leave—I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. COMMITTEES 96 COMMITTEES Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee 96 Delegated Legislation Monitor 96 17:59 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales On behalf of the Chair of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, I present the Delegated legislation monitor No. 9 of 2024 together with ministerial correspondence received by the committee. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I rise to speak to the tabling of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation's Delegated legislation monitor9 of 2024. This monitor reports on the committee's consideration of 20 legislative instruments registered between 26 on 27 June 2024. In this monitor, the committee has commented on one outstanding matter, the Recycling and Waste Reduction (Export—Waste Paper and Cardboard) Rules 2024. This instrument regulates the export of mixed waste paper and cardboard from Australia, including requiring exporters of these materials to hold a licence. In monitor 6, the committee raised scrutiny concerns in relation to the use of raw discretionary power by the minister. Under the instrument, a fee for a waste paper and cardboard export licence, or its renewal or variation, is taken to have been paid where the minister has accepted an undertaking from the person to pay that fee. The minister also must not accept an undertaking unless they have considered the matters listed in the instrument, including any other matter the minister considers relevant. In response to the committee's comments in monitor 6, the minister indicated that the factors that may be taken into account in exercising this discretion may be unique to an individual case and so are not easily identifiable or appropriate to express in the instrument. The minister also noted that the scope of the discretion is limited by principles of administrative law and statutory interpretation so that only relevant considerations can be taken into account. The committee is now requesting the minister's further advice as to the factors that may be taken into account by the minister in making her decision. The committee is aware that the requirement to only consider relevant factors is a general principle of administrative law that applies to all the discretionary powers, and notes that this does not provide substantive guidance for users of the law. The committee reiterates the importance of guidance in explanatory statements to assist users of the law to understand their rights and obligations under provisions which allow for ministerial discretion. The committee also raised scrutiny concerns that the instrument provides for significant matters in delegated legislation, including the element of strict liability offences, civil penalty provisions and the definition of regulated waste material. In response to the committee's request for advice in monitor 6, the minister advised that it was necessary and appropriate to include these matters in the delegated legislation because the enabling act is framework legislation and the intention was the delegated legislation would contain these matters. The minister further advised that defining 'regulated waste material' in delegated legislation was necessary to allow 'flexibility for different regulatory controls' and to adapt to changing circumstances. While the committee does not ordinarily consider flexibility or consistency alone to be sufficient to justify including significant matters in legislation, the committee accepts that the enabling act provides for these matters in this case. The committee retains concerns that the matters the instrument includes go beyond filling in details of framework legislation and instead constitute significant matters of the scheme. While the committee thanks the minister for her engagement on this matter, its longstanding view is that significant matters, including significant elements of offence provisions, should be included in primary legislation. The committee has consistently raised concerns about framework legislation that contains broad principles of a legislative scheme and relies on delegated legislation to set out significant elements of a scheme's scope and operation. Providing for significant matters in primary legislation is crucial to preserving parliamentary oversight on important matters. Consequently, the committee has resolved to draw the inclusion of significant matters in this instrument to the attention of the Senate. To enable additional time to resolve its scrutiny concerns, the committee has placed a protective notice of motion to disallow the instrument. The committee looks forward to engaging with the minister further on the matters outlined in the monitor. I'm also pleased to report that following implementation of the committee's new practice to list all undertakings which remain outstanding for more than 90 days in the monitor, five outstanding undertakings have been implemented since 8 August. As at 16 August there has been one further undertaking added to the list of undertakings outstanding for more than 90 days, for a total of 28. The committee thanks the agencies and ministers that have implemented undertakings over the last reporting period to address the committee's scrutiny concerns. The committee reiterates its expectations that undertakings are implemented in a timely manner by responsible agencies and that ministers provide regular updates to the committee secretariat on the progress of that implementation. With these comments, I commend the committee's Delegated legislation monitor No. 9 of 2024 to the Senate. 18:04 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales I'm taking note of that report. I'd like to acknowledge the protecting notice put around the recycling act that you've done, going forward in regulations. Industry has contacted us strongly in favour of your actions—also around the fees. I notice a proposal of disallowance passed across my desk. It is a good thing for the industry; I think what you're doing is the right thing, and it is widely going to make some certainty in the recycling and renewables area. I commend the committee for that. Question agreed to. Environment and Communications References Committee 97 Report 97 18:05 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia On behalf of the Environment and Communications References Committee, as the chair of that committee, I present the report on the Middle Arm Industrial Precinct together with accompanying documents. And I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I've just tabled this report for the inquiry that has been going for almost 12 months. We have had 12 months worth of evidence on this project in Darwin, in the Darwin Harbour, that is being propped up by $1½ billion of Australian taxpayers' money, committed to by the federal Labor government. Throughout this inquiry, we heard from traditional owners, community members, health and medical experts, the tourism and fishing industries and environmental groups. All of these groups are extremely concerned about this project, about the dangerous, toxic nature of turning Darwin Harbour into a precinct that will have petrochemicals, including the further expansion of the gas and fossil fuel industry. Health experts have warned us that this will be dangerous and toxic, that it will have a significant impact on the land around the Darwin Harbour and the condition of the water in that area. A mere three kilometres away, in the town of Palmerston, people are worried about the quality of air and the impact the petrochemical hub will have on their health. Health experts have warned us that cancer rates could be impacted. People are worried about asthma as a result of the types of industries that this hub will support. Throughout this inquiry, many of the individuals in the Darwin and Northern Territory community as well as experts have urged that the Middle Arm precinct project should be re-imagined and should go ahead only if it is fossil fuel free. Experts and members of the local community point out very clearly that there is huge potential for the local economy to be investing in clean green industries. Turning Darwin Harbour into a hub for petrochemicals is simply not acceptable and not what the local community want. This is the last thing that the government should be doing and the last thing that the government should be spending taxpayers' money on, not only making the climate crisis worse but making it very dangerous for local residents. The fishing and tourism industries are worried about the impact this is going to have on them. We know that the project will clear habitat in a biodiversity hotspot, the equivalent of 750 MCGs. That's an awful lot of special biologically diverse land and nature. Existing LNG plants are already killing off dolphins and other vulnerable species in the Darwin Harbour. The number of dolphins in the area has plummeted since the current LNG plants were established. People are worried about what impact a further expansion of this will mean for their local area and that pristine part of Darwin Harbour. Medical experts have told us this project risks human health, with cancer-causing chemicals. We heard some very serious evidence from doctors and health experts not only in Darwin, when we visited, but also here in Canberra, with experts from around the country. Darwin doesn't want it; that was very clear. We had thousands of submissions in relation to this inquiry, with people putting clearly on the record their concerns and their frustration that their concerns were being ignored. They want the federal government and this parliament to listen. Clearly, the overwhelming evidence we had and the submissions we received urged the federal government to rule out using this precinct as an opportunity to expand fossil fuels and to instead back the clean industries of the future. They are wanting to keep their air clean, their water clean and their climate safe. This is such a big issue in the local Darwin area and for the local community, but it has clearly put ripples right throughout the Northern Territory. I know we table this report in the federal parliament today on the eve of the Territory election on Saturday. People are watching what this parliament does. They will be reading with great interest the recommendations from all parties and going through the evidence. To wrap up: while there was a lot of passion in relation to this issue, I thank every member of the committee who participated and the secretariat for their hard work. It's no mean feat running an inquiry like this and being able to pull together the various community groups and their views. The roundtables, the hearings—an awful lot of work was put into this inquiry, and I thank the secretariat for helping manage this in such a thorough way. To my fellow committee members: we may not agree on everything but I thank you for agreeing on the facts, the evidence and the findings this committee came to. We each have our own recommendations, and I urge not just those members in the Northern Territory community or in Darwin but those members across the country who are interested to consider the very long list of recommendations everybody has put forward. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme 98 Membership 98 18:13 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T The President has received letters nominating senators to be members of a committee. 18:14 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland by leave—I move: That senators be appointed to the Select Committee on the Tasmanian Freight Equalisation Scheme as follows: Appointed— Senators Chandler and Colbeck Participating members: Senators Antic, Askew, Birmingham, Bragg, Brockman, Cadell, Canavan, Cash, Davey, Duniam, Fawcett, Henderson, Hughes, Hume, Kovacic, Liddle, McDonald, McGrath, McKenzie, McLachlan, Nampijinpa Price, O'Sullivan, Paterson, Rennick, Reynolds, Ruston, Scarr, Sharma and Dean Smith Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 98 DOCUMENTS Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water 98 Order for the Production of Documents 98 18:14 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I table documents relating to the order for the production of documents concerning the Macquarie Island modernisation project. BILLS 98 BILLS Public Service Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2024 98

Public Service Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2024

First Reading 98 18:15 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 99 18:15 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland I move: That the bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— Background This Bill makes amendments to the Public Service Act 1999 (Cth) to clarify the Australian Public Service Commissioner's powers with respect to conducting inquiries into potential breaches of the Code of Conduct by former Agency Heads. The Public Service Act establishes a Code of Conduct that applies to APS employees and to Agency Heads. It includes requirements for APS employees and Agency Heads to, amongst other things, behave with honesty and integrity, to act with care and diligence, and to treat everyone with respect and courtesy. The APS Code of Conduct is a cornerstone of an efficient, effective and apolitical Australian Public Service which upholds APS Values and acts with integrity, accountability, and in the national interest. The Commissioner's powers under the Public Service Act are essential to safeguarding this standard and maintaining public confidence in the vital institution that is the Australian Public Service. The Public Service Act expressly allows for the APS Commissioner to inquire into and determine whether a current or former APS employee has breached the Code of Conduct. The Act also expressly allows the APS Commissioner to inquire into whether a current Agency Head has breached the Code of Conduct. The Act further gives the APS Commissioner the function of reviewing, and reporting on, any matter referred to the Commissioner by the Public Service Minister. This Bill will amend the Act to explicitly provide that the APS Commissioner has the power to inquire into and determine whether current and former Agency Heads have breached the Code of Conduct. This will mean that the Commissioner has clear powers to hold current and former Agency Heads to account for breaches of the Code of Conduct while they are an Agency Head. Bill overview Section 14(1) of the Public Service Act makes it clear that Agency Heads are bound by the Code of Conduct in the same way as other Australian Public Servants. It is proper that a process is available to inquire into and determine whether a current or former Agency Head has complied with the Code of Conduct. These amendments, which will ensure the accountability of our most senior officials, are in line with the public's expectations. This Bill makes it clear that the APS Commissioner's power to inquire into and determine whether an Agency Head has breached the Code of Conduct, for actions taken while they were an Agency Head, is not extinguished when an Agency Head leaves the Australian Public Service. The Code of Conduct already applies to Agency Heads. This Bill makes no changes to the Code of Conduct and it does not amend the standards of behaviour required of current Agency Heads. The effect of the Bill is to ensure current and former Agency Heads are accountable for their conduct while they are an Agency Head, assessed at the standard that applies to them in that role. These amendments will extend the same accountability to current and former Agency Heads as that which already apply to APS employees. The effect of these amendments is to enable the Commissioner to inquire into and make determinations about the conduct of current and former Agency Heads. Noting former Agency Heads were bound by the Code of Conduct at the time they were in the Agency Head role, it is appropriate that these amendments empower the APS Commissioner to inquire into conduct that occurred at that time, including conduct that pre-dates this Bill. The Bill also clarifies that the APS Commissioner has the power to make a determination on the outcome of a Code of Conduct inquiry into a current or former Agency Head. The catalyst for these amendments has been inquiries into potential breaches of the Code of Conduct by current and former public servants, including former Agency Heads, for their role in the design and delivery of the Robodebt Scheme. As the inquiries progressed, claims were made that alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct by former Agency Heads cannot be investigated—and a determination of a breach cannot be made—in the absence of express provisions in the Public Service Act. To ensure full accountability, the Government is taking this step to put beyond doubt the Australian Public Service Commissioner's authority to investigate and make determinations with respect to former Agency Heads under the Public Service Act. The Bill also ensures that the employment status of a current or former Agency Head when a Code of Conduct inquiry is underway has no impact on the powers of the Commissioner to conduct and finalise an inquiry and make a determination. The amendments will ensure that an Agency Head who resigns or retires during an inquiry into their conduct, or whose term of appointment otherwise concludes before the inquiry has been completed, can be held accountable for their conduct while they were an Agency Head. The Bill provides that matters referred to the Commissioner under section 41(2)(k) on or after 7 July 2023, regarding a potential breach of the Code of Conduct by a current of former Agency Head, are matters under section 41(2)(m) of the Act. The Bill also provides that information and documents collected by the Commissioner prior to the amendments continues to be available to enable these matters to be finalised as expeditiously as possible. Conclusion We expect the highest standards of conduct from those in whom we place the highest levels of public trust. These amendments ensure the Commissioner has clear power to investigate breaches of the APS Code of Conduct by an Agency Head including where and after an Agency Head resigns from the public service. This legislation will ensure that senior public servants are clearly accountable for their actions as public service leaders, even after leaving their roles. The Bill removes ambiguity about the Commissioner's powers to investigate former Agency Heads and, with it, the prospect of individuals avoiding accountability through legal technicalities. These amendments underscore the Australian Government's agenda to restore integrity, trust and faith in a stronger public service. Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of this bill be adjourned to the first sitting day of the next period of sittings, in accordance with standing order 111. Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 100

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

Returned from the House of Representatives 100 COMMITTEES 100 COMMITTEES Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 100 Reference 100 18:16 Senator McKENZIE 207825 Victoria I, and also on behalf of Senator Cash, move: That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 4 March 2025: The nature, extent and impacts of misconduct in procurement processes involving publicly funded infrastructure and housing projects and programs in Australia, with particular reference to: (a) the adequacy of the Commonwealth regulatory framework in preventing and addressing corruption, bullying, standover and other intimidatory tactics in the building and construction industry; (b) any practices or arrangements that discriminate, or have the effect of discriminating, against certain persons, classes of employees or subcontractors; (c) connections between the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union, declining productivity and the escalating costs of infrastructure in Australia, including housing; (d) the impact of misconduct on construction businesses, suppliers and skills shortages; (e) the causes and effect of cost and delivery pressures on the Australian Government's infrastructure investment program; (f) Commonwealth oversight of state and territory procurement and contracting arrangements for infrastructure projects with a federal contribution; (g) examples of best practice infrastructure procurement processes around the world; (h) improving the involvement of Indigenous businesses, small and medium business suppliers, subcontractors and independent contractors on infrastructure projects; (i) the need for anti-racketeering laws in Australia; and (j) any related matters. Tonight, I rise to speak on a motion standing in both Senator Cash's and my name proposing a Senate inquiry by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee into the nature, extent and impacts of misconduct in procurement processes involving publicly funded infrastructure and housing projects across the country. At the outset, I would like to thank senators and stakeholders in the public who have expressed their support for this motion and particularly the intent behind it. As we have had a public debate and passed legislation here this week, indeed to put the CFMEU into administration—that process is underway—there are still significant and serious questions about the expenditure of the Australian Commonwealth taxpayer funds into publicly funded infrastructure projects across the country. I believe—and many senators in this place and community members right throughout the country believe—that a Senate inquiry is the appropriate place for this to be examined. We know that a Senate inquiry has the power to subpoena witnesses—we've done that before—to provide protection to witnesses and evidence and also to hear evidence in camera should that be required. I think those three protections that are peculiar and particular to the Senate standing committee process mean that examining this issue—the public expenditure of money in my own state and in other states—through this process is incredibly important. There are many in this chamber who agree that more needs to be done to ensure that, when the period of the CFMEU administration ends, there has been an opportunity to establish an enduring change in the culture of the entire construction sector so that corruption and outlawed bikie gangs, bullying, coercion, sexism and intimidation cannot once again take root. It is of course dealing with the issues of the here and now. It is also appreciating and understanding that this particular sector in our economy lends itself to this type of behaviour, as it has in the past, when Bob Hawke deregistered the BLF to get rid of Norm Gallagher. We now have John Setka kicked out and the CFMEU put into administration because of the construction division. What we want to make sure is that the son of Setka is not able to once again rise within the construction division to actually bring building sites and the construction industry more generally into disrepute, as has occurred. No-one who has expressed support for this motion wants to see a situation where the CFMEU returns to type within months or years of administration ending. This is an important opportunity for the Senate to investigate and make recommendations for stronger policies that will help keep down the cost of building our houses, multiresidential developments, roads, bridges and railways. We know that Australian families are paying more than they should to build new housing and accommodation. We know that Australian taxpayers are being slugged more than they should be to build major civil infrastructure projects, the roads and railways that we need to get people to school and to work; to connect with family; and to move our fresh produce from farm to port and to the dinner table and beyond. There is significant evidence of misconduct in the procurement and delivery of infrastructure and housing projects by the CFMEU, as well as by those participants in the construction industry who are willing to collude with those elements within the CFMEU that the administration is proposed to solve. This type of behaviour is actually the behaviour that's driving up costs for projects, and it's understood the cost of CFMEU controlled construction projects is 30 per cent higher than for non-CFMEU projects. These higher costs are having a real and material impact on all Australians. They are contributing to the nation's declining economic growth and diminishing standards of living and to the fact that we still sadly have a zero at the front of productivity. They are driving up inflationary pressures, raising the cost of living for families and businesses, slowing our economic recovery and subjecting homeowners to higher mortgage repayments for longer than they need to be. Higher construction costs are forcing Australians, especially those who live in rural, regional and peri-urban areas, our thriving outer suburbs, to drive on unsafe, potholed and degrading roads for longer than they should have to do, as road maintenance and upgrade projects are delayed year after year because of the behaviour that I have outlined. These costs are locking workers in our capital cities into gridlocked streets during morning and evening peak hours as they travel to and from their place of employment and home. Time spent in congestion results in increased fuel consumption and emissions and in less time at home with loved ones. When it comes to housing, the higher cost of building apartments and the associated delays are threatening the very social fabric of our country. You do not have to go very far outside this place to know that housing is a real and present issue for Australians, renters in particular. If young Australians can't envisage a future pathway to owning their own home, and when we see working people living in tents or cars in capital cities because they can't find a place to live, the culture of a nation will change. It is therefore imperative that those of us in this parliament with the privilege of representing our communities take every opportunity we can to investigate and examine policy solutions to reduce the cost-of-living pressures on families and drive down the cost of construction. That is what this proposed inquiry seeks to achieve. There is significant evidence to support the contention that it is much more expensive to deliver infrastructure and housing developments on CFMEU controlled projects. This is not some myth of the coalition's making. This is a substantiated fact. The Master Builders and industry who've been champions of getting the CFMEU into administration attest that the CFMEU forces up the cost of construction by 30 per cent. In April 2022, an EY analysis was done into the cost of abolishing the ABCC, which estimated the removal of that regulator could cost over $35 billion, due to a decline in construction output, by 2030. In addition, that report estimated Labor's policy to abolish the ABCC could result in a $47.5 billion reduction in economic activity. This was a direct result of higher costs and lower productivity from CFMEU activity acting as a handbrake on other sectors. Under the Queensland Labor government, the state's sweetheart deal with the CFMEU, the standard best-practice industry conditions, is driving increased costs and reduced productivity. Queensland builders and developers have suggested that productivity on some CFMEU-controlled projects averages just three days a week. Queensland Economic Advocacy Solutions released an economic analysis of that impact on apartment construction prices in 2024, which highlights the challenges faced by builders in the state who want to provide the housing that so many families desperately need. The report compares the CFMEU Queensland EBA conditions with non-EBA conditions in the state and exposed a shameful reduction in working days and productivity. Before factoring in public holidays, rostered days off and union disruptions, a non-union project could provide 312 working days per year to deliver the project, compared with 260 standard working days on a CFMEU-controlled project. That is over 50 working days fewer, nearly two-months difference in getting a project completed. That is one-third fewer working days to build the housing that Queenslanders need. As a result, this study found CFMEU-controlled apartment buildings take 50 per cent longer to build. Just when we're trying to get houses built, we have economic analysis that shows, on CFMEU-controlled projects, they take double the time to build, and there are numerous examples within this paper outlining those issues. So it's no wonder working families can't afford to buy a house in Brisbane. Last Thursday, Minister Watt denied, on RN Breakfast with Patricia Karvelas, that any of this evidence actually existed. When PK asked the question about whether the CFMEU was actually responsible for inflating the cost of building housing, Minister Watt said: I've had a bit of a look at this, Patricia, and I cannot find any evidence whatsoever to support that. There's no evidence. However, that actually lacks complete credibility when you look at these reports. We're seeing the impact of the CFMEU on the delivery of major infrastructure projects under the $120 billion Infrastructure Investment Program. With every budget, there are additional delays on infrastructure projects with funding re-profiled for future years beyond the forward estimates, as critical road and rail projects that Australians have been desperately waiting to be built in our congested suburbs and capital cities fall by the wayside. At the very same time this government is bringing in additional new arrivals into these crowded suburbs, the very projects that were slated for delivery are being pushed out because of the CFMEU's control on the contractual arrangements with state governments, and that is exactly what this inquiry seeks to examine. In the May 2024 budget by the Albanese government, more than $2.1 billion worth of infrastructure investment was delayed beyond the forward estimates. That's just more projects delayed. These aren't just a delay of 12 months, just a year; these are delays cascading four years into the future. The budget showed that Labor expected to spend $1.6 billion less on infrastructure last year than they estimated just five months previously in MYEFO. The budget, again, showed that Labor will spend $906 million less on roads in 2024-25 than budgeted the previous year and $524 million less on rail infrastructure than previous budget. This is the impact of delays in project deliveries. The Albanese government had to pay out to state governments an additional $10.1 billion in the last budget. Not an additional kilometre was built for that $10 billion of rail or road—not an additional bridge, not even a staircase. This was to state governments for cost blowouts on state-procured projects. This is an issue that is very much impacting the Commonwealth taxpayer's ability to service the country with road, rail and bridge projects that everyday Australians need, want and deserve. That's why the Senate should support setting up this inquiry and setting up an examination into anti-racketeering laws. These are laws within the United States, where organised crime operatives, shall we say, are not able to be part of registered organisations. We shouldn't have the ability for mafioso to be on building sites, working hand in glove with the criminal elements within the construction industry and besmirching the lot. We know that tier 1 contractors, the very big end of town, have a lot to answer for. You cannot have a corrupt system without two parties agreeing to participate in silence, under the cover of darkness, to corrupt the system. They're not getting ripped off. CFMEU workers are working essentially three days a week on these projects. Tier 1 contractors are raking in billions of dollars from state and federal governments. When we say 'state and federal governments', that's the Australian taxpayer; mums and dads who are barely making their mortgage and rent repayments are forking out billions in additional funds to criminal elements in the CFMEU and tier 1 contractors. This Senate inquiry seeks to examine that issue and make serious and sensible recommendations around the procurement practices in public infrastructure funding. I urge the Senate to support it, and I seek leave to move an amendment to the motion. Leave granted. Senator McKENZIE 207825 I move the amendment: Omit "4 March 2025", substitute "28 November 2024". For those who may not have seen it, the amendment brings the reporting date to the end of this year, to our last sitting week, rather than stretching it out to March. 18:32 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia The government does not support this motion. This proposed inquiry is a political sideshow. It's what we've seen over the last two weeks of debate. While this government is taking decisive action to address the allegations of corruption and criminality within the construction division of the CFMEU, those opposite are just playing games and just using this for political pointscoring. Union members and workers across this country deserve a strong, effective union movement, and workers in the construction industry, particularly as a dangerous and hard industry, need a strong and effective union in their corner. Government legislation 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 government has also referred allegations to the AFP and the Fair Work Ombudsman. The government is committed to the highest standards of ethics, probity and integrity in procurement. We know the Supplier Code of Conduct commenced on 1 July 2024, setting a range of expectations regarding suppliers' ethical behaviour, governance and welfare of employees. We on this side of the chamber are making things better. We are improving this situation, and we are putting in place the measures required to ensure that those workers in the industry are well protected and that there is no ill behaviour or corruption. As I said, the government will not be supporting this motion. Senator McKenzie's ideological battle against the union movement, and the stunts, is not something we are going to support. 18:34 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I am very pleased to support this motion from Senator McKenzie and Senator Cash, this reference to this Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee. I hear other senators refer to this as a stunt. If you go through and look at some of the reporting of these matters in the past few months, they are anything but stunts. There are serious issues here that have been canvassed, serious issues where there has been a deliberate attempt to inflate construction costs on CFMEU projects. This is hurting people who want to buy an apartment. Particularly people who live in cities, their first house may well be an apartment, and the CFMEU tax of 30 per cent is going to make that Australian dream much more elusive. We've also seen that there have been, through industrial disputes, certain exemptions given to CFMEU, Cbus and Cbus Property sites in Sydney. I'm making these statements in relation to the Endeavour Energy issues. Effectively, if you're a private developer you pay a 30 per cent CFMEU tax, but you get exempted from that if you are the CFMEU or its subsidiary bodies, the Cbus fund or the Cbus Property organisation. These are pretty insidious issues in relation to the inflation of construction costs. The Australian dream is based on the idea that a person on the average wage is able to afford a house. By inflating construction costs this is making the Australian dream further and further away for so many Australians, and it's a particularly callous government to indicate that it will vote against further inquiry into these matters when its housing policy overall has been a disaster. You can work through all the various permutations of the policy. In fact, if you go back to the last federal election, which we had back in May 2022, and the Labor Party's launch, the centrepiece of that launch was a housing scheme called Help to Buy, which is the idea that the government comes in and buys 40 per cent of your home. These schemes have been tried at the state and territory level, and they are friendless. They are so friendless that some of the states, during this term of federal parliament, have abolished their help-to-buy or shared equity schemes. So this was the centrepiece of the federal Labor campaign launch from 2022, Help to Buy. We haven't seen the government bring it on for debate. We haven't seen the government bring it on for a vote. Therefore, we have to wonder whether they are serious about this idea that the government should own 40 per cent of your house. I really wonder whether the Labor Party has changed much since the days of the Chifley government when it had ministers like John Dedman attempt to pillory members of the Liberal Party who were supporting private homeownership. Private homeownership went from the mid-fifties to the low seventies under the Menzies government, from 1949 to 1966, and I don't think it ever would have happened if there had been a continuation of postwar Labor government. I think the Labor Party generally has an antipathy towards private homeownership, and this Help to Buy scheme doesn't seem to be a policy it has any particular conviction about. Then we go through the next policy, which was the Housing Australia Future Fund, which is a multibillion-dollar boondoggle scheme which is yet to build any houses but has spent millions of dollars remunerating its executive and its board. Of course, the Housing Australia Future Fund has ambitions. We see that it wants to work with Cbus and the CFMEU, and the Labor Party president, Mr Swan, who is also the chairman of the Cbus fund, has made statements indicating that the Cbus fund will commit $500 million of members' funds to work with the Housing Australia Future Fund. I may be wrong about this, but last time I looked Mr Swan was not the chief investment officer of Cbus. That may have changed, but I think he might be the president of the fund or the chair of the fund, and the last time I looked the chair of the fund didn't go round making investment judgements. A bizarre thing it may be, but I think it would be in the interest of the Labor movement as well as the economy that they take very seriously this proposal that we put forward to prevent the Cbus organisation doing business with the Housing Australia Future Fund. The conflicts and the risk of corruption and malfeasance are very serious. Then we go to the housing target. The housing target is 1.2 million houses to be built in five years. We know, from Housing Australia's own projections, that the government will come in 250,000 or maybe 300,000 houses short of the 1.2 million. Then, bizarrely, we see the newly-minted housing minister, who is desperate to give all these sit-down interviews about how good Labor's policies are, recommit to these failed housing targets. I mean, if I was the new housing minister, I wouldn't be walking around telling everyone that we've got a 1.2 million housing target, which we know is 25 per cent short and is never going to be met. When the Commonwealth has so few levers when it comes to housing, why would you stick to something that you know is a failure? So the housing target, again, is a fail. So far we've got Help to Buy. We haven't seen it anywhere near this parliament yet; we haven't seen any attempt to try and debate that or vote on it. The Housing Australia Future Fund has been legislated, but, I would say, is rife with governance and probity risks, particularly for the government. Maybe Mr Swan, if he wants to proceed in the roles of both the chief investment officer and the president of Cbus whilst being the president of Labor, may want to recuse himself from one of these roles; that could be a good idea. Then we get to the housing targets, which have been a complete flop. The last policy that the Labor government have on housing is, I would say, easily the strangest policy of all. It is known as the 'Help to Buy tax-cut for foreign fund managers'. Having given up on average workers being able to buy a house of their own, Labor pursues the idea of an Americanisation, a corporatisation, of Australian housing, by seeking to cut taxes for BlackRock and Vanguard—and probably for Cbus as well—so that they can establish build-to-rent developments. The idea of build-to-rent developments is that these are perpetual renting facilities, which are owned by foreign fund managers and then leased out to Australians as if we were serfs. So not only does it give up on individual agency and individual homeownership aspiration; it locks in this Americanisation. We've now seen cities like Atlanta and Jacksonville in the US where 25 per cent of the rental stock is owned by BlackRock, Vanguard, Franklin Templeton—asset managers. This is the future that Labor wants. It's a bizarre future, but I think it is the future that you arrive at when you are surrounded by vested interests, when you are surrounded by a party which has become the party of organised capital—organised capital through big unions; organised capital through superannuation funds. As to the build-to-rent policy, I note with great interest that the Greens, to their credit, agree that the build-to-rent agenda, where foreign fund managers own these properties, is very dangerous. They agree with us. This is not a good idea. It shows how far Labor have drifted from their original ambition to be a party of the worker; they are now a party of organised capital, completely beholden to big super funds and unions. In 2½ years, what have they done? They have worked through their laundry list of issues that are important to the rent-seekers and bloodsuckers that fund their campaigns and run their party organisation. So, after having spent 2½ years on their failed Help to Buy scheme, failed housing targets, failed Housing Australia Future Fund and also this disgusting build-to-rent concept—this corporatisation and Americanisation of Australian housing—they now want to say, 'Well, we're going to vote against this motion that's going to look at corruption in the housing sector.' So thank you very much. Thank you for nothing, effectively. All you've got to do is look at their published research to see that people under 40 are extremely frustrated. People under 40 feel that they will never own a house in Australia, and they want their government to do better. I think they'd want their government to do better and they'd expect that this government, now having done a reshuffle and changed the housing minister, would have some new ideas, but this government is clinging to these same four failed policies. We can only hope that the government has a process—that somewhere in the ministerial wing, somewhere on the blue carpet, someone's got a piece of paper and a pencil, and a phone that's not connected to the CFMEU, and they're trying to get some ideas from the private sector. The benefit of them doing this inquiry is that it would be a report to this parliament and they could actually use it to formulate some ideas that they could take to the election—some new ideas, maybe. One of the ideas might be getting the CFMEU and Cbus to work with the Housing Australia Future Fund. That's a bad idea; they shouldn't do that. Tick! Maybe we could look at the inflated construction costs in apartment building, which all the builders and developers say is a major issue wherever the CFMEU is involved. Maybe they could look at the skills issue. We all have stiff backs from time to time, and we all value yoga. We think that yoga is valuable if you have a sore back or just in general. It's good for your health, but right now the country is in great need of people who can build houses. Yoga teachers are very virtuous people, but we need more builders than we need yoga teachers right now. The reason we haven't had any more builders or tradespeople is that the CFMEU told the government, 'No, we don't want people who won't be members of our union, so don't let them in the country.' Instead, we have all these yoga teachers. They are very good people, but right now the need for us as a country that is going backwards on housing construction is for people who can build houses. Eight years ago we were building 230,000 houses, and this year we are building 160,000 houses. With a massive influx of over a million people since the election, even with the proposed cuts to permanent migration, the ratio of new migrants to housing is massively out of whack. I think it's very shortsighted for this government to be voting against this inquiry, because this inquiry could be their only chance of getting some new ideas—having some public hearings, taking some submissions, listening to people who might give them some new policy ideas that aren't based around improving the financial position of the CFMEU, Cbus and other various associated union people. The other thing about this motion that I would like to say in closing is that the cost of construction is one thing, but it is also the cost of materials. If you talk to any builder, they will say that that is also an enormous issue, as is land banking. There are a number of things that the Commonwealth can do. We have limited levers in relation to housing, but we can make big improvements in relation to skills policy because we run the migration scheme. That is a Commonwealth lever as are the banking and superannuation laws. We make payments to the states, and we also run a large part of the taxes here. So, as for the idea that the Commonwealth government is out of options, Labor have only canvassed four little policies, all of which have been failures. The idea that the Commonwealth can't do anything is also very dangerous thinking. It is true that for a good reason the states run the planning systems. I don't think anyone in this building would like to take over the planning systems, but there are many things that we in this building can do that would help young Australians get access to that Australian dream much faster. At this rate, this government has failed on housing. They've had 2½ years, and I would say that it has been the biggest failure out of all their policies, which is a very big call. But I would say that Labor has failed on housing. We want the government to do better. We will put forward a very serious alternative at the election. If this motion is to be adopted by the Senate, we will also use this process to develop some more ideas of our own, because we understand the value and the virtue in inquiry. The Australian people would expect that a motion to examine misconduct in procurement processes in the critical industry of building and construction would be supported by this parliament, because this parliament has a duty to inquire and investigate into wrongdoing. That is the role of this Senate, and voting against these sorts of inquiries is a very bad precedent. So I encourage everyone in the Senate—particularly the crossbench, given that I have been quite generous in some of my remarks—that this is a very worthwhile endeavour and should be supported. 18:49 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales I rise to speak on the reference of housing projects and programs in Australia to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee. Before I do that, I would like to thank my colleagues Senators McKenzie and Cash for bringing this very important motion to the Senate today as outlined also by Senator Bragg. It is important for a number of reasons but particularly as we have all watched with great shock and varying levels of surprise at the level of criminal conduct within the CFMEU. I think that has struck all of us here. Quite rightly, the government has conceded to the opposition's amendments to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024 to put the union into administration and stamp out this criminal behaviour. That is absolutely the right thing to do, and I commend the government for doing that. But, if anything, the recent reports have demonstrated the critical need to ascertain how far this criminal activity has spread and if it has compromised the incredible amount of taxpayer funds that go into construction, housing and infrastructure projects across our country. That's why I'm glad that Senators McKenzie and Cash have brought forward this reference, because we absolutely need to get to the bottom of the issue and know whether taxpayer funds have been misused in this criminal behaviour, whether taxpayer funds have facilitated any criminal behaviour and how much trust the people of Australia can have in these significant projects and programs. This motion gets to the heart of that problem. Clause (a) will assess the adequacy of the Commonwealth's regulatory framework in preventing and addressing corruption, bullying and standover and other intimidatory tactics in the building and construction industry. This is such an important issue to look into, particularly given the matter that we heard about of the young man who died recently. We need to ensure that young people, all people, on these sites are protected and that taxpayer funds are in no way associated with practices that cause harm. Clause (b) will address any practices or arrangements that can discriminate or have the effect of discriminating against persons, classes of employees or subcontractors. This is particularly relevant given the practices of the CFMEU that we've learned of, whereby they target small businesses, suppliers and contractors on their sites—those that aren't unionised. People should have the right to choose whether they join a union. It should be okay to join a union or okay not to join a union. Your small business should not be crushed because you have chosen not to join a union or your workers have chosen not to join a union. Clause (c) will look at any connections between the CFMEU and the decline productivity and the escalating costs of infrastructure in Australia, including housing, which was clearly outlined by my colleague Senator Bragg. This is particularly important given the skyrocketing costs of doing business that we have seen over the last couple of years and, unfortunately, the homegrown inflationary crisis under this government. There is no doubt in my mind that the actions of the CFMEU have contributed to declining productivity and increasing costs of building, and we must have a serious inquiry to establish this. We need to understand how deeply the consequences of their bullying and intimidating practices on Australian worksites have impacted not only our housing crisis but our rental crisis and how that spreads out into the broader cost-of-living crisis. Clause (d) will look at the impact of misconduct on construction businesses, suppliers and skill shortages. We need to know whether these horrible stories that we've heard are widespread and whether they contribute to us having fewer construction workers, fewer young people choosing to join trades, fewer young people choosing to participate in building Australia's future because it's just not worth the headache, just not worth the drama and just not worth the bullying. Clause (e) will look at the budgetary impact of the skyrocketing costs for and delivery pressures on government programs, and, given the billions of dollars of taxpayer funds being spent on these programs, we must understand the impacts of the CFMEU actions. Clause (f) will look at the adequacy of Commonwealth oversight for state and territory programs that receive federal funding. That's an important issue that we need to address. Clause (g) will look at the best-practice models for infrastructure investment and procurement globally so we know what is best practice and so we know what others are doing and what's working, because clearly what we're doing here is not working. Clause (h) will importantly look at the role of Indigenous businesses and at how to improve their role in infrastructure projects, and clause (i) will look at the need for antiracketeering laws in Australia and any other related matters. This inquiry is necessary to investigate procurement practices and the delivery of major infrastructure and residential housing projects that there is absolutely no doubt we are in dire need of. Anything that is putting a brake on the supply of housing in our country needs to be addressed urgently, and Australian taxpayers deserve to get the best value for money from our public expenditure. Again, I commend Senators McKenzie and Cash for putting this forward, and I look forward to the inquiry. 18:55 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Here we are again, with this Labor government refusing to back a very sensible inquiry into the impacts of a union that they have now admitted has been completely out of control. There was absolutely no reason to put through the legislation that we put through this place this week unless the government had conceded that the CFMEU was completely out of control. Yet, apparently, it's all contained now. Yet, if you go back a few months—Senator Scarr, you'll remember this very clearly—what was the then minister's and the current minister's position on the CFMEU? It was that there was nothing to see there. Senator Scarr 282997 Nothing to see here—all good. Senator BROCKMAN 30484 There was nothing to see there. In fact, they've been saying that for decades. We've been around this place long enough to remember estimates after estimates after estimates, when we were lucky enough to be on the government benches, where the current minister was the mouthpiece of the union movement, particularly of the CFMEU, in attacking the then minister and attacking Minister Cash for her 'gross misrepresentation of the CFMEU'—for just talking about the fact that they had been taken to court umpteen times, they had been fined X million dollars and a number of officials had faced jail time, if not other, lesser penalties, for their bullying behaviour, their threatening behaviour, their overt misogyny and their anticompetitive practices. This minister, when he wasn't a minister, was there defending the indefensible, attacking a government for putting in place sensible controls on an industry that everybody knew had problems. Literally everybody in the industry knew it, and everybody not in the industry knew it. For the minister to then go on ABC Radio National and deny that those severe problems, which triggered this Labor government putting through legislation to put the CFMEU into administration, haven't forced up costs on the building and infrastructure sector—this is what he said under questioning from Patricia Karvelas: I've had a bit of a look at this, Patricia, and I cannot find any evidence whatsoever to support that But it doesn't take much work, Minister, to find evidence to support it. If there is threatening behaviour, if there are kickbacks being paid and if there is extortion going on, then just common sense alone will tell you that that sort of behaviour is going to force up costs in an industry. But there's plenty of evidence, going back over a long period of time, to show that CFMEU controlled construction projects cost more. In the minister's home state of Queensland, the cost of building apartments on CFMEU controlled projects is 33 per cent more expensive. The economic analysis of the impact of the CFMEU Queensland EBA on Queensland apartment construction prices in 2024 found that CFMEU controlled apartment buildings took 50 per cent longer to build and cost, for an average two-bedroom apartment, almost $300,000 more to build. It's almost unbelievable that the minister can't find this information. Apparently, there's no information about how these projects under the CFMEU are more expensive to build. The Master Builders in the industry gave evidence previously that the CFMEU forces up cost of construction by 30 per cent. Ernst & Young estimated that the abolition of the ABCC, which this government did, would result in a $35.4 billion decline in construction output by 2030 and $47½ billion reduction in economic activity, as higher costs and lower productivity act as a handbrake on other sectors. And it goes on and on. I know I have colleagues who want to speak, so I'm not going to continue for long. But the fact is the evidence is legion and the evidence is ample. The evidence of the criminality, the kickbacks, the poor behaviour, the violence, the thuggery—it's there for all to see. It's on the court records, and anyone who denies it is quite frankly either ignorant or a fool. This place shouldn't allow behaviour like this to go unremarked and uninvestigated—that is our job. It's our job to make sure, where we see things happening in our society that just aren't right, that we do something about them, and that's why this inquiry should go ahead. 19:01 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Well, what a disgraceful state of affairs we find ourselves in as a country—with the cost of construction in this country going through the roof and an inability to provide key infrastructure to provide new dwellings at an affordable price to the Australian people, especially to young Australians. What a disgraceful state of affairs we find ourselves in. The CFMEU's construction division is a big part and parcel of that. There was an article written by David Marin-Guzman in the Australian Financial Review on 10 July 2024, which makes for absolutely horrifying reading. The average cost to build a three-bedroom apartment in Queensland is now $1.5 million. That's half a million dollars per bedroom to build a three-bedroom apartment in Queensland. So it's no surprise that, in the middle of a housing supply crisis, we have very poor levels of construction proceeding in terms of apartment building in Queensland at the moment. The supply is depressed. We need more supply, but the construction costs, particularly the costs arising from the CFMEU's construction division requirements, are leading to prohibitive costs, so developers can't actually make it work. You can't make construction of a three-bedroom apartment work at a cost of $1.5 million. An example is that, in a two-bedroom social housing project in Townsville, it ended up priced at $830,000 to build a two-bedroom dwelling. That doesn't include the price of the land; that's just to build the dwelling. They're two-bedroom dwellings priced at $830,000, which is 30 to 40 per cent more than expected. That's outrageous. This is in a situation where Queensland must build 49,000 homes a year, of which at least a third will need to be apartments, in order to contribute our fair share to the country's target of 1.2 million new homes in five years. What else are we finding in terms of the CFMEU's requirements? A union veto on concrete pours. Why does the union need a veto on concrete pours? Well, we know why—because they use it as a means of intimidation on construction sites all across Australia. I've spoken to construction companies and executives who've had the CFMEU delegates on the site step in and prevent the concrete pour, sometimes mid-pour. They just don't give a damn for the consequence on the broader Australian public. It's all about power. The average productivity on Queensland construction sites—we're down to, at most, three days a week. That extends project times which extends costs which means fewer apartments being built. According to Urbis apartment essentials report, new apartment projects in inner Brisbane slowed to fewer than 2,000 apartments a year between 2020 and 2023. There were 2,000 apartments a year because the developers couldn't afford to build them because of the CFMEU construction division. That's the situation we now find ourselves in. It's an absolute disgrace. For a 25-floor apartment build, the imposition of the CFMEU construction conditions in a Queensland context adds an extra 43 weeks. It's takes nearly a year to build a 25-floor apartment building. It's absolutely unbelievable. How did we get to this situation? Every day I drive to my office in Springfield, which is in the south-west corridor of Queensland, and the traffic coming the opposite way is a traffic jam; it's a parking lot. That south-west corridor in Queensland, replete with first home buyers, does not have the transport infrastructure it needs. It doesn't have the rail. It doesn't have the roads. It doesn't have the bridges. It doesn't have the transport infrastructure to support the growth. Why? Because the cost of building anything in Queensland is 30 or 40 per cent more than it should be. When it comes to budget time, those opposite talk about re-profiling infrastructure projects, which means delaying infrastructure projects, infrastructure projects which the people of Queensland desperately need. In all the time before the last few weeks all we heard from those opposite were excuses about the CFMEU. In fact, I can remember Senator Sheldon debating the issue, saying: 'It's just flags. The CFMEU. It's just flags. Why shouldn't they be able to fly their flags on construction sites? Why are you people getting all upset about it?' No, it's more than flags. It's bullying. It's intimidation. It's victimisation. It's corruption. It's a union which puts its own interests and the interests of the leadership of that union above the interests of the Australian public, and those sitting on the government benches have been complicit in that, not just during our term in government but during their own term in government, until, politically, they could no longer, until, politically, it wasn't sustainable for them to continue to support the construction division of the CFMEU. I'm looking at these terms of reference and I'm wondering how anyone of good faith could actually vote against these terms of reference when you consider the infrastructure demands upon this country. How could anyone in good faith vote against these terms of reference? It includes: (a) the adequacy of the Commonwealth regulatory framework in preventing and addressing corruption, bullying, standover and other intimidatory tactics in the building and construction industry— Given the evidence we've heard, how could we not have this inquiry? It also include: (b) any practices or arrangements that discriminate, or have the effect of discriminating, against certain persons, classes of employees or subcontractors— Again, given the evidence we have heard in terms of the intimidatory tactics of the CFMEU, how can anyone reasonably argue against that term of reference? It also includes: (c) connections between the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union, declining productivity— I've spoken about declining productivity. It costs $1.7 million to build a three-bedroom apartment in my home state of Queensland. It is outrageous— and the escalating costs of infrastructure in Australia, including housing; (d) the impact of misconduct on construction businesses, suppliers and skills shortages … Who would want to work on a construction site being stood over by CFMEU delegates and their associates? No-one in their right mind. It continues: (e) the causes and effect of cost and delivery pressures on the Australian Government's infrastructure investment program … Again, we've heard from those opposite. In their budgets, they talk about re-profiling infrastructure projects. Infrastructure projects, which are desperately needed by the Australian people, need to be 're-profiled'. It is because we can't afford them! We can't afford them. Why can't we afford them? Because of the 30 to 40 per cent CFMEU premium on top of those projects. It continues: (f) Commonwealth oversight of state and territory procurement and contracting arrangements for infrastructure projects with a federal contribution … So how do we keep the states honest? In my home state of Queensland, the Miles Labor government has just been disgraceful. They've just completely sold out. They completely sold out to the CFMEU—absolutely shameless. It continues: (g) examples of best practice infrastructure procurement processes around the world … Isn't that what we should be doing here—considering other practices and other jurisdictions and working out how we can apply the lessons from abroad in an Australian context? It continues: (h) improving the involvement of Indigenous businesses, small and medium business suppliers, subcontractors and independent contractors on infrastructure projects … Again, surely, that should be something we aspire to. And: (i) the need for anti-racketeering laws in Australia … and that's what it has come to in Australia. We have to look at anti-racketeering laws because of the conduct of the CFMEU in Australia. That's the position we've been put in—absolutely disgraceful. I'm not sure how anyone could, reasonably, read those terms of reference in the context of what we've heard over the last month or so, and indeed what we've heard for years in relation to the CFMEU's construction division's conduct, and construct an argument as to why that reference should not be approved. I don't think there's any bona fide reason. The only reason is politics—people don't want this to be the subject of inquiry by a Senate committee, because they don't like the fact that it highlights the chronic issues we have in the construction industry and how that impacts upon the ability of governments at all levels to deliver the infrastructure which Australians need. That's the only reason—people don't want us to talk about the issue. That's the only reason. I say to the senators in this place: that is their choice; they can vote against the terms of reference. But I have not heard one reasonable argument during the course of this debate as to why you would vote against an inquiry into these important matters, especially when the cost of infrastructure and the cost of construction in this country is debilitating. It's hurting. It's hurting those who aspire to become homeowners, and it's hurting all Australians in terms of having the benefit of the infrastructure all Australians need and all Australians deserve in our country. So I ask those opposite to reflect upon this issue. I ask them to deeply reflect on this issue, because it's not good enough. We are a house of review. We are a house of inquiry. This is our job. I've certainly chaired inquiries which have been referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee which weren't necessarily references that I composed, but I always respected the right of senators in this place to refer matters for inquiry. I have a firm view that, if there are a substantial or material number of senators in this place who believe a matter should be referred to an inquiry, it should be referred to an inquiry. We should have that inquiry. What do you have to fear? The truth? The evidence? What do you have to fear from an inquiry? That's the other question. What do they have to fear from an inquiry? I should also add in this respect that nearly every single infrastructure project in my home state of Queensland over the last 10 or 15 years, whether it's the Bruce Highway, the M1 Motorway down the Gold Coast, the construction of a new university building like the QUT campus at Kelvin Grove—even the construction of Ronald McDonald House; can you believe that—has been impacted by the lawlessness of the CFMEU. This has gone on for years, and now we're seeing the culmination of it. It costs an extra $287,199 to build a two-bedroom apartment, increasing the build cost from $869,687 up to $1.156 million—unbelievable! This is economic analysis of the impact of the CFMEU Queensland EBA on Queensland apartment construction prices for 2024—the latest evidence. This is impacting all those Australians who aspire to homeownership. This is a matter which the Senate should be enquiring very deeply into. I call upon those opposite to reflect on their position in relation to this important matter. 19:16 Senator O'SULLIVAN 283585 Western Australia I agree wholeheartedly with Senator Scarr. When you look at the terms of reference, how could any senator here in this place not support them? They are very straightforward. As Senator Scarr was saying, what is there to fear? That we will get evidence that might actually provide the advice we need, the substance we need, as a parliament, as a chamber, to make changes and recommendations to the framework that oversees registered organisations in this country? The government have already said they won't support this simple reference. They've said that this is just a bit of a stunt, or just a bit of a witch-hunt. What have they got to fear? What have they got to worry about? We've been talking for the last couple of weeks about the undue interference of particularly the CFMEU in workplaces across this country, and on construction sites in particular. We know it's having a profound impact on the ability of the private and public sector to deliver on projects that are essential, whether it be building a private home, a residential complex, a unit complex or public infrastructure that's necessary for the productivity of this nation. We are going backwards. I commend Senator Cash and Senator McKenzie for bringing this important reference before this place. It would go to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, and I know they would do a thoroughly decent job at looking at this issue and reporting back by the end of this year with recommendations on how, once and for all, we can fix the problems that occur in workplaces and on construction sites right across this country. Senator Scarr and others before him in their contributions took us through the terms of reference this inquiry will look at. Again, it is very straightforward and ought to be supported. The coalition want to see this happen because we want to get construction moving in this country. It has become terribly expensive. We are seeing cost overruns right across the board. In this year's budget that the Treasurer laid down, which has come through this place through appropriations, there is a figure of over $10 billion to deal with the cost overruns of infrastructure projects across this country. In my home state, I am particularly familiar with the Metronet's railroad out to Ellenbrook, which is way overdue. There are some dubious figures around not necessarily the necessity of it but the patronage of it. Some quite exuberant assumptions were made about the number of people that will use at. But anyway, I look forward to that project finally being completed. I know those who do use it will get a lot of benefit from it. But it will be delivered late and with significantly overrun costs. The new railway line that has been extended up north through to Yanchep, again, ran over time, ran over budget. We know that union interference on these projects is contributing to those costs overruns and to the length of time it takes to deliver them. You do not need to be an economic genius to know that if the government is having to spend more, having to borrow more, it is therefore having to put more money into the economy, which is of course having an inflationary impact. Inflation has been out of control under this government, and the Reserve Bank governor has said that the problem is homegrown. The Reserve Bank governor has pointed to the fact that government spending is contributing to the inflationary pressures that we are seeing within the economy. As a result, interest rates have been high and they could stay higher for quite some time, which is impacting upon every Australian's budget. Whether they are building a home, they have already got one or they're renting a home, it is impacting upon every Australian. This government is not doing enough to address the cost-of-living crisis and not doing enough to address the increasing inflation. Because of interference on workplaces by the CFMEU, again, we have seen kickbacks. Thankfully, we will have an administrator to oversee that particular union. But come on, it is not the only registered organisation that we have heard about. There are claims that on the wharfs money has been handed around, that there is corruption involved. If you want to see your ship moved by a certain time, meet the deadline then pay—and it gets paid. These are the accusations made and it would be good to get evidence around this stuff. What are you afraid of? If the evidence is not there then you have nothing to worry about. But if it is there then let's deal with it. It is very simple. We must look at this. This is an important issue because it is not only costing Australians, as Senator Scarr was saying, the actual purchasers of residential and commercial properties, and construction projects, but also impacting upon every Australian because they are having to pay higher taxes and their tax money is going into increased costs. As I said, that is increasing inflationary pressure, which then we all pay for, whether it is at the check-out or it is on energy bills, whatever it is. Every Australian is paying and it cannot continue. This Senate inquiry is important because it has the capacity to compel witnesses to attend. It can also receive evidence confidentially, in camera. We know there are a lot of people, particularly construction businesses and workers on construction sites, who are extremely nervous and afraid of the evidence that they might be able to bring. Of course, a Senate committee has the capacity to receive evidence confidentially, in camera. That is the power of a Senate committee. We have the power to provide witnesses the protection of parliamentary privilege—another protection that would be necessary, particularly for those whistleblowers that we could encourage to bring forward evidence. There will be protection for them through this committee. We should be doing this. There is no reason for us not to. Why would we not do this? It is unbelievable. We know that this government has been addicted to the donations that come from their union friends. They're all from unions. I don't know if there's anybody on that side that doesn't have a union background. That's okay, but they're one-tracked in their thinking. There's not enough variation or diversity of experience, and they are such defenders of every union. Now, there are some fantastic unions. My wife is a nurse in Western Australia. There is the nurses federation over there; she's no longer a member because she's no longer practising as a nurse, but she still works in the health sector. For years, there was great support that came. Insurance was provided through the union. Unions have an important role. I'm not dismissing the role and the importance of unions, but we know that this Labor government is addicted to the donations and the funding that come through from these unions. More than that, their salaries are dependent on their support of the unions, because they control their preselection. If you want to be a cabinet minister, you have to be part of the right faction and the right union. That's how it works on that side. We don't see the meritocracy that ought to be there. There are some very good people that miss out—I see it. Some very good people aren't given the opportunities because they're not supported by the right union. It's insidious. It goes right through that organisation. They're getting a little agitated over there—I can hear that. I take those interjections. It's touching a sore point. Your preselections are determined by these unions. That's why they get touchy about this, because it determines how long a career they will have in this place. What we need to see is some light shone over this. How do you disinfect it? You put light onto it, and that's what is needed. There's an infectious disease on that side. They are absolutely addicted to the donations and the control of the unions. What we need to see is some light shed on it so we can disinfect what is going on. There is toxic involvement in construction workplaces and on construction sites across this country that is impacting on the delivery of projects. We have some roads in Western Australia that urgently need repair. In the south-west is Margaret River—a magnificent place. Go down there. If you want to have one of the best holidays, head down there. But, unfortunately, you're driving on roads where there have been roadworks going on for literally over five years now. There have been design challenges and some other things, but we know there have been major cost overruns—again due to the undue influence of the unions, with the lower productivity, the slowing up of projects and the paper cups that have to be dealt with before the project can continue and the concrete can be poured. We know that this is going on. We hear it all the time. So let's have a look at it through an inquiry that will shed some light and make some recommendations as to how we can make improvements in this place. One of the first things we saw this government do was abolish the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Among a litany of things, this is one of the major things that they should be hanging their heads in shame over. It was the fair cop on the beat that was necessary to provide for the proper running of these unions. The CFMEU needed a special focus. They needed a special regulator. The Fair Work Commission has a broad remit, it has the entire economy of workplaces to look after. The CFMEU—because of the corruption, because of the thuggery, because of the poor behaviour that we've seen across the country for so many years—needed that special regulator, and it has been taken away. Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 110 ADJOURNMENT Albanese Labor Government 111 19:30 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania What a lot of nonsense was just put on the record here tonight! It's very fortunate that I get the opportunity tonight to talk about the 10 very long years that those opposite had in government. So when they come in here and they bleat about issues like the construction section of the CFMEU—you could have done something, but you failed to do anything. Those people opposite did nothing in relation to health care in this country during their 10 long years in government. What we have seen from the Labor government in two years is an amazing amount of effort going into supporting Medicare. We have invested more money in health than those opposite did. What we have seen, instead of those bleak years under the governments of Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison, is that we have actually built urgent care clinics. We want Australians to be able to have access to urgent care when they need it. In my home state of Tasmania, we have four of those urgent care clinics. Those opposite had 10 years to make medicines cheaper, but they wouldn't stand up to the pharmaceutical lobbyists or the pharmacists who were out there lobbying to stop it. What did we do? We actually went down that path. We've legislated it because we know how important it is to have 60-day scripts to reduce the number of times you have to go and see your GP. It saves you money. It also gives the opportunity for other people to get to see their GP. And why wouldn't those opposite go down that path? Their current leader, Peter Dutton, when he was Minister for Health, was voted by doctors in this country to be the worst-ever health minister since Medicare began. In contrast, Labor built Medicare. We built it because we believe in universal health care. We did it because it is in our DNA to make sure that Australians have the best possible health care, because it's fundamental for a healthy community. We introduced cheaper medicines. We've frozen the cost of the PBS for one year. And we know that pensioners are always going to be looked after when it comes to us. We on this side will always vote for better wages for workers. Those opposite were in government for 10 years and not only did they not have their eye on the ball when it came to aged care in this country, they had to call a royal commission into their own failings. They had five aged-care ministers in 10 years, but did they ever do anything to actually increase the wages of the people who work in this important sector? No, they did not. Did they do anything to improve wages for people who are in the care economy looking after people with disabilities? No, they did not. What have we done in the two years since we've been in government? We've increased the wages of those workers. In their 10 years of government, what did those opposite do for those early educators who look after the most important people in our community—our future, our children? Did they do anything to show respect and support and give them a wage rise? No; they did not. Again, it was this Labor government. Let's remember what those opposite said. They had a deliberate policy to keep wages low. They said: 'Keep people down! We don't want Australians to be aspirational people going forward.' They only want to look after the elite in their communities. We have not only improved the wages for early educators in this country but we have also made child care cheaper for Australian families. Why? Because we want women to be able to go back into the workforce, because we support women. It's just like we're reducing the gap of the difference in pay between male and female counterparts doing the same job. The reality is that Labor governments, because of our DNA, will always look after workers. We will always fight for better wages for Australian workers each and every day in this place and the other place. We believe in supporting people in the care economy. (Time expired) Great Australian Bight: World Heritage Listing 111 19:35 Senator McLACHLAN 287062 South Australia It's time for the Commonwealth and the state of South Australia to seriously and urgently pursue World Heritage listing for the Great Australian Bight. No substantive action has been taken by the government since 1998 when the great Liberal warrior for the environment Robert Hill declared the second largest marine park. We need to move faster. At the time, he said: The Great Australian Bight is a sensitive breeding and calving ground for the Southern Right Whale and provides habitat for the Australian Sea Lion and bottom dwelling plants and animals such as sponges, marine algae, sea cucumbers and delicate lace corals. It's also a place that defines beauty. He also said that, with a multiple use approach, there is no reason why sustainably managed fisheries, for example, cannot coexist in an area which also has conservation of biodiversity as its major objective. A World Heritage listing will not prevent a sustainable fishing industry. What will and is threatening the tuna industry is the continued seismic testing for drilling at scale. There's a forming scientific view that such testing is disrupting the migration of tuna and thus affecting their breeding cycle. Seismic testing at scale has to be curtailed. I recently travelled to Streaky Bay and the surrounding districts. I met with families dedicated to protecting the bight. I was accompanied by Josh Kirkman, the CEO of Surfers for Climate. We share a passion for protecting our oceans and keeping them healthy. All those I met had been brought together by resisting the development of the petroleum industry in the bight. Even today, we still live with the possibility of drilling in the bight. I opposed it when I was in state parliament; I oppose drilling today. The risks are too great for such an important and critical part of our planet. We need the protection now for the bight. We need to stop viewing our natural world as a resource to exploit. Exploitation really means the destruction of all our beautiful inheritance to feed our avarice, for our society at present seeks endless growth through unconstrained consumption. We need to conserve the planet to sustain us. World Heritage protection for the Great Australian Bight is an important step on that journey where we can reconcile with mother Earth. I encourage all the governments—South Australian, Western Australian and the Commonwealth—to move. Early Childhood Education, Oil and Gas Mining Industry 112 19:38 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria There were some fine words from Senator McLachlan that I can certainly get behind. There is no question about it—our childcare system is broken in this country. While Labor talks big on child care, children are slipping through the cracks including in regional, rural and remote areas of the country. New research by Victoria University this week found that nearly a quarter of Australia's population lives in childcare deserts. That's 700,000 Australians who have no access to early childhood education and care simply because of where they live. In these childcare deserts, there are more than three children per childcare place. The kids who are not fortunate enough to secure a place miss out on an early education, or their parents miss out on important paid work. Access to child care shouldn't be subject to a postcode lottery. The Greens have consistently said that early learning is a fundamental right and should be treated like primary and secondary school—free, universal and of high quality. As long as Labor refuses to accept this truth and as long as Labor continues to rely on profit-driven providers to fill childcare demand, childcare deserts will remain a shameful reality. Child care shortages are being further compounded by a workforce that is leaving in droves. Early childhood educators are underpaid and simply cannot afford to stay, and who could blame them? Every community needs educators, but, until the government agrees to the 25 per cent pay increase that educators have been calling for, we'll continue to see a dwindling workforce. Those in this workforce are overwhelmingly women and they continue to take home less than two-thirds of the average weekly adult wage. Can you fathom that, for a full-time childcare worker, it would take 31 years to save for a home deposit? It's outrageous! The combined effect of low wages and unaffordable housing only exacerbates the issue of childcare deserts in Australia. We've known for decades that our childcare system in this country is broken and requires urgent repair. The latest research confirms this, and it is a call to action to the Labor Party, to stop letting our kids fall through the cracks. Labor needs to properly fund and regulate the childcare sector. It needs to make child care free and universal. And it needs to pay our educators what they deserve. For decades, mega offshore oil and gas corporations have been making huge profits, at the expense of Australia's climate, oceans and communities. They've been allowed to drill, dig up and destroy our coastlines to lay down tonnes of infrastructure for their polluting profits; yet they have never paid a single cent to ensure the clean-up and removal of this infrastructure. This is outrageous, and it's yet another example of big polluting corporations plundering our oceans and laughing all the way to their shareholder meetings. This week, the Wilderness Society, along with five other environment groups, released a damning statement of concern on the failing regulation of offshore oil and gas industry clean-up in Australia. Offshore oil and gas structures are beginning to reach the end of their lifespan, falling into disrepair and disuse. Despite legislation requiring fossil fuel corporations to completely remove all defunct infrastructure, the Wilderness Society has pointed out that the industry is systematically failing to deliver on their clean-up responsibilities. With no bond to fall back on, taxpayers risk footing this bill—a bill that is estimated to cost more than $60 billion. One of the biggest clean-up challenges ahead is off the coast of Gippsland in the beautiful waters of the Bass Strait. After 50 years of operations, ExxonMobil is planning to decommission its non-operational facilities. These facilities are filled with asbestos, radioactive waste materials and other chemicals toxic to marine life. Despite calls from environmental groups to completely remove infrastructure, ExxonMobil is attempting to shirk responsibility by leaving lower sections of rig in the ocean. This poses enormous risks to the beautiful marine life of Gippsland, including the endangered pygmy blue whale. Let's be clear: instead of paying to clean up their dirty mess, ExxonMobil is paying spin doctors to paint their lazy plan and environmental negligence as positive for the ecosystem in the ocean. Well, guess what? The Greens, environmental groups and Gippsland's residents are not buying it. We urgently need stronger laws to ensure that megacorporations like ExxonMobil take full responsibility for their toxic mess and that our precious marine life is protected. For the sake of our oceans, marine life, traditional owners and coastal communities, Labor must urgently fix our inadequate environmental laws and make big oil and gas clean up their dirty mess. National Science Week, Beaker Street Festival 113 19:43 Senator CAROL BROWN F49 Tasmania I rise today to celebrate an event that has become a cornerstone of our national calendar, National Science Week. This year, from 10 to 18 August, we marked the 28th celebration of this significant event across Australia. First held in 1997, National Science Week has grown into one of our country's largest festivals. It is a time when Australians from all walks of life come together to engage with science, meet with scientists, discuss the hot topics of the day and celebrate the profound cultural, social and economic impact that science has on our society. The significance of National Science Week cannot be overstated. It is a platform that highlights the importance of science, technology, engineering and mathematics, STEM, in our daily lives. A key aim of this week is to ignite a passion for these subjects from an early age and to maintain that enthusiasm through our primary and secondary schooling. Our students are the pipeline of our future scientists, engineers, inventors and innovators. These fields foster curiosity, creativity and critical thinking—qualities that are crucial as we face the challenges of our time, including climate change, public health crises and the need for technological advances to drive our economy forward. Among the many events that took place during National Science Week, I want to highlight a particularly special festival that happens right in my home state of Tasmania, the Beaker Street Festival. Founded in 2017, Beaker Street has quickly become a beloved event, not just for Tasmanians but for scientist enthusiasts across the country. What makes Beaker Street so unique is its ability to break down barriers and stigmas surrounding science. It makes science approachable and enjoyable for people of all ages and backgrounds, whether you are a student with a growing interest in science, someone contemplating a career change or simply a curious individual who wants to understand why certain foods grow under ultraviolet light, Beaker Street offers something for everyone. This year's Beaker Street Festival's theme was 'Hobartica', a theme that underscores the importance of Antarctica to Tasmania. One of the standout events at Beaker Street this year was the roving science series. This unique initiative allowed festival-goers to interact with scientists, engineers and even plumbers who have worked in Antarctica. They shared their experiences and insights into what an average day on the frozen continent looks like, from the challenges of conducting research in such a harsh environment to the everyday tasks that keep Antarctic stations running. These personal stories brought science to life in a way that is both engaging and accessible. Another highlight of the festival was the polar plunge, where the bravest among us had the opportunity to experience the much-loved tradition a quick dip in the icy Antarctic waters, right there in Hobart. While I must admit I did not personally take the plunge, I commend those who did for their nerve and enthusiasm. Beaker Street Festival is more than just a celebration of science; it is a showcase of the very best of the Australian science sector. It is an example of how we make science engaging and accessible to everyone, and it highlights the importance of ensuring that we continue to support our scientists in the vital work that they do. As we look ahead to the future, it is clear events like National Science Week and Beaker Street Festival will continue to play a crucial role in promoting science education and engagement in Australia. They remind us of the importance of investing in our scientific community and ensure that we provide the resources needed for our scientists to thrive. The success of Beaker Street Festival is a testament to the hard work and dedication of its organisers Dr Margot Adler and her team. They have created a program that not only educates but also inspires. It is events like Beaker Street that help to demystify science and show that it is something that we can all be a part of. By breaking down the barriers between scientists and the public, Beaker Street is helping to foster a culture of curiosity and innovation in Tasmania and beyond. I look forward to seeing what is in store for 2025, and I echo the Beaker Street sign-off of 'See you next August'. (Time expired) Environment 113 19:48 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia Let's compare the pair. We have two examples this week from Minister Tanya Plibersek, the minister for the nature positive laws, the minister with the secret cultural heritage act hidden somewhere in the back draw, refusing to be revealed. She has made two decisions this week. Let's have a look at them. First, we have the McPhillamy's mine, blocked, vetoed by the environment minister because of a 260 hectare tailing dam—260 hectares. Just remember that figure for a few moments. What is the other project that Minister Plibersek approved this week? Well, SunCable's solar power development in the Northern Territory, with a footprint of 12,000 hectares—12,000—including habitats of endangered animals like the iconic Bilby. What else does SunCable bring to the Northern Territory? It brings 800 kilometres of transmission lines, once again through many sensitive areas. It also brings underwater cabling offshore, to the boundary of Australia but on to Singapore, and that stretches thousands of kilometres, including through sensitive marine habitats. Guess what? That project gets the tick. So 12,000 hectares of sensitive country covered with solar panels, 800 kilometres of powerlines and thousands of kilometres of undersea cable are fine, but a 260-hectare tailing dam is enough to kill a project that would employ hundreds and generate hundreds of millions of dollars for the local community. That's the way this Labor government operates. This week we've seen the Prime Minister and this Labor government once again demonstrate their contempt for the Western Australian agricultural sector. First they made fun of the grassroots movement to protect the sheep industry in WA. We heard not just the Prime Minister but those opposite in this chamber mock the name Keep the Sheep. It's a grassroots movement of farmers, truckies and shearers who want to keep the sheep industry in Western Australia, so they called their movement Keep the Sheep, but that had to be mocked by this Prime Minister. And now, at an agricultural dinner with key figures from the agricultural industry, the Prime Minister decides to tell a joke about destroying the great Western Australian sheep industry by banning live exports from my home state of Western Australia. This is a Labor government that has no care or concern for the farmers of Western Australia, for the shearers of Western Australia, for the truckies of Western Australia, for all the ancillary industries, for the communities and for the towns that rely on those industries—no concern. In fact, all they show is contempt, all they do is mock and all they do is make jokes. The joke will be on the other side of their face once we see the rally come to Canberra on 10 September. The Keep the Sheep campaign is coming to Canberra, and it will show this Labor government that that contempt is returned in full, because the agricultural industry is jack of it. It's jack of this Labor government. The Western Australian agricultural industry in particular is sick of the abuse and contempt that the Prime Minister and other members of this Labor government continue to heap upon it. We need to keep the sheep. Senate adjourned at 19 : 53