2024-09-09 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Monday, 9 September 2024

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

 

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 10:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised. DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS National Disability Insurance Scheme 1 Order for the Production of Documents 1 10:01 Senator FARRELL I0N South Australia The government continues to reiterate its view that we cannot agree with the assertion made in this motion. We do, however, acknowledge the interest in the chamber in continuing to reform the National Disability Insurance Scheme to get it back on track and ensure its sustainability for future generations of Australians. I also acknowledge the support of the opposition in working together with the government to this end and for voting in support of the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024, which passed the parliament on 22 August 2024. Senator Reynolds 250216 Shame to you for that. Senator FARRELL I0N Well, you voted for it. The NDIS bill received royal assent on 5 September 2024, which means the new laws will come into effect on 3 October 2024. On 8 February 2024, the government tabled the final report of the Independent Review into the National Disability Insurance Scheme, which was publicly released on 7 December 2023. In producing this report, the independent NDIS review panel travelled to every state and territory, including regional and remote communities. It heard directly from more than 10,000 Australians, worked with disability organisations to reach out and listen to more than 1,000 people with disability and their families, recorded more than 2,000 personal stories and received almost 4,000 submissions. The review delivered 26 recommendations and 139 supporting actions to respond to its terms of reference. In delivering its recommendations, the review provided exhaustive analysis and proposals to improve the operation, effectiveness and sustainability of the NDIS. The independent NDIS review panel has said its reforms can improve the scheme and meet National Cabinet's annual growth target of no more than eight per cent growth by 1 July 2026. The NDIS bill was the first legislative step by this government to ensuring this annual growth target is achieved. Following the passage of the NDIS bill, discussions will continue with senators across this chamber, as well as members in the other place, to address questions about the government's NDIS reform agenda, which it is pursuing together with the disability community. We look forward to continuing to work with senators in this place to get the NDIS back on track and ensure its sustainability for future generations of Australians. In relation to the order being discussed, the government has previously outlined that we have claimed public interest immunity over the requested documents as disclosure would prejudice relations between the Commonwealth and the states and territories. The minister representing the Treasurer has already tabled key documents for the benefit of the Senate, in addition to the aforementioned review. 10:05 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia I move: That the Senate take note of the statement. Labor's NDIS bill has passed, $14.4 billion has been cut from the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Labor's NDIS minister has resigned. For a year, the Senate has been attempting to get basic answers for the Australian disability community about exactly what that minister and that government agreed with state and territory leaders behind closed doors almost a year ago when they made a deal which locked in these cuts as the goal they would together seek to achieve. One of the critical pieces of information we have been seeking is exactly how many people that, a year ago, the government knew would be forced off the scheme by these cuts. And one of the communities that are the most concerned by what the answer to that question actually is is the Australian autistic community, along with their families, their allies and their organisations. The reason they are particularly concerned and justifiably fearful about what these cuts mean for them is that, in the course of the last, I would say, five or six years—but, really, across the decade—we have seen two phenomena develop. One is a growth in the understanding of what autism actually is and what it actually looks like in different types of people. Traditionally, there had been a view in the medical community and a kind of meme in overall society that to be autistic looked like one particular thing, often characterised or presented in culture and media as somebody who is a man and somebody who has certain, what we would now understand as, stereotypical characteristics. Over that 10 years of advocacy and work, often excellently led by those with lived experience, the medical community and some policymakers have come to an understanding that those stereotypes of what it means to be autistic are just simply that: stereotypes that bear no reality to what it means to be autistic if you are a woman, if you are nonbinary, if you're a queer person or if you're a person of colour—if you literally are anybody but a man in their early 20s who is usually a white person. Through that growth of knowledge, there have been better diagnostic tools and more willingness for people to explore whether or not their experiences in life may in some way lead them to understand that they are, in fact, autistic. We've seen an increase in the number of diagnoses of autism in the overall population. This is a good thing. This is to be celebrated because it represents people, by and large, getting a clearer, better understanding of why they experience the world around them in the way that they do. An unfortunate aspect of this growth in understanding is that some policymakers and politicians—and the minister who has flagged their resignation, Mr Shorten, is very guilty of this—have played into an idea that there are large numbers of people who are faking their diagnosis. That is extraordinarily harmful to the community. In response to that, people have reached out and said very clearly, and demanded very clearly, that they wish to set the record straight. I will read a quote that really stuck with me. Somebody reached out and said, 'To suggest that somebody later in life seeking diagnosis doesn't deserve support is to ignore the very real struggles that they may have gone through unrecognised for years. People aren't pretending to be autistic just because they don't behave or look similar to the autistic people you may be aware of in your life.' This needs to be recognised; this clarity must be given to the Senate. 10:10 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Well, happy anniversary. It's one year that this government has now refused to provide the sustainability framework. For one year this government has continued to hide behind the most ridiculous excuses—excuses that are now completely expired because we saw the passing of the NDIS legislation during the last sitting period. Minister Farrell has had to come in here and we've heard him again say that they will not release the sustainability framework because they believe it may jeopardise their relationships with the states. Let me give a little bit of an overview of what your relationship with the states is like now. While we were in the committee inquiry stage of the NDIS bill, we had five-and-half days of hearings very generously allowed by the government—absolutely pathetic! The fact is they keep quoting the review. Yes, the review's been handed down, but there's no government response to it. There's no government response to the review of the NDIS. Anyway, the states were crying out for the legislation to be put on hold because they don't know what they're expected to do. They don't know what foundational supports are and they don't know what they're expected to provide to those people who will no longer be eligible for the NDIS. I would suggest there has been some damage to the relationship with the states. This has probably been compounded—just a guess—by one of the amendments that we put through. The government asked the Senate to support the amendment that category A supports would no longer require unanimous support of the state, just majority support of the states. So states will now be at a higher risk of being bulldozed by the Commonwealth government to produce and provide foundational supports that the states, but the states will have no concept of what they are, how much they're going to cost and what they're required to do. It is an absolute furphy that this government continues to hide behind in its reluctance to reveal the financial sustainability model that they say they are working to. I note Senator Steele-John talked about the autism community. I'm also going to talk about it a little bit today, but we might have some different views here. I want to apologise to those in the autism community, the parents and carers in particular, who had young children diagnosed with autism level 3 before the DSM-5 made almost every condition part of the autism spectrum. Kids that would have been diagnosed with classic autism, kids who also have an intellectual disability, are having their plans cut in the most dramatic of ways. It is absolutely appalling. This is an insurance scheme. The whole thing about an insurance scheme is investing early and getting better outcomes, yet we are seeing ideologically driven, anti-intensive, good-quality early intervention refused to be paid for by the NDIA via the NDIS, who are now stipulating they won't find programs and particular services at particular clinics. This is absolutely outrageous. I would particularly like to congratulate those self-diagnosed autistic adults or the later-in-life diagnosed autistic adults—diagnosed in their 40s, 50s, 60s, and we saw them during the autism Senate select committee—who have had long careers. A lot of them were university professors in particular areas of interest. One of the traits for autism is having a very strong focus in a particular area. These were people who were in relationships, had families, owned property. There was zero acknowledgement of the impacts that profound autism has on some people and that their disability is significant, that their disability will impair their way of life. So I just want to say well done to those autistic adults who've gone out on the 'autism is awesome' bandwagon and who, because they're diagnosed later in life, say that kids don't need intensive early intervention. Applied behaviour analysis, which is seen worldwide as best practice, is demonised in this country because these autistic adults have said autism is awesome and they don't need this therapy. Well, you are now putting at risk and jeopardising a whole generation of young children with profound autism and intellectual disability from achieving their potential because you've done what you wanted to do and you've demonised intensive early intervention, so the NDIS isn't funding it now. On one hand, we've got parent groups out there with self-diagnosed parents, attacking people like me and Nicole Rogerson and referring to us as 'clearly autistic, rich white women'. I can tell you that I'm white; I can tell you that I'm a woman; I'm certainly not rich, and the fact that they have referred to me as clearly autistic—I don't know, maybe I am. Maybe I should go and get a diagnosis so I can stand here as an autistic person and say that kids with profound autism need intensive early intervention and should be funded properly, and the autistic adults who have demonised this early intervention have fed into the government's hands. Well done! 10:15 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Here we are yet again on this most inauspicious and quite disgraceful of occasions today. Today marks 12 months that this government has shamefully hidden the most basic of information from not just senators in this place but also the entire NDIS community. We've just gone through the disgrace, and I have to correct something that Minister Farrell just said. He said that I voted for this legislation. I did not vote for this legislation. I worked with my colleagues on this side of the chamber and the Greens to try to make the most appalling of bills remotely tolerable, and, while we've improved it, it is still a disaster for those on the scheme and for those now in the endless queue of people who are not being accepted into the scheme and who should have been. It has now become very clear with Minister Shorten's announcement that he is leaving this place why he tried so desperately to hide the information. There is still no government report on the review, even though he's squeezed this legislation through this place. We still have no detail of the assessment process. We haven't even got a plan to have a plan to develop it yet. We've got no idea of what foundational supports there will be. We have no agreement with the states and territories. As Senator Hughes just said, they are absolutely outraged with not only the lack of transparency by this government but also the lack of detail. We had national cabinet last week on Friday. I thought, right, let's have a look at the communique; there will be something about the NDIS, something about discussions and agreements with the states and territories on the future of the NDIS—how they are going to afford it, what the states and territories will have to provide in terms of foundational supports, what they are, how they are going to fund them, who is going to take those people with significant disabilities who have their services cut on the NDIS or don't get in at all. There were three pages of the national cabinet communique and not a single word about the NDIS. Given the disaster that the minister is now leaving behind—the fact is, he has got his legislation through, but he has left an enormous mess after 2½ years. When we were in government, we offered to work with Bill Shorten who was then the shadow minister and the Labor Party to start addressing all of these problems that had become apparent in the scheme and that needed fixing three years ago. They said, 'No; there's no problem with the scheme,' and then they wasted the last two years doing a review that was entirely unnecessary because we knew what the problems were. We needed a government that had the competency and the ability to be fully transparent, to work with the Greens, to work with us on this side of the chamber and to work with the sector to fix the scheme, to make it sustainable for those who needed this scheme the most, the most seriously and profoundly disabled in our communities, and to make sure that the states and territories lived up to their end of the bargain to support the remaining four million people in Australia with some form of disability and to provide that support in the community. They have done none of that. What will Minister Shorten now do? He will be praying for an early election so none of this comes out and he doesn't have to release his government's response to the NDIS review, because that will show that this legislation does not implement the review. Despite Minister Farrell's claptrap, the legislation that this place passed does not implement a fraction of that review. If Minister Shorten had any decency, he would resign today as minister—he is leaving anyway—and the government, if they could find a single competent minister in their ranks, could start making the changes. Instead, they will keep spinning and spinning, and thousands— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Thank you, Senator Reynolds. 10:20 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland At the outset, I want to address those who are listening to this debate or watching this debate here today and make a preliminary point. What we're discussing is that, just on 12 months ago, a majority of the senators in this place—across the Senate, from different parties and the crossbench—passed an order for the production of documents in relation to the National Disability Insurance Scheme, one of the most important government schemes that is administered by the Commonwealth. Since that point in time, the government has resolutely resisted responding to that order for the production of documents. It got to the stage where, at the last sitting of this Senate, some of the most profound and fundamental amendments to the NDIS were passed by this Senate without it having the benefit of those key financial sustainability documents that the government refused to provide. That is the context of what we're discussing. A majority of the senators in this place, and through them a majority of the Australian people, sought the production of documents to provide information to the senators representing the Australian people to better understand the financial sustainability of the NDIS—one of the most important social programs administered by the Commonwealth government, impacting hundreds of thousands of vulnerable Australians. And that was refused. I want to make three points in relation to this. First, those watching should consider the contributions of the three senators who preceded me in this debate, because each of them—Senator Steele-John, Senator Hughes and Senator Reynolds—has made a passionate contribution in relations to this debate, standing up and fighting, in good faith, for the most vulnerable people in our community. They should be truly congratulated for the work that they've done in that regard. You can see they are still passionate about the subject. That's the first point I want to make. The second point I want to make is that it is very, very disappointing that in the last session of parliament we passed—or had no choice but to vote against or vote for—legislation concerning the NDIS without the benefit of this information, which was denied to us by the government. That is entirely unsatisfactory. That is not best practice. This place is the house of review and, in order to discharge that obligation as the house of review, we need the documents and the data to review legislation and review changes in programs. That obligation—that necessity—is heightened when we're dealing with the most vulnerable people in our community. That's the second point I want to make. The third point I want to make, in closing, is for those listening. Governments can make what's called a public interest immunity claim. When an order for the production of documents is made by the Senate, the government can claim public interest immunity—that it's in the public interest that the information's not disclosed. I've outlined the reasons why I think it was in the public interest for the documents to be disclosed. But one of the public interest immunity claims which has been raised by the government is prejudice in relations between the Commonwealth and the states. Again, I want to quote from Odgers'. This is our rulebook in terms of how this Senate conducts itself. This is what Odgers' says: Again, raising this ground, on one basis, would seem to do the apprehended harm. This ground, however, has appeared frequently in recent times in the following form: the information concerned belongs to the states as well as to the Commonwealth, and therefore cannot be disclosed without the approval of the states. The obvious response to this is that the agreement of the states to disclose … Did you ask the states whether or not the information could be disclosed? Senator Reynolds 250216 No. Senator SCARR 282997 I don't know the answer, Senator Reynolds. I've raised this question over the last 12 months; we have no answer. It's far, far from best practice. Question agreed to. BILLS 5 BILLS Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024 5

Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024

Second Reading 5 10:26 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I rise in relation to the Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024, which concerns illegal logging of timber and the importation of such timber into Australia. This is a deeply concerning issue. It is absolutely imperative that Australia does its bit to make sure that timber which is illegally logged is not used in the Australian market. From that perspective, I certainly support the principles contained in this legislation proposed before the Senate. I want to speak first in relation to some general matters and put these on the record. The first is that USAID has estimated that the scale of illegal logging and the market for products from illegal logging is somewhere between—no-one really knows how much—US$50 billion and US$151 billion a year. This is a significant issue. The existence of this illegal market has a number of very negative consequences for the whole world, actually—for where the illegal logging occurs and for the broader community of nations. I want to run through those consequences, first in relation to bribery and corruption. Quite often, the organisations pursuing that illegal harvesting of timber show efforts to use bribes to corrupt government officials, law enforcement agencies et cetera to allow them to engage in illegal logging. Quite often, this illegal logging in other jurisdictions is accompanied by bribery and corruption. The environmental cost, on the face of it, is clear and apparent. If you do not have regulated, sustainable timber harvesting with a strong regulatory overlay, then you will have an environmental cost. You will have timber harvested inappropriately to the detriment of the environment. Third, there's the economic cost. In many cases and in many countries, that cost is to traditional owners, who have interests in the timber being harvested. Because it's being harvested illegally, they don't get the economic benefit from the harvesting of that timber. They miss out on the royalties from the illegal timber that's harvested, and they also miss out on the economic opportunity of having a sustainable industry in their regions, and that's also extremely detrimental. The second point I want to make—and I believe this very strongly—is that Australia should not be in a position where we have to import timber from overseas. We should be able to grow and harvest all our own timber within the borders of our own country. We should not have to import timber from overseas. Unfortunately, we're moving in the wrong direction in that regard. Various state governments have adopted policies that have had a negative impact on the timber industry within our country—our sustainable timber industry, our regulated timber industry. We're now importing timber from overseas, from countries that have less regulation, to the net cost of the environment. I want to give you some figures in that regard. We now import $5.5 billion worth of wood products annually. That's astonishing, for a country that's had, for over a century, a very strong timber industry. A 2022 study by Forest & Wood Products Australia said we're going to double those imports by 2050. That was even before the Victorian government brought forward the native forestry ban by six years, from 2030 to 2024. Just to give you some context, there are 132 million hectares of native forests in Australia, and only 0.06 per cent are subject to logging. That's six in 10,000 native trees subject to being harvested during the course of a year. And, where they are harvested, there are obligations with respect to regeneration. So, from my perspective, it simply doesn't make any sense for Australia to be importing timber and wood products from overseas. We should be sustainable as a country. I have some experience in these matters from my time in Papua New Guinea, where I lived and worked as a lawyer between 1999 and 2001. I saw examples there of producers who did the right thing, who complied with regulations, and those who were on the other side of the equation. I'm aware of the tactics, the strategies, used by some of those companies, individuals who were doing the wrong thing, and they're terribly disturbing. My concern is that when Australia moves to decrease its production of wood products and to import more timber from countries like Papua New Guinea, Indonesia or wherever it is, those countries have less ability to enforce regulations and govern the industry. There's less governance in those countries because they've got fewer resources, which is going to lead to a worse result for the environment. The coalition, in government, recognised these issues and undertook a number of initiatives, and that should be noted. This was something the previous government, the coalition government, was very concerned about. It included instigating, in 2021, the review of the sunsetting of the illegal logging prohibition regulation. The sunsetting was scheduled for 2023, and we brought that forward to 2021 to ensure a rigorous examination of the rules. Secondly, an independent review conducted by KPMG in 2015 examined the impact of the illegal logging prohibition regulation, specifically on small business. A statutory review of the act was undertaken in 2018 by the then Department of Agriculture and Resources. And, indeed, at the 2022 election the previous government took to the election a dedicated policy commitment to allocate $4.4 million to strengthen Australia's fight against illegal logging and stop illegal timber imports from undercutting Australian producers. I'm very pleased that Senator Duniam was successful and that the coalition was successful in its advocacy that this bill be referred to a Senate committee inquiry. That was incredibly important, and I'm very pleased it went through that committee process, which raised a number of issues in relation to the proposed regulation. It's one thing to have an aspiration, a well-intentioned principle, a well-intentioned policy proposal where you want to address an ill in society, but it needs to be practical, it needs to be efficient, and you've always got to be guarded against overreach and to make sure the rule of law is sustained. In that respect, there were three issues that were identified through the committee process, including, firstly, the unworkability of and substantial costs associated with the proposed new requirements for so-called mass fibre testing—that goes to practicality. We've got to regulate the industry, but it needs to be practical. Secondly, there was the requirement for importers to directly verify and validate the legitimacy of a far higher number of their timber purchases, even for repeat imports of exactly the same products from exactly the same exporters. That obviously begs the decision of why someone who's importing the same timber products from the same exporter should have to go through the same process again and again at additional cost—that raises the efficiency issue. And, thirdly, there are the dangers associated with the creation of a new strict liability criminal offence, and the accompanying proposal to name and shame individuals and organisations and prosecute in accordance with the new provisions of the act—which, again, goes to rule of law issues. Whenever you've got strict liability offences, it raises issues which the Senate as a house of review needs to consider. Having said all that, I again congratulate Senator Duniam in relation to the work he's done in this regard. There was engagement from the forestry minister in relation to these issues, and I would like to acknowledge that. This is the way the system's meant to work. Legislation is put forward in the lower house, it comes up to the upper house and it goes to a Senate committee, which will review that legislation and seek to improve it. In this example, there has been positive engagement between the minister and the coalition in relation to these issues, and that has led to positive outcomes. I want to specifically acknowledge that and, in particular, as I always seek to do in this place wherever I have an opportunity, I'd like to acknowledge the departmental officers who have been involved in that process for the hard work that you've all, no doubt, put in in relation to the process. I want to place that on the record. Thank you very much. In summary, I think we're in a better place now having gone through the Senate review process. I congratulate everyone who's been involved in that process and I end on this note. Australia should have a sustainable timber industry. We should have our own timber industry. We shouldn't have to import timber from overseas. It's far better that timber is harvested in a country which has a very strong rule of law and has the resources to manage a resource that is very sensitive and needs to be managed very carefully. It's far better to do that than to import timber from countries which don't have the benefit of these advantages which Australia has. 10:38 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria I rise to speak to the Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024. This bill modernises the existing compliance and enforcement framework around illegal logging to help prevent illegally logged timber from being imported to Australia. Since the beginning of the Greens, we have fought alongside forest activists for a ban on the logging of native forests and for an end to all forms of illegal logging. While we believe this bill is a move in the right direction, it simply does not go far enough to protect forests from these destructive practices. As my colleague, and the Australian Greens spokesperson for forests, Senator McKim outlined in his second reading speech, more can and must be done to strengthen our illegal logging framework and ensure Australia's timber is from sustainable sources. Thank you, Senator McKim, for your work on this bill and for fighting to protect our forests for current and future generations. As mentioned, the Greens support the intent of this bill and welcome any measures taken to prevent illegally logged timber from entering Australia, but this must go hand in hand with protecting our own precious native forests—forests that the Labor government are allowing to be recklessly bulldozed, destroyed and logged as we speak. Australia's native forests are unique and beautiful. They are home to some of the most iconic wildlife, are unceded country for traditional owners and store enormous amounts of carbon. Yet our environmental laws are failing to protect Australia's native forests. Under our current logging laws, the regional forest agreements, the logging industry is given a special exemption from complying with Australia's national environmental laws. The regional forest agreements have allowed for decades of reckless destruction of native forests across Australia. They've pushed native wildlife to the brink of extinction, endangered our water supplies, heightened bushfire risks and made the climate crisis worse. The government has a responsibility to stop this destruction and fix our broken environmental laws, yet Labor has failed to act on both a state and a federal level. In my home state of Victoria, native forest logging supposedly ended in January of this year, and so did the operations of the state government owned logging agency VicForests. This seemed like a step towards genuine progress in the fight to protect Australia's forests. The announcement to end native forest logging was a hard fought victory for the many dedicated forest activists, traditional owners, academics, community members and environmental organisations that had been campaigning for the end of native forest logging in the state for decades. It was a huge achievement and win for First Nations heritage and culture, for the threatened species and wildlife that call Victoria's forests home and for the climate. The death of VicForests and their years of dodgy, money-bleeding operations was an exciting opportunity and a step forward for Victoria. Yet, shamefully, what was meant to be the end of native forest logging has continued in a rebranded form. Recent ABC reports seem to show that VicForests is simply rebadging rather than completely shutting down. The ABC reported in early August that the CEO of VicForests has set up a brand-new organisation, the Healthy Forests Foundation, which would hire loggers and powerful logging lobbyists from the corporation and elsewhere. These revelations are incredibly concerning and undermine the end of native forest logging in Victoria. They also come as an almighty blow to the decades of work done by Victorian forest activists. Logging operators are notorious for rising from the ashes and resuming their destructive operations under new names or in a new state. We cannot allow rebadged industrial logging companies to just rebrand to skirt the law and continue their destructive practices. This poses a serious threat to the progress we've made in Victoria and across the country in protecting forests. It also undermines those decades of advocacy. The ABC has also revealed that part of the purpose of the so-called Healthy Forests Foundation was to promote First Nations forest management, which will also supply timber. The Greens support First Nations led environmental management and want to work with First Nations people to protect and restore country. But we are concerned about the approach the industry is taking and the destruction of First Nations country, including native forests. As my colleague and Greens spokesperson for First Nations issues Senator Cox has said: We need to ensure that when we use terms like 'First-Nations led' and 'Indigenous knowledges' to describe practices, that they are in fact grounded in our ancient ways of knowing and being with the land as our mother and protecting her indigeneity through our leadership and stewardship. The Greens will continue to watch this development and speak with traditional owners from the area about the approach taken, to ensure that agreements made actually offer and assert the sovereign rights of First Peoples. Of course, a rebadged VicForests is not the only threat to Victoria's native forest logging ban. The Greens are also deeply concerned about the ongoing destruction of Victoria's wombat forest by salvage logging. Commercial-scale native forest logging in Victoria officially ended in January, and the closure of smaller scale community forests was brought forward. However, VicForests are still currently removing large logs from the Wombat State Forest. Although this timber has been taken under the guise of debris clean-up, aka salvage logging, it has been allegedly sold on under the banner of forest fire management in Victoria. Let's be clear. This is logging by stealth and only serves to destroy key habitats for our threatened species. Many Victorians have raised their concerns with me about salvage logging. They are devastated and angry that the Victorian Labor government has not honoured its 2021 commitment to create a new national park including the wombat forest. Victorian Labor should be ashamed—ashamed of its broken promises, ashamed of its dodgy practices and ashamed that it's failing in its duty to protect our forests. The Albanese government are also guilty. They have the power to end regional forest agreements, to strengthen our national environmental laws and to end native forest logging once and for all. Yet they continue to keep their heads in the sand and prioritise corporate profits and industry lobbies over people and their environment. Unlike Labor, the Greens are fighting to protect native forests at all levels of government. In Victoria, the Greens are calling on the government to fast-track the declaration of the proposed new national park. Here in the Australian parliament, we have introduced a private senator's bill to repeal the regional forest agreements and to finally end native forest logging. In conjunction with this bill, the Greens are calling on the federal government to fund ecological restoration and restore forests destroyed by decades of environmental vandalism, to support a just transition for workers and communities, to create new and sustainable green jobs in areas where native forest logging is ending, and to ensure the carbon value of ending logging helps the climate rather than being traded away to benefit coal, oil and gas corporations. By protecting Australia's native forests, we act on the climate emergency, we preserve the places we love for future generations, we protect our water supplies, we lessen bushfire risks and we save threatened species from extinction. Ending native forest logging just makes sense. Today, Labor and the coalition have a chance to protect Australia's forests by supporting the Greens' second reading amendment to bring our private senator's bill forward. Shamefully, the major parties will likely vote this down and continue their campaign to prop up the dying logging industry. But know this: the Greens will not stop fighting. We won't stop fighting until all native forest logging is stopped, our wildlife is protected and our environmental laws are strengthened. 10:46 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia I rise today to speak in support of the Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024. This bill is a timely piece of legislation because it doesn't only impact the future of our environment in Australia; it also impacts the future of our economy and our global reputation. It will make things tougher for those people who are engaging in the illegal timber trade, with its enhanced scope for monitoring and enforcing the law. It will ensure that Australia's timber trade is a sustainable one, and, in doing so, will protect our natural heritage. One of my roles in this place is to serve as the chair of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, and this is an issue that resonates very strongly with me—as it does with many of the other committee members. It comes up in many conversations and in relation to many other activities of that committee. Illegal logging exacerbates deforestation, contributes significantly to habitat loss and accelerates climate change. Our rainforests and natural reserves are vital to the health of our planet. They act as carbon sinks regulating the climate and sustaining our biodiversity. Illegal logging by bypassing the legal and environmental safeguards leads to destruction that not only threatens wildlife but diminishes the ability of forests to help mitigate climate change. It is a significant role of our forests to do that—to operate as those sinks and to assist in mitigating the fundamental and significant changes we are seeing in our climate. So it is important, critical, that we do all we can to support the health and future of our forests. Illegal logging by bypassing the legal and environmental safeguards leads to destruction, diminishes our ability to mitigate climate change and is not a distant problem; this is a problem we are facing right now. It is impacting our forests, our climate and our global reputation right here, right now. Economically, illegal logging also undermines our legitimate timber trade. This leads to significant financial losses for businesses that are following the law, are doing the right thing and are managing our forests. Those that employ sustainable practices, doing the right thing, are undermined by allowing illegal logging to continue. It also creates an uneven playing field by allowing those unscrupulous operators to sell timber at lower prices, making it more attractive and undermining the market for sustainably sourced products. In my home state of South Australia, the forestry sector accounts for more than $2.8 billion of economic activity every year. That is a significant industry. But in South Australia I think we've got it right. We do some pretty good things in South Australia, and we do differ from the other states. Our industry is of vital importance, particularly to the beautiful Limestone Coast region in the south-east, which includes South Australia's second largest city, Mount Gambier. It's entirely plantation based because the state Labor government in 1991 introduced the Native Vegetation Act, which protects native forests from harvesting. SA is a leader in this area: a leader in protecting native vegetation and an early adopter of the right practices for our forests. More than 13,000 jobs come from South Australia's forestry industry, and when you go to the south-east, if you're talking to people, it's likely one in three of them will be employed in the forestry sector. That is significant. It's significant for the role they play in protecting our environment by doing the right thing and producing our timber in a plantation base. Illegal logging not only threatens the local Australian businesses like those in the south-east of South Australia but distorts those global markets, disadvantaging countries and companies who commit to legal and sustainable practices. It discourages sustainable logging outright by undermining the prices and not complying with any of the laws that we have in this country as they relate to the timber trade. So, by bringing this bill, the federal Labor government is reinforcing our dedication to fair trade and integrity and to an international timber trade that will support sustainability and does not stoke the climate crisis. Since our introduction of the Illegal Logging Prohibition Act in 2012—again, under a Labor government—the landscape of the global timber trade has evolved. We've seen significant developments. Nations worldwide have followed our example, followed our lead and implemented their own regulations that are similar to the ones we introduced in 2012. New technologies have also emerged. Those new technologies help us track and verify products to enhance the timber trade. It is essential that our laws keep pace with these developments. As I say, when we introduced our changes in 2012, they were cutting edge. Things have developed further, and now it's time for us to develop further with them. The proposed amendments in this bill reflect the latest advancements in timber identification and regulatory enhancement. A key provision of this bill is the consolidation of offences, which will allow us to clamp down even harder on those people who are engaged in illegal logging. It does this by enhancing the clarity and consistency of our legal framework, bringing together offences from the act and civil penalty provisions from the regulation. This streamlined approach will make enforcement of penalties for illegal logging much more straightforward and much more effective. This bill also strengthens our ability to enforce compliance with the law by extending the period for ensuing infringement notices. The provision for civil penalties for false information is also crucial in holding those who break the law accountable for their actions. With this bill, we will stop the people who do the wrong thing from undercutting those who are actually doing the right thing by making sure that illegally sourced timber does not enter the market. We have the technology to do that now, so we just need our regulations and our enforcement to catch up to ensure that we can deliver on those promises. We will do this by making sure that all regulated timber products are reported when they enter Australia. The ability to inspect timber products under biosecurity and customs control will further safeguard our industry against these illegal imports. The requirement for an independent review within the first five years of the bill's commencement will ensure that those regulations remain up to date, effective and responsive to any and all changes that may emerge, both here in Australia and internationally. So, reviewing the bill will ensure that we can bring together all the developments in the first years of the bill to ensure that the bill keeps pace with developments internationally. Extending the provisions in this bill to include partnerships, trusts and unincorporated bodies will ensure that everyone involved in the timber trade has to adhere to the same high standards. It's not about structuring your corporation so that you can get away with it because you're not captured. That is a significant and deeply relevant amendment in this bill. These high standards bring us back to the core issue of combating illegal logging, and that is sustainability, both of the industry and of the environment—making sure the industry and the environment are walking hand in hand. The illegal logging prohibition amendment bill is more than just a regulatory update; it's much more complex than that. It is a reaffirmation of this government's commitment to sustainable and ethical practices and worker protections. The world-leading illegal logging prohibition laws that Labor introduced in 2012 were among the first of their kind internationally. To build on that, we will now send a clear message that Australia values integrity, transparency and environmental standards. By passing this bill we will once again demonstrate Australia's leadership in global efforts to combat illegal logging and foster a sustainable timber trade. I call upon everyone to support this vital piece of legislation. We know we need the timber, but we know we need the environment—getting the balance right so that we protect our native forest and our biodiversity while having a timber industry that is well regulated, is well thought through and gives us all the advantages we need of managing these things together. Support for this bill will have lasting impact on our environment, on our economy and, as I said, on our global standing. It will enhance our ability to combat illegal logging, protect our forests and ensure that the timber products we are using are sourced responsibly and sustainably. With this bill we can strengthen our legal framework, uphold our environmental commitments and ensure that Australia remains a leader in fighting illegal logging. Let us seize this opportunity to reinforce our dedication to sustainability, to sustainable production, to fairness and to the protection of our natural resources. This is a critical step towards safeguarding our future. By supporting this bill we are choosing to protect our forests, to support fair trade and to lead by example in the global effort to combat illegal logging. 10:58 Senator STEELE-JOHN 250156 Western Australia Here we are yet again, considering a piece of legislation from this Labor government that continually fails to take sufficient action on climate change. Here in Australia and abroad, their failure continues to be the hallmark of their time in office, as the climate crisis continues to get worse. Yet again we see a bill that does not take the whole-of-system, transformational approach that is required. The Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024 applies to both the importation of raw and processed timber products into Australia and the processing of timber grown here. It creates some stronger protections against illegal logging overseas. However, the bottom line is that this bill is a missed opportunity to change the laws here in Australia in order to genuinely address illegal logging and protect our dwindling forests. In my home of Western Australia we have some of the most dense, ecologically diverse and precious forests in the world. So many of us have memories of enjoying the incredible Northern Jarrah Forest on the outskirts of Perth and the spectacular forests of the South West region. Unfortunately, these beautiful areas are under threat. They are now recognised as global biodiversity hotspots, and yet they are under threat from relentless logging. Let's talk about what it means to be a global biodiversity hotspot. To qualify, an area must meet two strict criteria. Firstly, it must contain at least 1,500 specific plants found nowhere else in the world, and, secondly, it must have lost at least 70 per cent of its primary native vegetation. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has sounded the alarm. The IPCC stated, 'The scale and rate of deforestation is far beyond any natural tolerances, and the effects of climate change are already being felt in the region, with decreased rainfall and a dramatic drop in the water table over the past few decades.' They have warned our government that it must change the way these precious places are managed; otherwise we will see the collapse of our precious forest ecosystems in WA. Western Australia has a long history of logging and forest clearing, and the challenges of protecting our forests from profiteering corporations continue to this day. The impacts of logging and forest clearing in my home state have been profound. Since bauxite mining began in Western Australia, more than 30,000 hectares of jarrah and marri forests have been cleared. That is well over the entire geographical size of the ACT. Over 11,290 hectares were cleared in the first decade alone. The rate of destruction of our forests is downright scary and there is no end in sight. In WA we have seven mining corporations who are either logging or planning to log the Northern Jarrah Forest. These corporations are prioritising making bigger profits over protecting some of the only forests remaining just outside of Perth, and the WA Labor government is letting them do it. Two of these corporations, Alcoa and South32, plan to log and strip bare over 13,000 hectares of forest between them. This is devastating. We know that forest clearing in WA's South West has resulted in significant decreases in rainfall, along with decreased capacity to draw down carbon and store it in the soil and increased carbon release back into the atmosphere, in alarming quantities. These are climate impacts directly resulting from legal and illegal logging and mining activity in WA. These projects cannot be allowed to continue. I'd like to take a moment to thank those who turned up to rally in the Perth Cultural Centre on Saturday. Hundreds of people gathered to mark Threatened Species Day and called for the rejection of South32's mine expansion and stronger protection laws for our forests, our bushland and our wildlife. The community's expectations are clear. This Labor government needs to go further than what is offered in this legislation. We need to increase measures against illegal logging of timber and also stop the other activities that contribute to deforestation on our own soil. We must also demand transparency in mineral supply chains and increase the use of secondary raw materials. To reduce mining companies' propensity for stripping forests, we must actively ensure that there is accountability and consequences for these actions, and we must do so here and internationally. I'd like to acknowledge the work of my colleague Senator McKim for the amendments to this legislation he has proposed on behalf of the Greens. We are particularly concerned that this bill does not clearly articulate the breadth of the laws that would engage the provisions of this bill. Without clear definition, Australia could become a dumping ground for illegally logged timber. To this end, the Greens propose to repeal the definition and substitute it so that illegal logging includes the contravention of laws related to the protection of plants, the protection of the environment, human rights, bribery, money laundering, tax evasion, fraud or other financial crimes. The Labor government must use this opportunity to stop illegal logging, and they must use this opportunity to commit to climate action because continual failure to do so will lead to the condemnation of our planet and its people to the worst impacts of the climate crisis. Labor must hear the community. Protect our futures and stop mining companies from stripping our forests back to nothing but sand, hectare after hectare after hectare. This must be illegal too. Finally, I think it is important to mention the global context of this legislation and this issue. Globally, mining activity is the fourth-largest driver of deforestation and impacts one-third of the world's global forest ecosystems. That is absolutely staggering. Think about what it looks like in reality to lose that much of our precious ecosystems. From a foreign affairs perspective, stopping deforestation is incredibly important due to the impact on people who live in the forest and rely on the forest as their home and source of food. Indeed 1.6 billion people worldwide depend on forests for their livelihood, and some 60 million indigenous people depend on forests for their subsistence. When it comes to the environment and when it comes to protecting our precious places, including our precious forests, from the avarice and the greed of Australia's largest mining companies and corporations, this bill is yet another example that the Australian community is being comprehensively let down by the two major parties. When it comes to the protection of our WA forests from those mining companies that wish to strip them to make a buck, the bottom line has never been clearer. The people of WA cannot keep voting for the same two parties and expecting a different result. Nothing changes if nothing changes. We must see change at this election, and an increased number of Greens members here in the Senate and in Western Australia is the best way to guarantee the safety of our forests. 11:10 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I stand in support of the Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024 and foreshadow that I will move a second reading amendment. In doing so, I would like to call for more to be done. I'd like to highlight the need for native forest logging in Australia to be better regulated and subject to national environmental laws. The exemption of regional forestry agreements from national environmental laws is driving species towards extinction. This government has an opportunity this week to do a deal with the Senate crossbench, close the loophole and help impacted communities through the transition. It makes no sense to set up an environmental regulator only to stop it looking into native forest logging. I'm calling on the government to set up an EPA with integrity and independence and to give it what it needs to actually protect our environment: the ability to assess all native forest logging in Australia. Most Australians would be horrified that we have native forests being logged without oversight from our national environmental laws. We know that this has a biodiversity and a climate impact. The climate impact of ending native forest logging in Victoria this year will be equivalent to taking 700,000 cars off the road. Yet we know in Victoria there are pushes to continue native forest logging under the guise of other names. We need to ensure that it, whatever you want to call it, gets assessed by environmental laws. Ending native forest logging in Tasmania would be the equivalent of taking 1.1 million cars off the road every year. Why are we not acting on this given that we're in a biodiversity and climate crisis? Why are we not acting given we know that this is a loss-making industry? It's not profitable. Taxpayers are having to prop up industries in the states that still have large-scale native forest logging. Of all the wood from native forest logging, 90 per cent of it goes to woodchips, paper pulp and box liners. We're talking about turning incredible native forests into a low-value, high-volume commodity. It is frankly ridiculous that, in 2024, we're not seeing leadership on this from a government that has claimed all sorts of things: no new extinctions, nature positive and 'green Wall Street'—all of these things. What they aren't willing to do, though, is actually start to address the root cause of the biodiversity crisis here in Australia. As I've said, the forestry industry in New South Wales and Tasmania is losing money. The Victorians wised up and decided that they could actually transition out of it. In Tasmania, total losses are above $1.5 billion since regional forest agreements were signed 20 years ago. You could have a stadium and some change for that, but I'm sure there are a lot more things that Tasmanians would want that money to be going towards. The Blueprint Institute found that, if we ended native forest logging on the north coast of New South Wales, there would be an economic windfall of $294 million between now and 2040, and that's just in northern New South Wales. We've got an opportunity to stop losing money by cutting down our native forests and to benefit from the economic windfall of protecting them. This doesn't have to be an either/or when it comes to good regional jobs. With a little bit of imagination and with some investment, there can be transition plans for those affected and there can be jobs in specialist firefighting—in all sorts of areas—and, of course, an opportunity when it comes to tourism and carbon storage. There is a clear need to work with communities impacted by the transition. It's totally inevitable that it will get to a point where Australians say, 'Given what we're seeing when it comes to climate change and given what we're seeing when it comes to biodiversity loss, this is untenable.' If the major parties don't want to do it, I think Australians will deliver a parliament that will force them to do it. I would urge them to get ahead of it and actually tackle this problem. I think it's now irresponsible to wait any longer. We have an opportunity as a Senate. We have a government that's saying all the right things and a crossbench that is simply saying: 'Just do what you've committed to. Just front up and do what you've told Australians that you're going to do. Follow through with it to protect the people and places that we love.' 11:16 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I rise today to speak to the Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024. There are a lot of reasons why we should be focusing on native forest logging in this country, and of course we should be doing everything we can to crack down on the illegal logging that we see both in this country and in my home state of Tasmania, as well as overseas. I understand that my colleague Senator McKim has spoken to a number of measures in the bill, including amendments, which we'll be moving in Committee of the Whole. Let me tell you what else should be illegal, and that is logging of native forests in 2024, at a time when we're seeing global weather patterns changing so radically that even our best climate scientists can't tell us what is happening. Forests—ancient, magnificent forests like the ones we have in Tasmania—are the lungs of our planet. They are our first line of defence against climate change. They sequester carbon from the atmosphere and they store it. Not only are they absolutely critical in our fight against climate change and in reducing emissions; these forests are full of beautiful, abundant biodiversity found nowhere else on the planet. Yet we are still logging them. State-sanctioned government logging at a loss is being subsidised by the taxpayer to clear-fell ancient, magnificent rainforests in places like the Tarkine and south-west Tasmania to support a dying industry and the political power of the major parties both in this chamber and in the state parliaments of Tasmania and, as Senator McKim outlined in his contribution, New South Wales and, most recently, Victoria. We had a very special day on Saturday—and perhaps special for very sombre reasons. We had a day all around the world to remember endangered species: Threatened Species Day. It was on 7 September—the last day that we know of that the Tasmanian tiger lived and breathed on this planet. That's why we celebrated Threatened Species Day—for us to remember how we felt when we lost the Tasmanian tiger. So it is beyond belief that today in the north-west of Tasmania, in the Advocate newspaper, one of the three newspapers in Tasmania—two are owned by Australian community media—the editor of that newspaper, Mr Anthony Haneveer, wrote an editorial saying: This might sound a little controversial, but I do not really care about that damned fish. Sure, it would be unfortunate if the Maugean skate were to go extinct, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. We know in Tasmania that we have so many species under threat right now. On Threatened Species Day, Senator Hanson-Young talked about 2,250 threatened and endangered species around the world, and, just last week, 20 new species were added to the list, but in Tasmania we have a species, the maugean skate, on the edge of extinction. We also have the Tasmanian devil, another endangered species fighting for its survival. We have the swift parrot and the orange-bellied parrot, which are also critically endangered, having lost critical habitat, especially to native forest logging. We have the masked owl in the Tarkine, which is also threatened by logging and land clearing for mining companies. While we're facing this global loss of biodiversity, the biggest we've ever seen in our memory as a human species on this planet, we have an editor of a newspaper—some-one in a position of responsibility—literally making a statement that he doesn't care about the extinction of a species. I say to Mr Haneveer: Do you care about the loss of the Tasmanian devil, or is it just the skate you don't care about? Do you care about the loss of the Tasmanian tiger, something the whole world just remembered only on the weekend? What about the other 2,250 species—do you care about them? Maybe not. It's just the maugean skate where the salmon industry is polluting its last-known habitat. It's pretty clear what Mr Haneveer cares about and that is the salmon industry. How shameful that we would have someone in a position of influence literally making a statement that he doesn't care about the extinction of a species when we should be doing everything that we can. We have a moral obligation to protect nature, and governments need to fund that protection. I stood at the Australian Museum in Sydney on Friday, along with an amazing group of people, for the opening of the FantasticalSharks &Rays exhibition, which was put on by a number of environment groups and the Australian Museum, working with some of the best artists and young people around this country to highlight the plight of endangered—many of them critically—sharks, rays and skates. The maugean skate was one of the key things on display at that exhibition. It was a positive exhibition. It was young people learning about the state of the world and trying to inspire us with their art to do more to protect these creatures. I said to the assembled audience that the one thing all these thousands of threatened species around the world have got in common is that they can all be linked to decisions of government. Every single one of them can be linked to decisions of government. Governments are logging high-conservation native forest right now for political reasons. Governments are allowing the pollution of Macquarie Harbour and pushing the maugean skate to the edge of extinction, aided and abetted by people like the editor at the Advocate newspaper in the north-west of Tasmania. Governments are the ones who aren't putting in more marine protected areas to protect critically endangered marine habitats. Governments aren't changing fishery regulations to stop bottom trawling or requiring monitoring on boats to look at their by-catch. Every single species is linked to a decision of government. Approving new fossil fuel projects is a decision of government. We have higher emissions, warming oceans, the loss of habitat, mass coral bleaching, the loss of the giant kelp forest off Tasmania—95 per cent of it gone—and all the beautiful creatures that live in the ocean are gone. But do we really care about that? That was listed as a critically endangered habitat in Australia in 2012, the first one to be listed under federal law. And guess what? Not a single cent was spent by the previous government on trying to restore that habitat. Now, I understand that situation has changed and that the Labor government is looking at funding a recovery plan for the giant kelp forest. Why didn't we do that 12 years ago? Clearly, it's because people in government and in positions of power don't care. How is it that in 2024 we have these thousands of creatures around the world facing potential extinction? The answer's really simple. It's because we as politicians, as leaders, aren't doing our job. With the maugean skate, the environment minister has a decision before her right now. We found out last week, shockingly—through an FOI discovery—that she hasn't even got a brief from her department yet, after 16 months of looking into this issue, when the Threatened Species Scientific Committee said that the skate needed to be upgraded to critically endangered. Last week we got new evidence from the scientific committee that there were only between 40 and 120 skate left on this planet. And she still won't make a decision. She hasn't even got a brief. I ask: why? Why wouldn't the environment minister have a brief on the loss of this ancient creature that's been with us since the age of the dinosaurs? It's because she wants to kick the can down the road till after the next election. I say to this government: make the decision, base it on the science that underpins the act, and make it soon so we don't lose another species. I would also say to the Premier of Tasmania, Mr Jeremy Rockcliff, who has not once mentioned the maugean skate or the plight of the Tasmanian devil or the swift parrot because of the logging industry he full-throatedly champions: let the public hear what you've got to say about the potential extinction of these species, especially the maugean skate. This is the great moral challenge and decision of our time. At least speak about it. Don't just talk about your full-throated support for big, foreign owned multinational companies that pay no tax in Australia and are polluting our environment and pushing species to extinction. As for Mr Anthony Haneveer at the Advocate newspaper in north-west Tasmania: Mr Haneveer, I think you should resign, and, if you don't resign, then the Australian Community Media board need to sack you. How despicable that you would use your platform to essentially green-light the extinction of a species. The tens of thousands of people who will be reading your opinion, who trusted in the institution of your newspaper, can see that in your own words: This might sound a little controversial, but I do not really care about that damned fish— a fish that has lived with us since the age of the dinosaurs. What moral right do we have to cause the extinction of a species because of the profits of a couple of multinational salmon companies? Mr Haneveer said: Sure, it would be unfortunate if the Maugean skate were to go extinct, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. This is why we are in an extinction crisis—because of people like Mr Haneveer. We have to do better and we have to stand up to this bullshit when we see it— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Senator Whish-Wilson, you know that's unparliamentary language. Please withdraw. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 We have to stand up to this when— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Please withdraw. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 we see it, Acting Deputy President. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 283585 Can you withdraw, please. I've asked you to withdraw. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 I withdraw—and we need to do better. So, while the Greens will be working constructively with the government on this bill to stop illegal logging and crack down on illegal logging, let's not forget that it is criminal in this day and age that we are still logging native forests. Governments are subsidising this. Taxpayers are paying for it. We're paying for our own destruction, future generations will pay for it, our wildlife is paying for it, and it's time we did better. 11:29 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I'd just like to congratulate all of my Greens parliamentary colleagues on contributing to this particular debate this morning and highlighting the sheer hypocrisy of this government, and of successive governments federally and around the country, when it comes to the issue of forestry and logging. It's all very well and good to be worried about illegal logging outside of Australia; meanwhile, we have laws in this country that continue and sanction the destruction of our native forests and the critical habitat for our endangered wildlife and species. Many Australians don't know that Australia's laws right now allow for the continued destruction, bulldozing and logging of our native forests. We hear a lot about the destruction of forests in other countries. Meanwhile, here in Australia, ancient woodlands, ancient forests and ancient rainforests are being destroyed without any need for environmental assessment or approval. Our laws are fundamentally broken. There is a loophole—a logging loophole—that allows for the destruction of our native forest, regardless of whether it's koala habitat or swift parrot habitat, regardless of whether it's the home of the masked owl, which, of course, is endangered. In 2024, when our planet is facing the dual crises of biodiversity loss and global warming, our environment is in collapse and, rather than stopping making the situation worse, we have a law in this country that allows for our beautiful forests to be destroyed. And, not just that, it's often paid for with taxpayers' money. Taxpayers are funding the destruction of our native forest, and our laws rubberstamp the logging, the chainsaws, the bulldozers. This has to change. If we are serious about tackling the worst parts of global warming and the climate crisis, we have to stop destroying our forests. If we're serious about halting the extinction of the koala, we have to stop destroying our native forests and woodlands. If we're serious about protecting nature before many of our animals and wildlife species are gone for good, we have to stop the logging of our native forests. It should be illegal. It should be illegal to destroy native forests. It should be illegal to chop down those ancient trees. It should be illegal to bulldoze the homes of critically endangered animals. This parliament is being faced with a package of legislation right now that does little to protect our native forests and little to protect our endangered wildlife and native species. The Labor government promised the Australian people that they would fix our environment laws and that they'd stop the extinction of our native animals, yet before this Senate this week as a package of legislation that does not stop any of this destruction. In fact, what we're hearing is that the Prime Minister himself wants to gut protections even further to satisfy the interests of the big mining corporations and the big-business lobby groups. Too afraid to stand up for nature, too afraid to stand up to the big-mining lobby and too afraid to say no to the destruction of our native forests, including the bulldozing of koala habitat, the Prime Minister is giving a nod and a wink to Gina Rinehart and the fossil fuel industry to keep going as they are. Mother Nature can't handle this. Our environment cannot cope with the continued destruction of our forests. Our wildlife cannot continue to survive as their homes and habitat are destroyed. It is an international disgrace that Australia's koala, our most beloved and iconic animal, is on the brink of extinction because this government and successive governments have failed to protect its homes. The only koalas that are going to be left in Australia are the ones that are in zoos. That's what we face right now. It is an international disgrace. Because of successive governments, there are only a few hundred of the world's fastest parrot, the swift parrot, left in the wild, yet this government and the Peter Dutton alternative government want to keep logging their habitat. The Greens are passionate about this issue because we can see this destruction before our very eyes, and we know that millions of Australians want to see the logging of our ancient forests stopped, before the forests are all gone. Every opinion poll published in recent years, time and time again, has shown that Australians want our native forests protected. They love our forests. They are proud of our forests. They want homes for our wildlife—our birds and animals. So my plea to the government today is: use your power; work with the Senate to protect our forests, which are the homes of our animals, the habitat of our native species. Do something good for nature. Do something good; don't just roll over at the whim of Gina Rinehart and the mining lobby. Don't just roll over and say: 'Oh, it's all too hard. We'll get back to it some day down the track.' We don't have some day down the track! We are running out of time. The chainsaws are running. The bulldozers are going. Our climate is getting worse—hotter, drier, more extreme. We are running out of time. There are the numbers in this chamber to protect our forests and protect our environment if the Labor government has the guts to do it. We can protect the koala from going extinct. We can protect our native species. We can stop illegal land clearing. We can stop making the climate crisis worse by supercharging pollution and allowing coal and gas companies to keep expanding, day after day after day. If we work collectively we can stop this destruction. The government have to use their power. What is the point of being in government if you're just going to roll over every time somebody says 'boo'. What is the point of being in government if, instead of listening to the community, instead of listening to the voters, you're only doing the bidding of the big corporations and the big polluters? Why do they have a say in what laws are needed to protect nature? Their whole business model is built on destroying nature. Why would you take their advice? What is the point of being in government if, every time the road gets hard, you go to water? Stop being a disappointment. You have the power to change things, to make things better, to deliver a positive outcome for the environment. You don't have to roll over to the mining lobby and Gina Rinehart. You don't have to do the dirty work of Mr Peter Dutton. He's not in government; you are. Use your power for good, save the koala, protect our forests and stop making pollution worse. It's pretty simple. You've got the numbers in this place to do it; don't pretend otherwise. Let's get it done. 11:41 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I endorse the words of my colleagues, particularly Senator McKim, who led for us on this, and Senator Hanson-Young and others. There's a time to stop native forest logging, and that time is now. This bill, the Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024, in pretending Labor cares about forests while at the same time greenlighting the wholesale industrial destruction of our native forests, is a pretty obscene bit of narrowcasting from Labor. We've seen it time after time—bringing in a piece of legislation that pretends to put in an environmental protection authority but doesn't create an independent one, that pretends to do something on illegal logging while signing off on yet another round, years and years more, of destructive native forest logging. It can only happen because the Commonwealth government gives state and territory governments, but particularly state governments in New South Wales and Tasmania, an exemption from federal environmental laws to go in and destroy critical and endangered habitat. That's the only reason native logging can continue in New South Wales and Tasmania: the Albanese government continues an exemption put in by the Howard government to let logging destroy endangered native species and destroy critically endangered habitat. We could remove that exemption and end native forest logging this week in parliament, if Labor had a backbone, because there is an absolute progressive majority in this chamber to do it. Why do we say, 'End native forest logging'? We say it because of the incredible natural values in our forests. We live in this most extraordinary place. You can go for a bushwalk in Australia and, in a couple of hundred metres, pass through diversity that you'd have to cross the whole of Western Europe to see. You can go from rainforest to dry eucalypt forest to wet sclerophyll forest. You can have this extraordinary adventure in nature in a couple of hundred metres, walking in our extraordinary forests. You'd literally have to cross the whole of the North American continent to see that kind of diversity. And this government thinks it's reasonable, thinks it's okay, to agree to its wholesale destruction. It does your brain in. Last month I was fortunate to be with some of our extraordinary campaigners down on the South Coast of New South Wales—I'm biased; I think it is one of the most beautiful parts of the planet—surrounded by these ancient forests that stretch across that beautiful southern part of my home state of New South Wales. I was in Mogo State Forest with some of our local council candidates for Eurobodalla Council. I was down there with Colleen Turner, Joslyn van der Moolen and dozens and dozens of forest protectors. We were there in Mogo State Forest because the New South Wales Labor government, with the tick of approval from the Albanese government, wants to get in there and destroy that part of Mogo State Forest—beautiful dry eucalypt forest. When forest protectors went in and put an infrared drone over the forest that Forestry Corporation of NSW wants to log, they found, in just a couple of nights, a greater glider hotspot. They found 10 greater gliders in the forest that Forestry Corporation want to destroy. I don't know if anyone in this chamber, outside of the Greens, has ever actually seen a greater glider. They are extraordinary creatures. They have beautiful fluffy ears. You can hear them glide in the forests at night. They go from tree to tree—they're quite big creatures; they're like super-sized possums—and you see them if you're spotlighting for them at night. You can hear them crash from tree to tree as they move across their favourite parts in the forest. They are an endangered species, and the local community campaigners, the forest protectors—not Forestry Corporation of NSW—found 10 greater gliders in this little patch of forest that Forestry Corporation wants to destroy. And it's wholesale destruction; they chop down every decent tree and go in afterwards and napalm the remaining forest litter on the ground in that part of the forest. This forest is in a part of the state that got smashed, utterly smashed, by the summer bushfires a few years ago. The locals are saying: 'This bit of forest survived. This bit of forest, with this extraordinary diversity, survived.' So much of the forest around Mogo State Forest and the surrounding areas got smashed in those fires. We've got this extraordinary hotspot for greater gliders. In fact, one of the beautiful gum trees in that bit of Mogo State Forest is a 62-metre-high spotted gum. It has a seven-metre circumference on it. And Forestry Corporation of NSW wants to clear-fell the entire forest and leave it completely vulnerable, as well as killing all of the habitat trees for those greater gliders. It is utterly, utterly shameful. The locals are distraught about it. They can't believe that a Labor state government and a Labor federal government are green-lighting the destruction of their beautiful Mogo forest. They cannot believe it. In fact, just before the fires ripped through other parts of that forest down there, local forest protectors spotted platypus in the rivers. There are platypus in the rivers and greater gliders in the trees, yet Forestry Corporation of NSW, with the support of state and federal Labor, went through the forest—they didn't see a single glider, didn't see a platypus and didn't see a habitat tree—and slated the entire chunk of forest, about four different compartments, for wholesale logging. Locals cannot believe it. They also can't believe it because it's the same forest that their local council has identified for the extraordinary, 70-kilometre Mogo mountain bike trail network. All the locals are excited about the jobs that could be in the forests through having this amazing mountain bike network on some of the converted forestry roads and tracks. They're excited about the investment in ecotourism and about the protection of their forest. Yet, right smack bang in the middle of the proposed new Mogo mountain bike trail network, the New South Wales government, under Labor, wants to destroy the forest. Locals just cannot believe the environmental and economic vandalism in their local area. They also note that these mature forests were the thing that stopped the big fires. The mature forests, with their moist understorey, were what stopped the big fires and will stop the next big bushfire. If these forests get logged—and I can tell you now that forest campaigners like Colleen, Joslyn and others are going to be in there doing what they can to protect these forests and stop them being logged—we know what will happen. The whole forest will dry out. It will be replaced with spindly saplings, and it will be ripe and primed for the next big fire, which will tear through those forests and destroy homes, like we've seen time after time with recently logged forests. The locals know that for their own safety, for the planet's safety, protecting these forests is absolutely essential. So I join with my colleagues to say to Labor: 'Grow a backbone. You know it's right to protect native forests from logging. You know that it's essential for climate. You know it's essential for our native species. You know it's essential for keeping communities safe from the next big bloody fire that's coming.' Surely even Labor could realise that it's wrong to log forests that are chock-a-block full of endangered greater gliders. Surely even Labor can see that that's wrong. And if you see it's wrong, do something about it: join with the Greens, join with the progressive majority in this chamber and finally end native forest logging in this country. 11:50 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland The Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024 will modernise and strengthen Australia's illegal logging laws to better protect the Australian market from illegally harvested timber and support a legal and sustainable timber trade. It will increase regulatory efficiency and effectiveness by strengthening monitoring, investigation and enforcement powers, including through new timber testing powers and the use of injunctions and enforceable undertakings. It will also enable the provision of key due diligence information up-front, thereby enhancing our ability to use data to identify high-risk timber products and enable appropriate enforcement action to be taken. Changes proposed by the bill have been informed by a comprehensive public consultation process that sought broad support from industry and non-government organisations for the improvements and by the development of a regulation impact statement published in 2023. These changes complement the work the Australian government is doing through the 2022 election commitment to invest $4.4 million to improve timber identification testing and illegal logging traceability. The bill has been subject to a Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee inquiry, and I thank everyone who participated in the inquiry as well as the committee for its consideration of the bill. The committee released its report on 20 June 2024, and I will take this opportunity to provide the government response to the report. The report recommended that the bill be passed, and the government welcomes and agrees with this recommendation. The coalition senators' dissenting report recommended that the passage of the bill be deferred until after the finalisation of the rules to be made under the proposed act. The government notes this recommendation but does not agree with it. The rules cannot be finalised until the bill passes the parliament and the rule-making power becomes operative. However, the government is ensuring that the regulated community and other stakeholders have an opportunity to comment on the draft rules before they are finalised. On 19 August this year an exposure draft of the rules was released for public consultation, and the department has held a public webinar to explain key changes. They have received valuable feedback from stakeholders to date. In relation to the other matters raised in the dissenting report, I note that the strict liability offences and publication powers are increasingly common across Australian legislation, including environmental legislation, as they broaden regulatory options. These are appropriately framed, and I thank the committee for recognising the intentions to utilise these appropriately and sensitively. As stated in the explanatory memorandum to the bill, the proposed new publication powers are intended to be used only when noncompliance is repeated or very serious and when it is considered in the public interest to do so. Such instances may be where a person has been convicted of an offence on several occasions or has repeatedly failed to comply with due diligence requirements without undertaking further checks or adjusting practices. It is not intended that publication would occur for minor instances of noncompliance where publication would not be in the public interest or where noncompliance can be otherwise addressed. As for concerns raised over the new power to enable testing of timber and regulated timber products, the bill does not impose any requirements on importers or processors to test timber themselves and bear the associated costs. The new timber testing power would be available to Commonwealth officers to utilise under compliance activities and is strictly limited to being exercised only when the timber or regulated timber product is subject to biosecurity control or customs control. The opposition has previously raised a proposal to exclude domestic timber processors from the application of the laws. I note that it is appropriate to maintain the current situation whereby the illegal logging prohibition legislation applies to both timber importers and processors of raw logs. This ensures that the regulation of illegally logged timber is consistent with Australia's trade law obligations. The opposition has also previously questioned the need to require notices of intention to import a regulated timber product. Changing the operation of key provisions would undermine the intention of the new notice requirement, which is to obtain and use information to better target compliance powers. Finally, the government notes the committee's comments on the importance of continued stakeholder consultation. As demonstrated by the current consultation process, the government recognises this and is fully committed to ongoing engagement with regulated entities. Recommendations in the RRAT report from the Australian Greens have also been reflected in proposed amendments tabled, which the government notes but does not agree to. In recommendation 1, corresponding to the amendment on sheet 2643, the Australia Greens recommended that section 18B of the bill be amended to require that import notices include, at a minimum, information on the species and countries of harvest of imported timber. The government does not agree to this recommendation. The government's position is that the timber species and country of harvest would be more appropriately prescribed in the rules, along with other requirements under section 18B of the bill as drafted, and as noted in the explanatory memorandum. It is intended that these matters would be prescribed by the rules once an IT system that would support receiving notices is operational and the regulated community has been consulted. In recommendation 2, corresponding to the amendments on sheet 2626, the Australian Greens recommended that section 7 of the act be amended to cover further laws that may impact supply chain illegality. The government does not agree with this recommendation because the due diligence requirements already require importers of regulated timber products and processors of raw logs to consider any other information the importer or processor knows indicating illegal logging risk. In recommendation 3, corresponding to the amendment on sheet 2645, the Australia Greens recommended that the bill be amended to require regular public reporting of the extent of illegal logging in Australia and of the action taken under the act. The government does not support this recommendation, as the act does not directly regulate the act of harvesting timber within Australia. These matters are regulated by state and territory legislation, the reporting of which is not the responsibility of the Commonwealth. In recommendation 4, corresponding to the amendments on sheet 2646, the Australian Greens recommended that the bill be amended so that the rules may provide that the due diligence obligations can be satisfied by compliance with specific domestic or foreign laws, rules or operational processes as part of the due diligence applications. The government does not agree with this recommendation as the act already provides for this. Consequently the amendments do not add anything and may have unintended consequences for the interpretation of the provisions. In recommendation 5, corresponding to the amendments on sheet 2647, the Australian Greens recommended that the Senate pass the Ending Native Forest Logging Bill. The government does not agree to this recommendation. The Ending Native Forest Logging Bill has no relevance to, or connection with, this bill. In recommendation 6, the Australian Greens recommended that the bill be passed by the Senate with amendments in line with the above recommendations. For the reasons already given, the government does not agree to this recommendation, nor does the government agree to further amendments proposed by the Australian Greens. Regarding amendment sheet 2665, to add prohibitions for further dealings in illegally logged timber, the government notes that the illegal logging prohibition legislation already prohibits illegally logged timber from entering the Australian market by way of importation and the processing of raw logs within Australia. This was informed by extensive work in developing the current illegal logging prohibition legislation. There's no good reason to deviate from this. Regarding the proposed amendment on sheet 2664, that 'interested persons' be able to apply for injunctions relating to conduct or proposed conduct, the government does not agree to this amendment. Injunctions are available under the Regulatory Powers Act for those who administer and enforce the legislation to restrain contraventions of the legislation or to compel compliance with the legislation. It would not be appropriate or practical to extend these powers to other 'interested persons'. Regarding the proposed amendment on sheet 2645, that an independent review of the operation of the act be conducted within five years and during each subsequent five-year period, the government does not agree to this recommendation. The government notes that it has already agreed to amendments moved in the House of Representatives to conduct an independent review of the act within five years. The Australian government remains committed to combating illegal logging and associated trade and its global environmental, social and economic impacts. Illegal logging remains the greatest transborder environmental crime globally and undercuts the prices our domestic forest industries can receive for sustainably produced timber products. I commend this bill, which will optimise Australia's illegal logging laws to protect our market from illegally harvested timber and illegally logged raw logs, to the Senate. I also table an addendum to the revised explanatory memorandum relating to the Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Bill 2024. The addendum responds to matters raised by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Before I put the question on the second reading, I advise that Senator McKim has moved a second reading amendment and Senator David Pocock has foreshadowed a further second reading amendment, so my intention is to put the second reading amendment moved by Senator McKim. The question before the Senate is that the second reading amendment as moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [12:04]
(The Deputy President—Senator McLachlan)

 12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 28 NOES Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lambie, J. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

12:07 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory I move: At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate: (a) notes that: (i) native forest logging operates at a loss in Australia and is heavily subsidised by Australian governments, (ii) native forest logging is driving at least 48 Australian native wildlife/fauna species, and many more native flora species, towards extinction, including the Swift Parrot, Koala and Greater Glider, (iii) native forest logging has operated under an exemption from Australia's environment law for 25 years, which has accelerated the loss of forest-dwelling species and caused ecosystem decline, with some forest ecosystems now at risk of collapse, (iv) in the last 25 years of native forest logging in Australia, more than one in four forest-dependant threatened fauna species have officially moved closer to extinction, 15 previously common forest-dependant fauna have been added to the list of species threatened with extinction, and a record high number of forest-dwelling fauna are now formally listed as threatened with extinction, (v) Australia's native forests are key carbon sinks and ending native forest logging would contribute substantially to achieving the 43% by 2030 climate target; and (b) calls on the Government to remove the loophole that prevents national environmental laws from being applied to Regional Forest Agreements and develop a transition package for impacted communities". The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 The question before the Senate is that the second reading amendment moved by Senator David Pocock be agreed to.    

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

 12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 27 NOES Ayres, T. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Paterson, J. W. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.
Original question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

 In Committee 19 12:15 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I indicate to the Senate that the opposition won't be proceeding with any of the amendments it circulated. Off the back of very constructive discussions with stakeholders and the government, we don't need to proceed with those amendments. 12:16 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Firstly, it always concerns the Australian Greens when we hear about constructive discussions between the opposition and the Labor Party on forestry matters. Let's be very, very clear about what's happened for decades in this country—that is, the Labor, Liberal and National parties have got together and stitched up the ongoing destruction of our native forests. That means the native forest logging industry in Australia has turbocharged the breakdown of the planet's climate. It means the native forest logging industry in Australia is logging species like the swift parrot and the masked owl, in Tasmania, into extinction. The swift parrot—that beautiful little bird, the fastest parrot in the world, one of the only migratory parrots in the world—is being logged into extinction by a mendicant industry that only survives because of public handouts it gets. Because of the stitch-up between the establishment parties in this country, that beautiful little bird is being logged into extinction. There are around 500 birds left, down from vast flocks of tens of thousands of those beautiful little birds. It is crashing in number because its feeding habitat and its breeding habitat is being destroyed. That's what the stitch-up between the establishment political parties looks like. It looks like the destruction of biodiversity and the destruction of nature, because that is exactly what is happening. While our planet is literally cooking, while our ecosystems are crumbling around us, while species after species is either going extinct or sliding towards extinction, the major parties are colluding to exempt the forest industry from our national environment laws, weak as they are. The major parties are colluding to continue to pump, even just in my home state of Tasmania, tens of millions of dollars a year so that this mendicant industry can continue. The major parties, for base political purposes, are logging habitats of critically endangered species and logging those species into extinction. It is profoundly distressing. Of course, what the major parties fail to understand is humans are actually part of the ecosystem as well. We are part of the biodiversity of this planet, and when the ecosystems crumble, in all their complexity and all their magnificence, it affects us. As our climate continues to break down, in all of its complexity and all of its magnificence, it affects us—it affects humans. We are already seeing large—massive—displacements of human beings around the planet because of changed weather and rainfall patterns and the resulting impacts on the availability of food and drinking water. We are already seeing mass biodiversity collapse on this planet as a result of climate change and the ongoing poisoning of nature, yet the Labor and Liberal parties get together and keep stitching it up for their own base political purposes. It's profoundly disturbing that we stand here today, with all of the scientific knowledge that we have and with everything that we know about ecological collapse and climate breakdown, and we fail to take action to stop species like the swift parrot being logged into extinction. Just today in Tasmania we had an editorial in the Advocate newspaper from Mr Anthony Haneveer, the editor—someone, I might add, who is straight out of the Liberal political offices in Tasmania, as Senator Duniam well knows. In fact I'm not certain about this, but I expect they worked together at some stage. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they worked together in the office of the Tasmanian Premier at some stage. Mr Haneveer editorialised this morning in the Advocate newspaper in Australia in relation to the Maugean skate. There are fewer than 150 of these amazing creatures left in Macquarie Harbour in Tasmania, and this is what Mr Haneveer had to say about that skate, which is sliding into extinction because of the industrial fish-farming industry in Tasmania: This might sound a little controversial, but I do not really care about that damned fish. Sure, it would be unfortunate if the Maugean skate were to go extinct, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. That is an incitement to extinction. That is an incitement to the industrial salmon-farming industry in Tasmania to continue to act in a way that the science is telling us is sliding the Maugean skate into extinction. It is so profoundly distressing. Whether it's the Maugean skate and the industrial salmon-farming industry or the beautiful little swift parrot and the industrial native forest logging industry in Tasmania, these two species—so different but so amazing, so beautiful and so intricate, and each the result of millennia of evolutionary forces and ecological processes to arrive where they are today—are being logged and fish farmed into extinction while the establishment parties in this country sit on their hands and do nothing about it. Here's something for Mr Haneveer: I do care about that damned fish. The Greens do care about that damned fish. We will lose sleep over the fate of that fish—we are losing sleep over the fate of that fish—unlike Mr Haneveer and the establishment political parties in this place. I've got another thing for Mr Haneveer and the establishment parties: we will fight to defend that fish—that beautiful, ancient fish that's been around since the time of the dinosaurs. We will fight for the swift parrot—that beautiful little parrot, one of the fastest parrots ever to have lived on this planet—that is being logged into extinction. We will fight for those species in this place and we will fight every day to protect them from the establishment parties and their agents, like Mr Haneveer and many, many others in the Tasmanian media ecosystem. Minister, I've got some questions in the committee stage for you on the interrelationship between some of the standards covered in the draft rules that have been published. My first question is: does the Responsible Wood sustainable forest management standard—which is the PEFC endorsed Australian standard—meet the PEFC sustainable forest management requirements? This is critical because it goes to whether it is an auditable condition for forests to be legally logged in order for them to be certified. 12:26 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland We're endeavouring to get an answer to that. If you bear with us, we'll do our best. 12:26 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I appreciate the minister's response. I do have a couple more observations to make and then I will come back to that matter and an ancillary question that I have in regard to it. I understand this is a bill about logging, but it does go to whether or not logging is legal, both overseas and here in Australia, and that, of course, raises threatened species issues. I will just explain why that is. In Tasmania, as I've just said, there is this beautiful little bird, the swift parrot. In many forest practices plans, which are part of the framework which purports to govern the native forest logging industry in Tasmania, there is a requirement that, if there is a credible sighting of swift parrots, the logging needs to cease. We've seen repeated scenarios where there have been credible sightings of swift parrots reported to people conducting logging in particular coops and that logging has not ceased. Now, in my argument, that means that that logging is illegal. There are court cases afoot around the country in regard to testing whether logging of particular forests is legal or illegal. There have been plenty of court findings, including in Victoria, where we had the shonky practices of VicForests exposed, that made it very clear that there is a lot of illegal logging that goes on in Australia. That illegal logging has consequences for threatened species, and the swift parrot is one of those species. The parallel here is that the political stitch-up between the establishment parties in this country is sending the swift parrot sliding into extinction because that stitch-up is enabling the industrial-scale destruction of its habitat by the native forest logging industry. In the same way, the political stitch-up between the establishment parties is tragically sliding the maugean skate into extinction because the major parties, the establishment parties, are united behind the salmon-farming industry in Tasmania. I want to say this to Mr Haneveer, the editor of the Advocate: editorialising in the way that you did, which is basically an incitement to extinction, and basically cheering on as the maugean skate, which has been with us since the age of the dinosaurs, slides into extinction because of the actions of the industrial salmon farming industry in Macquarie Harbour—doing those things—mean that you should resign. He no longer should sit as editor of the Advocate. If he won't resign, Australian community media should sack him. It is a disgrace to incite extinction at a time of ecological collapse, just as it is a disgrace to incite the logging and burning of our native forests at a time when the planet's climate is breaking down around us. Whether it be Mr Haneveer or any of the senators who represent the establishment parties in this place, it is time to go, because you are not acting in the best interests of the ecology and the climate that actually underpin human life in this country and on this planet. So, Minister, the reason I'm asking about the Responsible Wood sustainable forest management standard and whether it meets the PEFC sustainable forest management requirements is that, basically, this legislation aims to prevent illegally logged timber from entering the supply chain in this country. Processors and importers, for that matter, have to exercise due diligence to assess the risk that raw logs actually are from illegal sources. If a raw log is covered by a forest certification standard, then a simplified assessment applies. So the applicable standards named in the draft rules are the FSC forest stewardship principles, the FSC chain of custody certification, the PEFC sustainable forest management requirements, which I'll shorten as the 'benchmark standard', and the PEFC chain of custody standards. PEFC, the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification, is a global network of national standards, represented in Australia by Responsible Wood. I'll pause here to give a little bit of history, which is that Responsible Wood was formerly the Australian Forestry Standard. I'm not sure if Senator Duniam was around at the time, but I certainly was when, in the early 2000s in the Tasmanian parliament, the Australian Forestry Standard was developed by the logging industry in Australia because they knew they wouldn't be able to meet Forest Stewardship Council certification standards. So they invented their own certification standard: the Australian forestry standard. It was an industry standard designed so that the industry could certify itself. What could possibly go wrong? Anyway, the AFS, the Australian Forestry Standard, is now Responsible Wood. So the PEFC benchmark forest management standard requires organisations to comply with all applicable laws, and the Responsible Wood sustainable forest management standard is the corresponding PEFC endorsed Australian standard. It's therefore supposed to conform with the PEFC requirements and has been accepted as doing so, but—and here's the nub of the matter, Minister—the Responsible Wood sustainable forest management standard doesn't appear to have an auditing requirement for logging to be legal. That is the crux of the matter. So the position is that the legislation and the rules taken together require logging to be legal by reference to the PEFC standard. The certificate that would be presented to a processor to verify legality would be a Responsible Wood forest management certificate, which does not, it appears, require logging to be legal. Therefore, my question is: does the Responsible Wood sustainable forest management standard meet the PEFC sustainable forest management requirements, and, in particular, does it require logging to be legal as an auditable condition for forest management to be certified? 12:35 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Thanks, Senator McKim, for your patience on that. In regard to the first point that was raised that I'm seeking some clarity on, it's my understanding that the Responsible Wood national standard is consistent with the global PEFC standard for sustainable forest management. How matters are dealt with under these standards is obviously a matter for the PEFC and Responsible Wood. 12:35 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Thanks, Minister, for your response. So you've just informed the Senate that the Responsible Wood sustainable forest management standard is consistent with the PEFC sustainable forest management requirements. Is that correct? 12:36 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Yes. 12:36 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania That's correct. Thank you. So I understand that it's consistent. Does it meet all of the requirements under PEFC sustainable forest management? 12:36 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Yes, that's my understanding. 12:36 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Therefore, Minister, does the Responsible Wood sustainable forest management standard require logging to be legal as an auditable condition in order that forest management can be certified? 12:37 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland It's a level of detail that I don't have with me at the moment. Again, we'll try and seek some clarity for you on that, Senator McKim. 12:37 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Perhaps you could indicate that you'll try and come back to us, either to the chamber or to me directly, once you have any further information that you're able to provide? 12:37 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Happy to. 12:37 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Therefore, Minister, if the Responsible Wood sustainable forest management standard meets the PEFC sustainable forest management requirements, which you have said that you believe that it does, and if the answer is, yes, it requires logging to be legal as an auditable condition for forest management to be certified, which you've said you will come back to me or the chamber on, could you please outline which section of the Responsible Wood sustainable forest management standard requires logging to be legal? I'm happy for you to indicate you'll take that on notice, Minister. 12:38 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Happy to. The CHAIR 287062 Senator Duniam, Senator McKim has exhausted that line, so I give you the call. 12:38 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I'm pleased to be able to do that. I was rather enjoying Senator McKim's contributions to a debate on the forestry bill by talking about the maugean skate, which of course is an aquatic creature, as he admitted. I'm not quite sure how references to this endangered creature are in any way related to this. But I do want to just correct a couple of things that have been put on the record here. I will never, ever undersell Senator McKim's passion, his vigour and his desire to put out into the marketplace what he believes to be the case—his truth, his version of events, his view of the world—and good on him for doing that. He does that very effectively. As a fellow Tasmanian, I see a lot of what he has to say. Despite disagreeing with nearly every word of it, I commend him for his passionate participation in the democratic process. But I just think we need to come back to basics in this debate, before I get to Mr Haneveer—who is a top Tasmanian, in my view: a very good journalist. I read an article on the weekend that I think Senator McKim would be very interested in, and I'll refer to it before I conclude. On this point around what we do here in Australia when it comes to forestry versus what happens elsewhere in the world: if we assume that Australians want to continue to consume this fantastic product, the hardwood timbers that come from native forests or other varieties of forests, if we're not going to be producing it here to what is, I would argue, the world's best standard, then where is it going to be coming from? It's not going to be coming from Australian well-managed sustainable forests; it's going to be coming from places like the Congo Basin, where there is no regard for the environment, no rules around how you can extract the timber you need and must replace it, and no regard for what impact it will have on the climate, on waterways or indeed on human populations. Senator McKim talked about the displacement of human populations. You can see examples in overseas jurisdictions. Some of these products carry the FSC logo, but we know there are problems with the timbers that go on sale accompanied by this rather questionable mark. I was always very disappointed with what happened in Victoria. A court case was brought against VicForests and, as a result, a particular retail chain decided not to stock the timbers coming from any of the VicForests coupes. At that point the company had not been found in breach, but this retail outlet made a decision on the basis of a question before a court. It was at that point that, as the former assistant minister for forestry, I asked for some DNA testing to occur in retail outlets across Australia. Again, I make the point that some of them carry a logo claiming a level of certification, specifying the type of timber they are selling. It was amazing to see, in a number of retail outlets, including the one that decided not to stock the Victorian timber in question, that they were selling timbers purporting to be a particular species from a particular jurisdiction with a certification logo attached, which of course didn't match up to exactly the type of timber it was and where it came from. This is the problem with this argument around shutting down the timber industry in Australia—that if we don't do it here we're going to have to get it from somewhere, and what happens over the horizon is a problem. That is why this bill is important—putting in place safeguards and measures that actually protect people who want to buy sustainable products as well as environments beyond our own jurisdiction. That's why it is important to back this in. Senator McKim talks about a 'stitch-up' between the two major parties. I still believe that, as evidenced between 2010 and 2014 in Tasmania, there is only ever one stitch-up, one partnership you will ever see in Australian politics when it comes to forestry, and that is the one where that green tail wags the Labor dog, in a power-sharing government—and the polls point to us having, after the next election, a Labor-Greens minority government, supported by the teals. I'll almost guarantee that the Greens' list of demands post an election, when they're marching around to the blue carpeted wing of this building, the ministerial wing, will include a ban of native forestry. That will be one of the key asks. In fact, they're already asking for it in relation to another bill that we will be debating this fortnight. So, if ever there was going to be a stitch-up on forestry, it isn't between the two major parties; it is very much between the Labor Party and the Greens, as evidenced by what happened in Tasmania between 2010 and 2014, when, based on emotion and whim, we saw the shutdown of a sustainable industry not based on science and not based on fact. In concluding, as I said, there were constructive discussions, and I've been able to satisfy myself regarding some of the concerns I had around impacts on Australian domestic processors and that we aren't going to see scope creep here from the Commonwealth government into what should be a state or territory matter. We all have state and territory forestry regulatory authorities, and I don't think it's the place for the Commonwealth to be marching in and taking over any of those responsibilities. But I want to finish by reflecting on comments that Senator McKim made about a very good journalist, Mr Haneveer. Yes, I did work with him many years ago in this very building, in fact. I think it's unfair to characterise Mr Haneveer in the way he does. I think he's a very even-handed journalist. He's given me a whack from time to time in his editorials, and I'll take them. I think there might well have been a couple saved for Senator McKim as well. But I did read one on Saturday, as a matter of fact, and I'm surprised Senator McKim didn't reference that one as much as he referenced the one that's totally unrelated to this debate. It was on one of our own colleagues here, Senator Polley. I do think Mr Haneveer is a fantastic journalist. Given the number of times he has been referenced in this debate, I just wanted to put that on the record. He might have views about the skate and the salmon industry, and, if that keeps going on as a topic of conversation, I might respond to some of those a bit later on. I do recommend that all senators pick up Saturday's Advocate newspaper and have a read of the editorial. It's well worth it; it's a good laugh. The CHAIR 287062 Are there any other contributions? Minister, do you have anything for Senator McKim at this point? 12:46 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Yes, and I'm hoping to help. I am a big fan of the Advocate newspaper, particularly to see how the Ulverstone Robins are going, but I don't think I want to delve into Tasmanian politics with these two who seem obsessed with it here— Senator Duniam 263418 The one behind you. Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Yes, but Helen's got a broader view of the country and so does Anne, unlike you two. But anyway, we're getting a bit personal now. In response to Senator McKim, I refer to Responsible Wood's Australian/New Zealand standard for sustainable forest management (AS/NZS4708:2021). Section 11.2.10 requires forest managers to address illegal activities and notify the relevant authorities. Operators accredited to the standard are audited. Forest managers have to comply with all legal requirements and demonstrate compliance with them as stipulated by the standard. 12:47 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Minister, thank you for that. Could you read out which part of that standard that was? I think you had a number there. 12:47 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Section 11.2.10. 12:47 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Section 11.2.10 of the Responsible Wood sustainable forest management standard, numbered 4708:2021; is that right? 12:47 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland Yes. That is correct. 12:47 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania Just to be clear, you are informing the committee that section 11.2.10 of the Responsible Wood sustainable forest management standard requires logging to be legal. Is that right? 12:48 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland What it requires is that forest managers address illegal activities and notify the relevant authorities. Operators accredited to the standard are audited. Forest managers have to comply with all legal requirements and demonstrate compliance with them as stipulated by the standard. 12:48 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania So, if those conditions weren't met, then that section of the standard would not be met and, therefore, products could not be certified; is that right? 12:49 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland It's obviously bordering into hypothetical scenarios there, but it would be a matter for the PEFC and Responsible Wood to manage. The CHAIR 287062 Are there any other contributions before I ask Senator McKim to begin moving his amendments? Senator McKim, you have the call. 12:49 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4) standing in my name on sheet 2626 together: (1) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 29), after item 4, insert: 4A Section 7 (definition of illegally logged ) Repeal the definition, substitute: illegally logged, in relation to timber, means authorised for harvest, harvested, processed, or transported in contravention of laws, including laws related to: (a) the protection of plants; (b) the protection of the environment; (c) human rights; (d) bribery; (e) money laundering; (f) tax evasion; (g) fraud; or (h) other financial crimes; in the place (whether or not in Australia) where the timber is to be harvested, or was harvested, transported or processed. (2) Schedule 1, page 13 (after line 3), after item 21, insert: 21A Subparagraph 14(3)(a)(iii) Omit "harvested", substitute "authorised for harvest, harvested, processed, or transported". (3) Schedule 1, page 20 (after line 13), after item 37, insert: 37A Subparagraph 18(3)(a)(iii) Omit "harvested", substitute "authorised for harvest, harvested, processed, or transported". (4) Schedule 1, item 27, page 33 (line 15), omit "harvested", substitute "authorised for harvest, harvested, processed, or transported". The CHAIR 287062 The question before the committee is that amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 2626, as moved by Senator McKim, be agreed to.    

The committee divided. [12:55]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

 12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 28 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Chisholm, A. Darmanin, L. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 12:58 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) and (2) standing in my name on sheet 2646 together: (1) Schedule 1, items 24 and 25, page 13 (lines 8 to 12), omit the items, substitute: 24 Subsection 14(5) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (5) The rules may provide for due diligence requirements for importing regulated timber products to be satisfied, wholly or partly, by compliance with: (a) specified laws (including laws in force in a State or Territory or another country); or (b) specified rules or processes (including rules or processes established or accredited by an industry or certifying body) that are consistent with a law in force in a State or Territory or another country; or (c) specified established operational processes that are consistent with a law in force in a State or Territory or another country. 25 Subsection 14(6) Repeal the subsection. (2) Schedule 1, items 40 and 41, page 20 (lines 18 to 22), omit the items, substitute: 40 Subsection 18(5) Repeal the subsection, substitute: (5) The rules may provide for due diligence requirements for processing raw logs to be satisfied, wholly or partly, by compliance with: (a) specified laws (including laws in force in a State or Territory); or (b) specified rules or processes (including rules or processes established or accredited by an industry or certifying body) that are consistent with a law in force in a State or Territory; or (c) specified established operational processes that are consistent with a law in force in a State or Territory. 41 Subsection 18(6) Repeal the subsection. The CHAIR 287062 The question is that Greens amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2646, as moved by Senator McKim, be agreed to. Question negatived. Senator McKIM JKM by leave—I ask that the Greens' support for the amendments be recorded. The CHAIR 287062 Senator McKim, you have the call. Senator McKIM JKM by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 2665 together: (1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 6), after item 1, insert: 1A Section 6 After "importation of illegally logged timber", insert ", the supply of illegally logged timber". (2) Schedule 1, item 7, page 6 (after line 16), after the definition of State or Territory body in section 7, insert: supply includes supply by way of sale, exchange, gift, lease, loan, hire or hire-purchase. (3) Schedule 1, page 13 (after line 12), after item 25, insert: 25A After Part 2 Insert: Part 2A — Supplying Division 1 — Introduction 14A Simplified outline of this Part The supply of illegally logged timber is prohibited. Division 2 — Supplying illegally logged timber 14B Supplying illegally logged timber Fault-based offence (1) A person commits an offence if: (a) the person supplies a thing; and (b) the thing is, is made from, or includes, illegally logged timber; and (c) the person is a constitutional corporation, or the person supplies the thing: (i) in the course of, or for the purposes of, trade and commerce with other countries, or among the States or between a State and a Territory; or (ii) on behalf of a constitutional corporation; or (iii) for the purposes of supplying timber products to a constitutional corporation; or (iv) on behalf of the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority; or (v) for the purposes of supplying timber products to the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority. Penalty: 5 years imprisonment or 500 penalty units, or both. Strict liability offence (2) A person commits an offence of strict liability if: (a) the person supplies a thing in Australia; and (b) the thing is, is made from, or includes, illegally logged timber; and (c) the person is a constitutional corporation, or the person supplies the thing: (i) in the course of, or for the purposes of, trade and commerce with other countries, or among the States or between a State and a Territory; or (ii) on behalf of a constitutional corporation; or (iii) for the purposes of supplying timber products to a constitutional corporation; or (iv) on behalf of the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority; or (v) for the purposes of supplying timber products to the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority. Penalty: 60 penalty units. Civil penalty provision (3) A person contravenes this subsection if: (a) the person supplies a thing in Australia; and (b) the thing is, is made from, or includes, illegally logged timber; and (c) the person is a constitutional corporation, or the person supplies the thing: (i) in the course of, or for the purposes of, trade and commerce with other countries, or among the States or between a State and a Territory; or (ii) on behalf of a constitutional corporation; or (iii) for the purposes of supplying timber products to a constitutional corporation; or (iv) on behalf of the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority; or (v) for the purposes of supplying timber products to the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority. Civil penalty: 100 penalty units. 14C Forfeiture (1) A court may order all or any part of a thing to be forfeited to the Commonwealth if: (a) the court: (i) convicts a person of an offence against subsection 14B(1) or (2) in respect of the thing or part; or (ii) makes a civil penalty order under section 82 of the Regulatory Powers Act in relation to a contravention of subsection 14B(3) of this Act in respect of the thing or part; and (b) the thing or part is the property of the person. (2) The person is entitled to be heard in relation to the forfeiture order. (3) The thing or part may be dealt with or disposed of in any manner that the Secretary thinks appropriate, but only after: (a) if the periods provided for lodging appeals against the forfeiture order and the conviction or civil penalty order have ended without such an appeal having been lodged—the end of those periods; or (b) if one or more such appeals have been lodged—the appeals lapse or are finally determined. (4) Schedule 1, item 56, page 53 (after line 5), after subitem (1), insert: (1A) Sections 14B and 14C of the Illegal Logging Prohibition Act 2012, as inserted by this Schedule, apply in relation to a thing that is supplied on or after the commencement of this item. The CHAIR 287062 The question before the committee is that amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 2665, as moved by Senator McKim, be agreed to.    

The committee divided. [13:00]
(The Chair—Senator McLachlan)

 12 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 31 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Cadell, R. (Teller) Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hanson, P. L. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. Watt, M. P. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 13:03 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move the Greens amendment on sheet 2643: (1) Schedule 1, item 42, page 22 (lines 5 and 6), omit paragraph 18B(4)(a), substitute: (a) include as much of the following information about the regulated timber product as is reasonably practicable: (i) the common name, genus or scientific name of the tree from which the timber, or the timber in the product, is derived; (ii) the country, the region of the country and the forest harvesting unit in which the timber, or the timber in the product, was harvested; (iii) any other information prescribed by the rules for the purposes of this subparagraph; and Question negatived. The CHAIR 287062 We will record the Greens' support for that amendment. Senator McKIM JKM by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (3) on sheet 2664 together: (1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 5 (after line 20), after the definition of entrusted person in section 7, insert: interested person has the meaning given by section 26. (2) Schedule 1, item 50, page 32 (lines 12 to 15), omit subsection 26(2), substitute: Authorised person (2) For the purposes of Part 7 of the Regulatory Powers Act, the following are authorised persons in relation to the provisions mentioned in subsection (1): (a) the Secretary; (b) an interested person (other than an unincorporated organisation); (c) a person acting on behalf of an unincorporated organisation that is an interested person. (3) Schedule 1, item 50, page 32 (after line 19), insert: (3A) For the purposes of an application for an injunction relating to conduct or proposed conduct that contravened, or would contravene, a provision mentioned in subsection (1), an individual is an interested person if the individual is an Australian citizen or ordinarily resident in Australia or an external Territory, and: (a) the individual's interests have been, are or would be affected by the conduct or proposed conduct; or (b) the individual engaged in a series of activities for the promotion of the legal and sustainable timber trade, or research into illegal logging, at any time in the 2 years immediately before: (i) the conduct; or (ii) in the case of proposed conduct—making the application for the injunction. (3B) For the purposes of an application for an injunction relating to conduct or proposed conduct that contravened, or would contravene, a provision mentioned in subsection (1), an organisation (whether incorporated or not) is an interested person if it is incorporated (or was otherwise established) in Australia or an external Territory and one or more of the following conditions are met: (a) the organisation's interests have been, are or would be affected by the conduct or proposed conduct; (b) if the application relates to conduct—at any time during the 2 years immediately before the conduct: (i) the organisation's objects or purposes included the promotion of the legal and sustainable timber trade, or research into illegal logging; and (ii) the organisation engaged in a series of activities related to the promotion of the legal and sustainable timber trade, or research into illegal logging; (c) if the application relates to proposed conduct—at any time during the 2 years immediately before the making of the application: (i) the organisation's objects or purposes included the promotion of the legal and sustainable timber trade, or research into illegal logging; and (ii) the organisation engaged in a series of activities related to the promotion of the legal and sustainable timber trade, or research into illegal logging. Question negatived. The CHAIR 287062 Let it be recorded that the Greens supported the amendments. 13:04 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move Australian Greens amendment (1) on sheet 2645: (1) Schedule 1, item 52A, page 44 (lines 9 to 13), omit subsection 83A(1), substitute: (1) The Minister must cause an independent review to be conducted of the operation of this Act: (a) during the 5-year period starting on the commencement of the Illegal Logging Prohibition Amendment (Strengthening Measures to Prevent Illegal Timber Trade) Act 2024; and (b) during each subsequent 5-year period. (1A) Without limiting subsection (1), a review under subsection (1) must examine and report on: (a) the extent of illegal logging in Australia; and (b) action taken under the Act to respond to illegal logging in Australia. Reporting Question negatived. The CHAIR 287062 I order that it be recorded the Greens voted for that amendment. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Third Reading 29 13:06 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023 29

Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023

Second Reading 29 13:06 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise to speak on the Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023. It's appropriate to commence my speech by reflecting on the genesis of this bill and the objectives that it should have been achieving, because this is a bill that should be implementing recommendation 25 of the Respect@Work report. The Respect@Work report made 55 recommendations across a range of areas, the bulk of which have now become law with coalition support. Recommendation 25 came in the context of a discussion about barriers to pursuing general sexual harassment claims in the courts. The discussion in the report is short but clear and dealt with just a few key points. It's worth reflecting on those points which should have been, but which are not, the guiding principles for our discussion today. First, the commissioner noted submissions recommending a cost protection provision in the Australian Human Rights Commission Act which would: … provide that applicants and respondents should bear their own costs unless an exception applies—if the court is satisfied that the party instituted proceedings vexatiously or without reasonable cause. Second, the report cited submissions to the effect that the general rule, which many would know is costs follow the event, operates as: … a disincentive to pursuing sexual harassment matters under the Sex Discrimination Act. And third, in response to those submissions, the commissioner acknowledged: … the risk of cost orders acting as a disincentive to pursuing sexual harassment matters in the federal jurisdiction. The report specifically and explicitly recommended a new provision along the lines of section 570 of the Fair Work Act, which establishes what is known as a 'costs neutrality model'. Critically, it noted the intended effect of such a provision is as follows: Such a provision should ensure costs may only be ordered against a party by the court if satisfied that the party instituted the proceedings vexatiously or without reasonable cause, or if the court is satisfied that a party's unreasonable act or omission caused the other party to incur costs. The discussion in the report specifically and expressly made clear that the provision was about limiting the circumstances in which a complainant can be made to pay costs. It recommended a provision that means that, as a default, each party bears their own costs, except where they act vexatiously or unreasonably. In other words, it is a protective provision. What this bill does, though, is take a fundamentally different approach. It does not implement recommendation 25 of the Jenkins report. The bill does not implement a regime that is directed towards harassment and discrimination claims under the Sex Discrimination Act. This bill does not implement a provision modelled on section 570 of the Fair Work Act, and it does not deal with sexual harassment in the workplace. In other words, it doesn't do what Kate Jenkins told the Australian parliament it needed to do. Instead, this bill applies to all federal discrimination matters. This means that, in due course, it will potentially apply to religious institutions and schools, if the government decides to pursue its disastrously flawed religious discrimination bill, which Mr Albanese, I understand, still has not shown his caucus. This bill implements the hopelessly ideological model called a modified equal access model. Now, the word 'modified' is important here because this model is not about equal access at all. Indeed, the words 'equal access' are in quotation marks in the government's own materials because the Attorney-General of Australia knows full well that there is nothing equal about it. It is actually an unequal access model, and we need to be very, very clear about that. It does not remove barriers in a way that preserves the integrity of litigation and the discretion of the courts. Instead, it ensures that, in court, the balance is tilted in favour of complainants, regardless of the nature of the complaint and the conduct of the proceedings. The bill also takes an extraordinary approach that goes much further than any other Australian jurisdiction and, in fact, any other comparable nation. It's appropriate to run through how this bill will work in practice and, for simplicity and clarity, I'll refer to the person commencing the litigation as the complainant. The courts at present make costs orders to reflect on the conduct of the proceedings, the merits of the parties' positions and the ultimate outcome. The courts make costs orders that give best effect to justice in the case. This is a fair approach and it is a reasonable approach, and we know that our judges—hardworking, talented and unimpeachably fair and independent—do not take their responsibilities lightly. What this bill does, however, is take that discretion away from them. The bill says that the court must award costs to a complainant if they are successful—and the key here is these words—on one or more grounds. This rule applies in all cases except in relation to costs incurred as a result of a complainant's unreasonable act or omission. The bill also says that the court must not award costs against the complainant unless some very narrow exceptions are met. What are these exceptions? The court is only permitted to exercise a discretion to award costs to a respondent where the complainant instituted the proceedings vexatiously or without reasonable cause, or the complainant's unreasonable acts or omissions caused the respondent to incur costs, or the respondent is successful in the proceedings, does not have a significant power advantage and does not have significant financial or other resources relative to the complainant. Crucially, the bill would apply to class action proceedings and actions brought by trade unions. Extraordinarily, the drafting of the provisions leaves open the possibility that the respondent must pay the costs incurred by the complainant even in respect of grounds that were unsuccessful. What does this actually mean in practice? In short, the bill incentivises litigation and disincentivises negotiated outcomes. It removes all real risks from the complainant provided they do not meet the very high bar—and it is a very, very high bar in law—of acting unreasonably. This bill even removes the provision that expressly allows the court to take into account offers to settle. In fact, this is an unprecedented change to how settlement negotiations will work. Right now, the courts can take into account cases where a respondent makes a reasonable offer to settle. I would argue—in fact, the status quo is—that that is actually fair. But let's say you're responding to a claim, and you make a genuine effort to resolve it on fair and reasonable terms so that both parties avoid the costs of litigation. But then I insist on my day in court, and I might even win. If I do that, of course, it puts on both parties a great deal of expense which is entirely avoidable. A fair person might say, 'Hold on, why should you pay if I'm the one insisting on litigation that turns out to be unnecessary?' This is what the courts can do right now. They make cost orders very carefully so that, as far as possible, the process itself does not become a punishment. All that changes under this bill. The bill removes the provision that gives the courts the discretion to take those things into account. In fact, it sends a clear message that a complainant who rejects a reasonable settlement offer should not be at risk of an adverse costs order. Further, the bill leaves open the possibility that the respondent must pay even in respect of grounds that are unsuccessful, because all of this is part of the same proceeding. If you are successful on any ground, you recover all of your costs, and, if you lose completely, all you have to do is bear your own costs. If you make 20 claims and succeed in just one, this bill leaves open the possibility that the respondent will be forced to pay for all of them. This means there is no downside to pressing ahead with a low-prospect claim. Talk about clogging up the court system! Of course, this can be exploited in class actions—and class action law firms, as we all know, are the Australian Labor Party's friends. It is no accident that Maurice Blackburn and Slater and Gordon spend millions in donations to the Australian Labor Party. And it is no accident that you will see photos of CFMEU officials in hi-vis vests with the CFMEU logo on one side and—lo and behold—the Maurice Blackburn logo on the other. This bill, by any analysis, is a litigation funder's dream. It is a class action lawyer's meal ticket and a trade union's golden pathway. All you will need to do is drum up a low-value or speculative complaint and resist all attempts at conciliation in the Australian Human Rights Commission. Then, once you're in the courts, guess what? You simply press ahead with your ambit: a low-value and speculative claim. As long as you're not unreasonable or vexatious, you can slowly bleed the respondent as you drag out the litigation, knowing it's quite unlikely, because of the Australian Labor Party and this bill, that you will face consequences. Of course, there's nothing in this bill to prevent these types of actions being abused collaterally to pressure a respondent into whatever negotiations or other matters are going on. But wait: there's more. There's a genuine concern that this approach doesn't end with discrimination matters. In fact, the drafting is so broad that it includes any other proceedings that relate to those proceedings. This means that there is a genuine concern that this unequal-access model will also apply to any other claims in the same matter that arise under federal law or in the accrued jurisdiction. In fact, the committee received evidence and saw clear citations to case law that made this precise point. The way it plays out is this. Let's say I make a complaint about reasonable adjustments under the Disability Discrimination Act and then, as part of the same matter, I also make some kind of damages claim or an industrial claim. The genuine fear, based on precedent, is that all those provisions will be covered by this controversial and unbalanced cost regime because they relate to a discrimination claim. The overreach means that those who respond to claims—not just employers but also bodies like schools, TAFEs, professional colleges, hospitals and sporting clubs—will all now face a much higher litigation risk, and it is only a matter of time before that translates into higher insurance premiums and higher costs to the families who love and benefit from those community institutions. It is sloppy—or insidious—and makes a mockery of the Jenkins report. So, what should the bill have done? It should have implemented recommendation 25 of the Respect@Work report. It should have had support across this chamber. It should have created a simple cost-neutral jurisdiction in our federal courts to remove barriers to women to deal with sexual harassment in the workplace. It should have meant that the same rules apply whether you pursue a sexual harassment claim in the Fair Work Commission or in the Federal Court. Instead, we have a model that goes further than any comparable jurisdiction and applies to any type of claim under discrimination law or that relates to such a claim. The overreach is inexplicable, and we should find a better way forward. 13:21 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland The Greens really welcome the Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023. This bill stems from recommendation 25 of the Respect@Work: sexual harassment national inquiry report—which was released in 2020, so these reforms have certainly been a long time coming. While this bill proposes a cost model different to that which Kate Jenkins proposed in Respect@Work, there is good reason for that. The current cost rules are essentially that costs follow the event, and if you lose you pay the other side's costs. Kate Jenkins recommended that that change and be essentially an each-bear-own-costs rule. That represented an improvement in that you wouldn't be saddled with the other side's costs if you lost, but it still wouldn't help you pay your own legal fees if you won. After some very welcome consultation with the sector and with the Greens, including our suggestions in the additional comments to the inquiry into earlier versions of this bill, we're really pleased that the government has proposed a slightly different cost model, which is now what is in the bill. The modified equal access cost protection provision in this bill is one that the Greens and many advocates have called for. It will ensure that no-one is priced out of fighting sexual harassment and discrimination in the workplace. It means workers who've been subject to sexual harassment or discrimination at work will be able to seek justice and not be in danger of paying the other side's costs if they lose, but if they win they will have their costs paid for by their dodgy employer. It's important that these cost provisions will apply to all unlawful workplace discrimination, including age, race and other protected attributes—and that is a good thing, because costs should not be the determining factor in whether workers are able to call out bad behaviour and discrimination and insist on a safe workplace. Without an equal-access cost model in place, many workers, particularly women, weigh up the trauma and the financial risk and decide to stay silent. It shouldn't bankrupt vulnerable Australians to take up a matter of sexual harassment or discrimination. The Women's Legal Centre in the ACT observed to the Senate committee inquiry into the Respect@Work bill in 2021, which is apposite here: Many women worry that they will not be believed and will be forced to pay the other side's legal fees. In the case of large businesses and government departments, these fees can be so significant that the average person would face financial ruin. It's no surprise many women decide not to take this gamble. Providing more options for victims of sexual harassment to make complaints, which this government has done, doesn't change anything if women can't afford to make complaints. Rights on paper are meaningless unless you can afford to enforce them. The 2022 national survey of sexual harassment found that young women working in the fast food and retail industries are experiencing significantly higher rates of workplace harassment. Those industries are comparatively low paid and are characterised by unpredictable and insecure work, so the financial risk of taking action against an employer remains a significant barrier to workers making complaints. The decision to make a complaint against your employer or someone in your workplace will always be difficult, but deterring someone from coming forward could mean the difference between a harassing boss being held to account or that boss being allowed to continue harassing other employees. I say it again: costs should not be the determining factor in whether workers are prepared and able to call out bad behaviour and discrimination and to insist on a safer workplace. Equal-access cost provisions, where workers can take action without fear of paying the other side's costs if they lose, already exist for whistleblowers to remove barriers for people calling out misconduct. They should exist for whistleblowers. They should also exist here, and that's why we're pleased to be supporting this bill. The same rules should apply for calling out workplace harassment, and, hence, our support. The modified equal-access cost modelling in the bill will help protect young women in those industries, and it will help set the standard for workplace behaviour. The bill represents a generational opportunity to change workplace culture. The Greens are proud to have kept the pressure up to ensure that no-one's priced out of fighting for their rights at work, whether that be for sexual harassment or any other type of workplace discrimination. Respect@Work recommended reform in this space four years ago. We've had this bill on the shelf for more than a year. Workers can't afford any more delay in being able to access justice. Now, I note that the opposition have circulated amendments that propose, essentially, an 'each bear their own cost' model, except where a case is frivolous or vexatious or where a party has, by an unreasonable act or omission, caused the other party to incur costs. This proposition totally ignores the fact that workers will rarely be able to afford to seek justice and they won't be able to pay for legal representation to get justice. The reality is that lawyers will want to be paid, and, without the reassurance that costs will be awarded if they win, many employees simply won't be able to afford to proceed to the courts. Some people in this chamber have concerns that these new cost rules will be detrimental to small business. Well, I can reassure anyone who might be concerned about that that this bill already has plenty of protections for small businesses. If the worker's case is vexatious or without reasonable cause, or their actions or omissions cause unreasonable cost, they can have costs awarded against them, and, if the worker is unsuccessful and the employer doesn't have a significant power advantage or significant financial or other resources relative to the worker, that employer can have their costs paid. This is more than enough protection for employers. Where small businesses don't have that significant power or resource advantage over the applicant, the court retains a discretion to ensure that cost rules are applied fairly. I might also add that, if small businesses don't harass their workers, they will be fine. One wonders whether the concern is that workers will make up false claims against their small-business employer, because the whole notion that women in any way benefit from going public on claims of sexual harassment or assault is laughable. Everyone sees the victim-survivor pilloried and retraumatised, and it's usually her that suffers the career detriment, when the perpetrator can generally carry on, mostly unaffected. Some senators in this chamber have previously taken some dubious positions in relation to women's rights in the workplace, in the service of trying to defend small business—and I hark back to the paid parental leave debate—but I really hope that, in seeking to protect small businesses, no-one's implying that women make up harassment or abuse. We don't. Why would we when it's us that are put on trial and it's us that suffer all of the weight, scrutiny and the vitriolic public commentary? The media is littered with examples of that. This is the reason that most sexual harassment and discrimination goes unreported. When someone has the courage to report it and seek justice in the workplace, why would you want to put further barriers—financial barriers, which are very real and particularly pronounced in a cost-of-living crisis—in place to stop that? Senator O'Neill 140651 Thank you, Senator Waters. The debate is interrupted. I shall now proceed to two-minute statements. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 33 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS Agriculture 33 13:30 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland Many people in recent years may have come across an initialism known as ESG. In theory, our corporate sector has been desperate to apply ESG principles—so called environmental, social and governance principles—to itself in recent years. It doesn't really mean it, though, because in practice what ESG has meant for our corporate sector is 'exempting ourselves from guilt'. That's what this has been about. We've seen, time and time again, large corporate entities engage in the most gross misbehaviour and then turn around within weeks and start lecturing us all about what we should do, in some pretty lame attempt to absolve themselves from guilt. The latest example was just last week. Woolworths, an organisation that has been accused of terrible treatment of small businesses—a great ABC Four Corners documentary went through that at length earlier this year, followed by a Senate inquiry which pilloried the conduct of Woolworths and its treatment of farmers and small businesses—last week released its latest sustainability report. In that report, they have committed themselves to sourcing beef only from 'no deforestation' areas. They've done this with reference to something called the Science Based Targets Initiative. That initiative defines forest areas of this country as 44 per cent of grazing land. So we'd reduce our supply of beef across vast swathes of Australia if we were to apply these United Nations and WWF standards. All Australians, I think, would probably have some interaction with Woolworths from time to time, and almost all of them lately would have been shocked when they got to the check-out and saw how much their grocery bills were. A lot of it is because of this kind of rubbish that groups like Woolworths are putting in place, which restricts the supply of products and pushes up prices. ESG doesn't just mean exempting ourselves from guilt; it also means extreme shortages guaranteed. Early Childhood Education 33 13:32 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I recently celebrated the 15 per cent pay rise for people working in early childhood education—the educators who are ensuring that the next generation have the fantastic start they need to reach their full potential. When I was at Goodstart Early Learning at Newstead, in my home state of Tasmania, it was just so lovely to walk into a centre and see so many smiling faces. As soon as you walk into that centre you see there are photos of all the staff, ensuring that the children feel secure when they come in and families know they're going to get the best possible care. The centre manager, Libby, has created, as I said, such a warm and inviting atmosphere for the children and families, but it's important for the children to have a creative learning environment that enables them to dream and inspires them to achieve their own goals. One of the initiatives that pleased me the most was the celebration of staff at the centre. As I said, as soon as you walk in that door you see photos of them, to make sure that the centre is a safe environment for those children. I spoke to a staff member there, Belinda, about the 15 per cent pay rise that the Albanese government is delivering for early childhood educators in this country. She's a mother of two and a grandmother, and she's inspiring in that she's saving like mad to buy a home, to ensure she provides a secure home environment for her own children and her grandchild. There is such dignity and security in having a place of your own—in making sure you're able to do that for your family. Belinda was so excited and so grateful that educators have finally been acknowledged by our government, and I'm proud to be part of a government that acknowledges early childhood— (Time expired) Yazidi Community 33 13:34 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Last month, on 3 August, I had the privilege to go to Wagga Wagga to be with the Yazidi community and the local Wagga community to reflect on the 10th anniversary of the appalling genocide against the Yazidi people. It was on 3 August in 2014 that ISIS attacked the Yazidi community in Sinjar in Iraq. The brutality that was inflicted against the Yazidi community that went for months and months—there were mass killings, abductions and violence unimaginable in any community—is rightly called a genocide. There have been at least 85 mass graves identified in and around Sinjar. As the Yazidi community saw the extent of the violence, they fled into the mountains. Sadly, thousands then died from malnourishment and the effects of the extreme climate. From 2016, though, the Yazidi community started arriving in Wagga. The then government—I give them this credit—recognised that genocide was occurring, undertook a rapid program to provide a safe pathway for the Yazidi community, rapidly assessed the security concerns and brought them to Australia. The community has flourished in Wagga, and I want to credit the state member, the local mayor and the thousands of ordinary people from Wagga who have come and wrapped around and supported the Yazidi community. I can't tell you how much pain there was in the room at Henschke Catholic Primary School on 3 August. Mums were still crying about their lost kids. Fathers had lost everyone. The pain was real. But we did it right with the Yazidi community in providing that space and a safe place, and let's remember that. Tibet Lobby Day 34 13:36 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia Today is Tibet Lobby Day, an annual occasion when the Australian Tibet Council invites Tibetan Australians to meet with their parliamentary representatives and discuss the issues important to them. What makes this unique is that it's an annual opportunity for our parliament to act as a voice for a people who are otherwise voiceless. Since the annexation of Tibet and the exodus of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Tibetans around the world have fought with bravery and determination for a return to a free and independent Tibet. That effort has largely only been able to gain momentum in democratic nations such as ours. Here in Australia, Tibetans in exile can speak freely, without fear or retribution. Australia has long supported the aspiration of a free Tibet. In our most recent Universal Periodic Review of China submitted to the United Nations, Australia reiterated its calls for the Chinese government to cease discrimination and persecution of Tibetans and other minorities in Tibet based on their religious or political views. We also called for an end to restrictions on their expression of their cultural and linguistic identity. I heard harrowing firsthand accounts of these human rights abuses when I visited Dharamshala in northern India and met with His Holiness the Dalai Lama earlier this year. We are also aware of the specific Chinese Communist Party officials in Tibet that are perpetuating these restrictions on Tibetan people's freedoms. If we fail to hold these officials accountable for their human rights abuses, who will hold them accountable? That's why this morning I joined Susan Templeman MP, Senator Barbara Pocock and other members of the Australian All-Party Parliamentary Group for Tibet to welcome a visiting delegation of Australian Tibetans. Australia has a central role to play in the journey towards a free Tibet, and Tibetan Australians are counting on those of us in this parliament to be their voice. Hickey, Ms Wilma 34 13:38 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales Can I associate myself with the remarks of Senator Dean Smith. Happily, I was able to meet with the delegation myself, and it's great to see multiparty support for the Tibetan people. We acknowledge those who are in the gallery today. I also want to express deep sadness that I mark with honour the memory of Wilma Hickey, who passed away at the age of 95. Wilma's life is a testament to dedication and service, and we're all fortunate to have known her. Wilma was never one to boast, but her dedication to the union movement was unmatched. She worked with a quiet strength and unwavering commitment alongside her close friend Claire Haigh. Wilma's journey began on the shop floor, and she rose to remarkable heights, becoming the President of the SDA, the largest union in New South Wales. Her roles were many: member, worker, workplace delegate, full-time organiser, branch councillor, national councillor and eventually SDA president. In the 1970s, when there were calls to merge the SDA with the building union, Wilma stood firm, believing in the necessity of a dedicated union for shop assistants and warehouse workers. Her resolve was evident in 1977 at Myer Castle Hill and continued through her time at Grace Brothers in Hornsby, where she was a respected workplace delegate. She kept her members informed and supported them with unwavering dedication. By 1983 Wilma was a member of the SDA branch council and became its president in 1987, a position she held until 1999. Under her leadership the union achieved significant victories, including shorter working weeks and numerous pay increases. Wilma's impact extended beyond the workplace. As a full-time organiser she resolved countless disputes and recruited many new members. Her emphasis on clear communication was central to her approach, believing it to be a key workplace harmony element. Wilma Hickey's legacy is one of steadfast commitment and strong, quiet and effective leadership. An enduring impact will remain on all those who were touched by the work of her life. Economy 34 13:40 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland In the last few days Australians have witnessed an unedifying sight: the Treasurer blaming the Reserve Bank for policy outcomes that are firmly the government's fault. When Treasurer Chalmers was rightly criticised for his misbehaviour the Labor Party rallied the troops, dusting off Labor Party artefact Wayne Swan to defend the Treasurer. This display is why people dislike and distrust politicians. The reality is that high interest rates are the direct result of economic policy under successive Liberal and Labor governments—policy that damaged our manufacturing and farming sectors whilst transferring gross domestic product from real jobs in the private sector to jobs in the government sector. Reserve Bank Governor Bullock's interest rate strategy is a response to Labor government policy. Labor government policy has decided the RBA's strategy. Instead of bullying the Reserve Bank governor into taking further interest rate rises off the table, Treasurer Chalmers could take action to prevent the need for those rises. Balance the budget and reduce government spending to match your income; Minister Shorten tried to bring the NDIS under control, and you forced him to walk the plank. Stop replacing base load power with net zero wind, solar transmission lines and battery back-up, driving up electricity prices and sending the government into debt. Reduce immigration, which is distorting the housing market and inflating government welfare and infrastructure spending. Stop giving grants and subsidies to foreign multinationals operating solar and wind here, and instead encourage local companies who retain the wealth here. Develop our productive capacity through a national rail loop enabling an Australian steel industry. There's $100 billion of production, 40,000 real jobs and $25 billion in government revenue just in the Capricornia steel proposal at Queensland's Abbot Point and the port of Gladstone every year. Treasurer Chalmers should stop bullying and start building, which is exactly what a One Nation government will do. Road Infrastructure: Highways 35 13:42 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland Of all the issues faced by Australia, few are more damaging to our country than the fiscal imbalance and ambiguous responsibilities between state and federal governments. There is no better example of this than the state of our highways, especially our federal highways. It is a national disgrace that our federal highways are a death trap that are of a standard that wouldn't pass muster in a Third World country. The accident a few weeks ago on the Bruce Highway near Gladstone is just one of the many tragic accidents and disruptions to people in regional Queensland. Not that it is confined to the Bruce Highway; the Newell Highway in western New South Wales is also in dire need of improvement. I call on the federal government to abolish the current 80-20 funding of national highways and assume full responsibility for funding them. They should also empower the royal military engineers to be responsible for the construction and maintenance of federal highways. What better way to train apprentices, cut bureaucratic waste and start delivering real outcomes for the Australian people. Immigration 35 13:43 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia I rise today to speak on behalf of thousands of people whose lives have been marked by unimaginable hardship at the hands of our broken immigration system. I stand here with the words of Praveena, a courageous 22-year-old who I met on Saturday, ringing in my ears—a refugee, a national powerlifting champion and, more than that, a proud Australian who, after 12 years, is still waiting for her Australian citizenship. Praveena is a champion. She won the state powerlifting champions in WA, and then represented our great state on the national stage and became the national champion. This gave her the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to represent Australia on the international stage. However, despite living and learning in WA since she was nine, she still has not received the basic right of Australian citizenship. Because of this, she was denied her dream of competing and representing her state and country. This isn't even the toughest part of Praveena's story. Imagine, if you will, having your life torn apart and having the safety of home and the love of family all shattered. Praveena's grandfather was brutally murdered, and her father disappeared. As a child, she fled to Australia with nothing but hope, a fragile dream of survival. Even here, in the land of the fair go, that hope was met with endless barriers, from being held in detention, denied basic human rights, to being told she has 28 days to leave the only home she has known. Yet she perseveres and has become a symbol of strength and determination. Praveena is not alone in this struggle. There are thousands of others just like her—people who have called Australia home for over a decade yet live in fear of deportation. For people held in offshore detention, their bodies and minds are crushed under the weight of uncertainty, medical neglect and trauma. Watson, Mr Paul Franklin 35 13:45 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Millions of people around the world are frustrated that again the Danish authorities have decided to keep Captain Paul Watson in jail in Greenland pending potential extradition to Japan—the next court hearing being on 2 October. Every Greens MP has written to the Albanese government asking them to make a public statement in support of Captain Paul Watson. This is what President Macron of France has done. He has shown some leadership and asked the Danish government to free Paul Watson. Every member of parliament—Senator and lower house representative—in this place will have received a letter from the Captain Paul Watson Foundation asking them to sign on and send this letter to the Danish Prime Minister. In the European Union parliament, over 60 parliamentarians have signed such a letter, once again calling on the Danish government to release Paul Watson. Paul Watson is being held in jail because of his activism to protect whales in the Southern Ocean whale sanctuary at a time when the Australian government has also been fighting to save these whales through a number of international forums and has successfully prosecuted a case against the Japanese government through the International Court of Justice which found that the Japanese whaling that Paul Watson and his followers were trying to stop was illegal. That is why the Japanese government are going after Captain Paul Watson. It also hasn't escaped my attention that right now in the Faroe Islands, which are essentially sanctioned by Norway, over 150 Atlantic white-sided dolphins have been slaughtered in the last couple of days. It's no coincidence also that he has been detained in a jail while this kind of barbarity is occurring, essentially under the watch of the Danish government. I call on the Danish government to release Captain Paul Watson and stand up for our oceans. Queensland: Cost of Living 36 13:47 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Queensland families are struggling in Labor's cost-of-living crisis. The Queensland Council of Social Service said today that 94 per cent of the state is worried about the cost of living. It said the average Queensland family is over budget by $116 a week. This is actually an improvement on last year's figures, thanks to Queensland taxpayers forking out $1,000 energy rebates and sustaining 50-cent public transport fares. However, these transparent vote-buying stunts will not last after the state election in October, and Queensland families will face even further hardship. It's in this space that Premier Steven Miles is actually considering a taxpayer funded bailout of a multibillion-dollar casino operator. Star casino's $3.6 billion Queen's Wharf development is clearly more important to the Premier than the tents of homeless Queenslanders going up on the nearby riverbank. It appears to be more important than all the reports of shocking mismanagement of Star Entertainment. We have hundreds of businesses in the city of Brisbane struggling with reduced revenue thanks to Labor's cost-of-living crisis. They have incurred massive payroll tax hikes and are being forced to compete with businesses at Queen's Wharf. Unlike what Premier Miles has proposed for Star Entertainment, they will not have the ability to defer payroll tax. I can think of better things on which to spend Queensland's money, like the Bruce Highway, urgently needed resources for struggling regional health services or better solutions to out-of-control crime. This deal, proposed just before Queensland enters caretaker mode, stinks to high heaven. One Nation will never support it, and, if we win the balance of power in October, there will be no bailout of Star casino. Victoria: Infrastructure 36 13:49 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I was delighted to recently join our wonderful hard-working candidate for Corangamite, Darcy Dunstan, to tour two major projects in the Geelong region: the Waurn Ponds rail upgrade and the Barwon Heads Road duplication. These projects represent an investment of more than a $1 billion by the former coalition government—$750 million for the rail upgrade and $292 million for Barwon Heads Road. This is in stark contrast to the Albanese government's failure to fund one new project for our region over three successive budgets, which is an absolute disgrace. Since being elected more than two years ago, the Albanese government has axed $2 billion of federal funding from Geelong fast rail and cut billions from the Land 400 and howitzer Defence projects based at Avalon. Local federal Labor MPs have completely failed our region, presiding over the most savage funding cuts in our history. They even failed to stand up to dramatic cuts to local maternity services. Victoria is running out of gas, and we've not heard a word about the most nonsensical gas ban announced by the state Labor government on new properties or the indecision over the gas import terminal proposed by Viva Energy. In contrast to the massive investment delivered by the former coalition government, Labor has turned its back on our region and right across regional Victoria. Darcy Dunstan is a former tradie, SAS soldier, business owner and dad. He fought for our country, and now he wants to fight for Corangamite. He wants to help get Corangamite back on track and to help get our nation back on track. Domestic and Family Violence 36 13:51 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania Violence is everywhere, but it shouldn't be something we accept. It shouldn't be something that is spoken about secretly, because those secrets allow violent cultures to stay alive. Last week, I spent time with a beautiful group of women in Hobart who are part of the Be Hers mentoring program. Be Hers started to do something about human trafficking, and, when I spoke with these women, I heard horrible stories about violence against them and their children. It made me so angry and sad. This is not the life they deserve. On Friday, the Prime Minister announced a $4.7 billion funding package for the states and territories to fight domestic and family violence. This money will be used for more frontline workers, to help community legal services support victims-survivors and to develop better systems to identify and respond to high-risk perpetrators. Money and big announcements are not enough to fix this problem. We need to have a plan of attack so these policies are implemented, and then we need to check that these policies are working. That means action to help the victims of gender based violence to leave situations where their lives are in danger—funding of tangible services like community legal services and legal aid to support people fleeing violence to set up a new place or not to lose their home if their relationship breaks down and action to help those committing this violence too. The culture and behaviour around domestic and family violence has to change. Most of all, we need to keep this conversation going. Everyone has to take responsibility for fixing this crisis. When there is behavioural and cultural change and when people escaping violence can access the support they need when they need it, we will know we are making headway. Let's make this happen sooner rather than later. We owe it to victims-survivors to make this a priority. Schools 37 13:53 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland We're hurtling towards a two-tiered school system in this country with Labor's new funding scheme a reverse Robin Hood, which is still bleeding public schools dry to give to wealthy private schools. Last week, analysis showed that over 50 per cent of private schools are getting more government money than comparable public schools. Even when you hold a private school and a public school which are as similar in their demographics as possible next to each other, the current system still tilts the scales in favour of the private system. Every single school parent and carer can see that this is a deeply broken and inequitable system. Every day this year the federal government will give $51 million to private schools. Cranbrook School, known for its $125 million redevelopment, including an aquatics centre, received $4.5 million in Commonwealth government funding in 2022. It also raked in $62 million in fees from parents. That is a joke, and the only people laughing are rich private schools. Honestly, who can look a public school parent or carer in the eye and say that is a fair system? This Labor government is making a choice. It is choosing to further entrench a two-tiered system. This is a system where its public schools and public school teachers educate the vast majority of young people who experience educational disadvantage, and yet they continue to struggle on inadequate funding. It's broken, it's unequal and it has to change. Central Land Council 37 13:55 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory ():  Today in the gallery we are joined by three very brave, admirable women, Veronica and Margaret Lynch and Sabella Turner. Not only are they respected elders within the Arrernte community, but they are traditional owners whose interests are supposed to be represented and protected by the Central Land Council. We're also joined in the gallery today by the chair of the Central Land Council, Matthew Palmer. These four are here because they have seen the dysfunction that presently exists within the ranks of the Central Land Council. They are here because, for too long, they have lived the reality of a system that was set up with good intentions but, in reality, is not transparent, lacks accountability and lacks meaningful appeal processes. They are here because they've experienced the disconnect between the letter of the law and its application in real world, its application to their lives. They are here because they are now at breaking point. These are four brave individuals. They are here because of this dysfunction. They haven't sat around and complained about it. No; they've decided to take the matter into their hands, to be heard right here in the halls of parliament and for the government to listen to them and for my colleagues—all of you—to hear from them about the need for an inquiry into land councils. These four are here because they dare to believe that things can be different, that they can be better, both for the land council and its members, who are some of our most marginalised Indigenous Australians. We talked about a voice recently. Well it's time to have some ears in this place listen to the traditional owners, the people of this land. Domestic and Family Violence 37 13:57 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland ():  Last Friday, the Labor Albanese government announced a $4.4 billion commitment to new funding to address gender based violence and investment in frontline services and initiatives to prevent violence. Ending violence against women and children has been a priority for the Albanese government. Since coming to government we have already invested $3.4 billion in initiatives to support the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children. This funding comes through partnerships with the National Cabinet, who will provide an $800 million increase of funding over five years to the legal sector. This funding will uplift legal services who are on the front lines of responding to gender based violence, a job that is supporting the most vulnerable in our communities and is saving and changing lives. We know that under the former government there was a funding cliff from 30 June 2025. This commitment from our government, which we are proud to deliver, is a commitment to end family, domestic and sexual violence within a generation. This announcement also includes $80 million to boost enhanced child-centric trauma informed supports for children and young people. This funding will have specific focus on First Nations children, young people and will prioritise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community controlled organisations. I am so proud to be part of a Labor government which has delivered this fundamental change in the way we deal with domestic violence in this country. This is the type of thing that Labor governments do. And it is with this announcement of $44 billion that we take the next step in ending family violence in this country forever. I am so proud, as I said, to be a part of this government. This is what Labor governments are able to achieve when we work together. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Green. There's 20 seconds on offer. Albanese Government 38 13:59 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Madam President, I thought I'd give you an update on the achievements of the Albanese Labor government. It's an update. In the last 12 months, what has this government done? Nothing. The cost of living has gone up, the borders are open— The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator McGrath. We'll now move to question time. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 38 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 38 14:00 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Households are facing higher interest rates for longer because Labor has failed to tackle homegrown inflation. Last week the Treasurer blamed the RBA for 'smashing the economy'. Why is the Treasurer obsessed with fighting everything and everyone except inflation? 14:00 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory There were so many factual things wrong in that question; I don't really know how to approach it. On day one we inherited an inflation challenge with a six in front of it. Remember that? The highest quarterly growth in inflation was under the last quarter of your government. But I am proud to work with a Treasurer whose 100-per-cent focus has been on making the right economic decisions for the Australian people from day one. As the national accounts show, the decisions that we took and have taken over the last two years to get the budget in better shape, to deliver two surpluses—something that those opposite were unable to do in a decade—to find savings, to lower the Commonwealth's debt, to lower the interest on that debt, to provide cost-of-living relief where we can without adding to the inflation challenge, and to put in place investments that support future economic growth have been the right ones for this economy, and that was clearly shown in the national accounts. Those opposite have already announced $315 billion in cuts that they would like to make to public spending. If those opposite were in power, based on the decisions that they've made clear to the Australian people, this economy would be in recession. Now, they might want that for political purposes, but we have taken the right decisions for the right time. Our economy continues to grow. That growth is weak. We are supporting that growth with appropriate investments across the economy, and we will continue to do so. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, first supplementary? 14:02 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Last week, the former Treasurer, the Treasurer's former boss and the Labor Party national president, Wayne Swan, told the Today show that he was 'very disappointed' in the Reserve Bank and that it was 'punching itself in the face'. Do you agree with this assessment, Minister, and does the Treasurer think that this kind of language is an appropriate way to speak about the independent body, the Reserve Bank, and has the Secretary to the Treasury raised this language with the Treasurer? 14:03 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory There was a lot in that too. I use my own language when I describe the economy and some of the challenge that we're seeing in the economy. I used my own language and, indeed, I have used very similar language to that which the Treasurer used. Obviously, those opposite have been asleep, because it's like they first heard this last week when it appeared on the front page of a daily paper. I used my own language. It is no secret that growth is weak because interest rates have been lifted. That is the effect. That is factual. That is a point of fact. We have similar objectives to the Reserve Bank. We have different jobs to do but a similar objective: getting inflation back. But our job is also to support households during this time, which is why we've got our cost-of-living relief, which those opposite have opposed. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hume, second supplementary? 14:04 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria Minister, why does the Labor Party think it's acceptable to blame-shift onto the independent RBA in this way, when all they're doing is clearing up after your economic mess? Is this kind of aggressive language really appropriate for senior representatives of Labor? 14:04 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I don't believe the Reserve Bank puts it in the way that you have just put it there. In fact, the Reserve Bank has acknowledged that the decisions that we are taking, such as delivering a surplus, are actually helpful at this time. Two surpluses delivered, savings found, lower debt, making appropriate cost-of-living investments where we need to—we work hand in hand with the Reserve Bank. They have their job to do. But it is no secret that higher interest rates are having an effect on household consumption, and that's been reflected in the national accounts. For a treasurer or a finance minister to make that point of fact is not unusual. Inflation is moderating in welcome ways. Again, I remind those opposite who are so shocked about it now: you must have been absolutely terrified when it had a six in front of it under your watch. Economy 39 14:05 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Last week's national accounts confirmed what we know: that consumption is low and households are under pressure. It also confirmed that the Albanese Labor government's economic plan to fight inflation whilst providing cost-of-living relief is the right one for the times and is one which supports growth in the economy. Can the minister outline how our responsible and balanced approach is helping Australians doing it tough? What additional cost-of-living relief is rolling out in September to further assist households? 14:06 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Walsh for that question and for her assessment of the national accounts. The national accounts show the challenges facing the economy. They also support the Albanese government's balanced plan to fight inflation while helping those who are doing it tough. The accounts confirm the impact of global economic uncertainty, higher interest rates and persistent—but moderating—inflation on the Australian economy in the June quarter. The data shows Australians are continuing to limit their spending, with household spending under pressure. This clearly demonstrates that the approach we took in the budget was the right one in response to these difficult conditions. It gives us more confidence in the economic judgements we've made, but we're not complacent about the soft landing that we are working towards. Critical to that approach is the government's rolling out of more cost-of-living relief for Australians through September—as Senator Walsh outlined in her question—and providing more money to help pay the rent, more help for people on payments and cheaper medicines for more Australians. From September, the maximum rate of Commonwealth rent assistance will increase by a further 10 per cent. We're finalising the rollout of 60-day dispensing with additional medicines being made available, bringing the total to almost 300. We're extending the higher rate of JobSeeker to single recipients who have an assessed partial capacity to work less than 15 hours per week, delivering at least an additional $54.90 a fortnight. Payments are being indexed for people on JobSeeker, the age pension, the disability support pension, the carer payment and the parenting payment on top of the Commonwealth rent assistance increase. This is on top of new data that shows that Australians have saved more than half a billion dollars since the Albanese government introduced cheaper medicines. We know that there's more to do in the fight against inflation, and we acknowledge that. That's why we're rolling out more responsible cost-of-living relief from September, whilst at the same time turning big Liberal deficits into Labor surpluses— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walsh, first supplementary? 14:08 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria It's clear that the Albanese government's balanced and responsible approach to the budget is delivering support for Australians while ensuring the economy is resilient enough to weather the challenges we're facing. Can the minister outline the other ways this approach is benefiting Australians and supporting our economy, such as creating almost one million jobs, delivering the first surplus in 15 years—in fact, back-to-back surpluses—as well as record women's workforce participation and the fastest wage growth since 2009? (Time expired) 14:08 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Walsh for the supplementary question. Employment is up from 13½ million in May 2022 to 14½ million in July 2024. The participation rate is at a record high of 67.1 per cent, up from 66.3 per cent. The gender pay gap is down to a record low of 11½ per cent from 14.2 per cent. Full-time employment for women is up from 3.6 million to 3.9 million. Manufacturing jobs have risen from 834,600 to 905,700. Long-term unemployment has dropped. Industrial disputes have fallen sharply. Annual wage growth is up. Wholesale electricity prices have halved. Gas prices have dropped. Private business investment is up. Small businesses have grown. We've turned a $78 billion deficit into a $22.1 billion surplus and we've got another one to come. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Walsh, a second supplementary? 14:09 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria The Albanese government has delivered a range of supports, from cheaper medicines and energy bill relief to tax cuts for every Australian taxpayer. We know that these measures are directly helping Australians manage the cost-of-living challenge. Can the minister explain how the economy would have responded had these government supports and essential services not been in place? 14:10 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory While we're delivering relief to help with those costs of living, the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues are planning cuts to essential jobs and services. The opposition is planning huge cuts to housing during a housing shortage and won't come clean on hundreds of billions of dollars of secret cuts to come. In the third year of a three-year term, the coalition has no costed or credible economic policies—just a plan for savage and indiscriminate cuts. Cuts don't solve a housing shortage, they don't get power prices down and they don't strengthen Medicare. We think it's time for the opposition to come clear on what all those cuts will be and where they will come from. We know, based on the voting record of those opposite, that the coalition want higher power prices, higher grocery prices, higher housing prices, higher taxes, lower wages and, now, $315 billion in secret cuts. DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 40 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Federal National Council of the United Arab Emirates 40 14:11 The PRESIDENT 112096 I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the gallery of a delegation of senior officials from the Federal National Council of the United Arab Emirates, led by the Secretary General, His Excellency Dr Omar Alnuaimi, as part of a study visit program. On behalf of all senators, I wish you a warm welcome to Australia and, in particular, to the Senate. Honourable senators: Hear, hear! QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 40 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 40 14:11 Senator 245212 Queensland CANAVAN () (): My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Last week's national accounts showed that we are in an entrenched household recession, with productivity going backwards and only anaemic growth at best. To use the Treasurer's own words, who is responsible for 'smashing' the economy—the government or the RBA? 14:12 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The national accounts showed that growth across the Australian economy is slow—it's weak; it's soft—and we are facing similar economic challenges to those being experienced around the world. An opposition senator interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, I think it has been acknowledged by everyone other than those opposite that there are significant global challenges that have presented across the world. In fact, many of the OECD countries have seen at least a negative quarter of growth. Australia has been fortunate in that we have not seen that, but we acknowledge that the impact of those global pressures—the challenges, the price pressures and higher interest rates—are having an effect on growth in our economy. The government take responsibility for an economic plan that is focused on ensuring that inflation continues to moderate but where we are helping households out while they're doing it tough. That's why our cost-of-living approach and our budget management approach, where we've found savings and delivered surpluses, all help in the inflation challenge. But we're not pretending that people aren't doing it tough, which is why we implemented all of those cost-of-living measures, many of which those opposite opposed. Whether it be energy bill rebates, whether it be the tax cuts that they wanted to fight an election over, whether it be our investments in early education and care or whether it be our housing agenda, they were all opposed by those opposite. These are the decisions we've taken, and I believe the national accounts showed that those decisions were made in the right interests of the economy, that we have managed to continue to grow, albeit slowly, and that the government's decisions have supported growth in the economy at an important time. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan, a first supplementary? 14:14 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland Minister, how much has the nation's productivity fallen under your government? 14:14 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I acknowledge Senator Canavan's interest in productivity. Presumably, he was really interested when they were in government and, over that decade, there was the worst productivity growth that had been seen in 40 years. Senator GALLAGHER ING Well, I'm just drawing your attention, Senator Birmingham, to the fact that you didn't really seem to care about productivity that much when you were in government,. But alright, accepting that you now do: that is why our housing investments are important. That's why our investments in skills are important. That's why our investments in renewable energy and the green transition are important. And that's why our investments in the care economy are important—all significant drivers of productivity in the economy. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Gallagher, please resume your seat. Senator Birmingham? Senator Birmingham H6X The minister has had 48 seconds, and she's got 12 seconds left on the clock, to answer— The PRESIDENT 112096 Is it a point of order? Senator Birmingham H6X the only question Senator Canavan asked, which is for the statistic. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, are you raising— Senator Birmingham H6X How much has productivity fallen under the Labor government? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Birmingham, you can't just stand up and launch into a very short statement. You need to let me know if it's a point of order. I'm assuming it was. I believe the minister is being relevant, and I will continue to listen carefully. Minister. Senator GALLAGHER ING It's a sore point for Senator Birmingham that they were in charge when Australia had the worst productivity outcomes in four decades and why they stood in front of any measure that we put in place to secure economic growth going forward. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Canavan, a second supplementary? 14:16 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland Despite the minister's protests, it is much, much worse now. I have the figure. Productivity growth has fallen by 6.3 per cent in just two years, and now our private sector is retreating. How does the government expect the economy to grow sustainably without productivity improving? Or is your economic plan simply a Ponzi scheme based on neverending growth in government spending and subsidies? 14:16 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I would hope, then, based on that question, that Senator Canavan will get in and support the measures that the government has put in place to improve productivity after inheriting the worst growth in productivity in four decades: providing more housing, boosting renewables, investing in skills, grabbing hold of the technology and opportunities that come with that, human capital—perhaps any of that. Does any of that interest you, Senator Canavan? Is there any of that that you might like to get behind? All of those are about securing the future growth of our economy and seizing the opportunities that come with it. Where do those opposite want to go? Back to the 1950s, I reckon—that's where they're going. We're looking forward, in all those areas. Senator Canavan, if there's one area in that long list I read out that you might like to support, we would welcome that. Family, Domestic and Sexual Violence 41 14:17 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Minister Wong. The funding announced after Friday's National Cabinet meeting for frontline family, domestic and sexual violence services is still only 78 per cent of the $1 billion each year that the women's safety sector needs in order to help everyone who asks. This underfunding will still leave one in four people at risk of being turned away when they reach out for help to flee violence. Nuclear submarines get $368 billion over a decade. Property investors get $159 billion over a decade. Fossil fuels get $11 billion each year. Why are one in four women being denied the support that full federal funding of frontline services could deliver? 14:18 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia We all want violence against women and children to stop, and certainly I can speak for the Labor government—and I hope everyone in this chamber—in saying that we won't be satisfied until it does. I would say to you, Senator, that this was an historic agreement between the federal government and all states and territories at National Cabinet—a new $4.7 billion package for gender based violence and for frontline legal services. There were a number of other facts in your assertion which are the Greens' constant refrain around tax measures. I don't accept the figures that you put. I know that's part of your political campaign, but I don't accept the figures. I would say that we have seen the Prime Minister, ably assisted by Minister Gallagher, Minister Rishworth, the Attorney-General and many others, put together a package that deals with the funding needs and the needs that have been identified by so many across the community for this National Cabinet. The focus is on action to support the critical work of frontline services, with a focus also on targeting perpetrators to stop violence from escalating; on breaking the cycle of violence, with a stronger focus on children and young people who have experienced violence; and on legal support associated with women's safety. This is on top of—and I would just make this point to the chamber—the already record funding that the Commonwealth has committed for women's safety. The government have been working on this since we were first elected. Friday's actions are another step to accelerate change, but they will not be our last. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters, first supplementary? 14:20 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland First Nations women are 33 times more likely to be hospitalised as a result of family, domestic and sexual violence, yet the only new money for First Nations women from Friday is through family violence prevention legal services. We need non-legal frontline services funded as well. Will the government commit to funding culturally safe First Nations community led wraparound services? 14:20 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia I thank the senator for raising this very important issue, and I have some information here which I will add to if I'm able to or if it's required. I understand that the National Cabinet committed to a significant funding boost to family violence prevention legal services to help them meet growing demand and assist more First Nations women and children. There is also a focus on First Nations children and young people in our $80 million boost to healing recovery services, and there is work underway in partnership with First Nations communities to develop the Standalone First Nations National Plan for family safety, which I know I have heard Senator Gallagher speak about here in this chamber previously. So I think all of us would share the priority that is explicit in your question about why more needs to be done in partnership with First Nations women to confront family violence in First Nations communities. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Waters, second supplementary? 14:22 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland The National Cabinet announcement also failed to address the need for action on alcohol and gambling. Gambling—the financial pressure it causes—can exacerbate the risk of family violence and violence against women and children. When will the government ban TV and online gambling ads? 14:22 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Obviously, we have over the last couple of years done a lot, under the guidance of Minister Rowland, to tackle gambling harm. We also recognise that the status quo regarding the saturation of gambling advertising is untenable. As Minister Rowland has previously said, she is undertaking consultations with stakeholders on a proposed approach. Meanwhile, in our work to date, we have delivered the most significant online wagering harm reduction initiatives in the past decade, including mandatory customer ID verification, banning the use of credit cards for online wagering and forcing online wagering companies to send monthly activity statements outlining wins and losses. We've introduced new evidence based taglines in wagering advertising; provided direct funding assistance for specialist financial counselling to support people affected by problem gambling; launched BetStop, the National Self-exclusion Register, for problem gamblers; and many more other— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! We've moved on. Cost of Living 42 14:23 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. After a decade of deliberate wage stagnation under the Liberals and Nationals—those opposite—Australian workers and households are feeling the strain of cost-of-living pressures. Since coming to government, the Albanese Labor government has introduced a raft of reforms designed to ease cost-of-living pressures for all Australians. I note some of these reforms have just recently started to come into effect for working Australians. Minister, how is the Albanese Labor government's workplace relations agenda supporting wages growth and creating secure full-time work for Australians to help ease the cost of living? 14:24 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Sheldon. As Senator Sheldon knows very well, our No. 1 focus in the Albanese government is easing the cost-of-living pressures for all Australians, and that's why our government is helping workers earn more and keep more of what they earn. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WATT 245759 Five seconds into the answer, and they're already whingeing about trying to help Australians with cost-of-living pressures. That tells you all you need to know about the opposition. Of course, we know that under the Albanese government every Australian taxpayer is getting a tax cut. Every Australian household is getting $300 in energy bill relief. Under Labor, there are more people in work. There are more women in work. More people are in full-time work, and, importantly, we're getting wages moving again. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WATT 245759 I know you don't like wages moving again; thank you for reminding everyone! We're also supporting measures to improve conditions at work. We're reducing the amount of unpaid work and burnout that workers are experiencing, through our right to disconnect, and we're ensuring a pathway to permanency for casual staff. We're seeing the highest number of employees covered by newly approved enterprise agreements in over a decade, leading to bigger pay rises and more productivity for employers. And we've backed and funded a pay rise for early educators and aged-care workers. That's because Labor governments fight for better wages and conditions. We fight for more secure jobs, and we fight for safer workplaces. One of the ways we've done that is by closing the loopholes that businesses have been exploiting at the cost of workers. As Senator Sheldon knows—I was with him, and Senator Sterle, in Sydney only a couple of weeks ago, where members of the Transport Workers Union filed an application to close some of the loopholes they've been experiencing. That means that food delivery workers, gig workers, couriers and truckies now have better conditions available to them because of our closing-loopholes legislation. We're seeing flight attendants, cabin crew and mine workers get pay rises from the Albanese government's same job, same pay legislation. We're getting wages moving again. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sheldon, first supplementary? 14:26 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales Given Mr Dutton and the coalition voted against the government's policies to protect Australian workers and get wages moving, how are the Albanese government's reforms helping Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn while relieving cost-of-living pressures, and why are these reforms so important? 14:26 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Hume, we'll get to you. You've been very helpful over the last couple of weeks! As you've heard me say before, our government is delivering on tax cuts for every taxpayer and a pay rise for 2.6 million low-paid Australians. Across the three annual wage review decisions, minimum wage earners are now getting an extra $143 per week. That's 2.6 million low-paid workers getting their third consecutive pay rise. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WATT 245759 I hear the opposition saying 'no'. They say no to low-paid workers getting a pay rise because they say no to everything. Now, compare that with those opposite, who have never once argued for a rise in the minimum wage. Of course, their deliberate design feature of their economic policy was low wages. It took the coalition their entire wasted decade in office to lift the minimum wage by as much as we have in our first term. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WATT 245759 I know you hate to hear it, but when you turn up at the Fair Work Commission, and you advocate for people to have a pay rise, it turns out that that can happen. That's helping them with the cost-of-living pressures they're experiencing. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sheldon, second supplementary? 14:27 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales I note that the Liberals and Nationals have repeatedly voted against the Albanese Labor government's legislation to protect workers and get wages moving while promising to take targeted repeals of these protections to the next election, to take them away. What are the key barriers to getting wages moving and delivering meaningful cost-of-living relief to all Australians? And what do Australian workers stand to lose if Mr Dutton is able to make his repeals? 14:28 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Let's compare the pair, shall we? Labor's laws have got wages moving again. They've increased bargaining. They've introduced the right to disconnect, rights for gig workers and new rights for casual workers. We're standing alongside Australians to deliver the better pay, more secure work and safe workplaces they deserve. Meanwhile, we've seen Mr Dutton, Mr Taylor, Senator Cash—sometimes Senator Birmingham, when he bothers—and other members of the coalition say that if they're elected to office they will scrap a whole range of these rights and more. They are on the record saying they will scrap the right to disconnect, they will scrap the rights for casuals and they will make more targeted repeals. If you want to understand why, just look at some of the comments from Senator Hume while we've been away. On the day we introduced the right to disconnect, Senator Hume was in the media saying: Adding more rights for workers for something that is just part of a normal working relationship is unreasonable. Senator Hume and the coalition think that more rights for workers are unreasonable. Well, we don't. (Time expired) Energy 44 14:29 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator McAllister. For every 100 megawatts of installed coal-fired power station capacity, the production of electricity average is around 95 to 98 megawatts. For every 100 megawatts of installed solar and wind generation capacity, though, the actual production of electricity average is just 23 megawatts, with wind itself being just 21. This means that to achieve design capacity, more than four times the installed rated capacity is required—almost five times for wind. Minister, is this included in Labor's transition costs? 14:30 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thanks very much for the question, Senator Roberts. In terms of costings, we take the advice of the experts. We've had this conversation more than once, in fact, in the context of estimates and in other forums. AEMO works through a range of scenarios and configurations for the National Electricity Market and makes an assessment of the optimal pathway to meet our energy requirements at the optimal cost. They do consider, of course, the capacity factors of the different options that are available to us. There's actually quite a lot of work to do. The truth is that we inherited a mess in the energy system. When we came in, the average wholesale energy price was $286 a megawatt hour— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister McAllister, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts? Senator Roberts 266524 Point of order on relevance: standing order 72(3)(c) says that answers shall be directly relevant to each question. Can we get on to whether or not Labor is aware— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, as I've reminded other senators in this place, make your point of order but don't follow it up with a statement. The minister is being directly relevant to the points of your question. Minister McAllister, please continue. Senator McALLISTER 121628 Thanks, President. As I was saying, we came to government with a lot of work to do because the previous government had 22 energy policies, all of which failed. None of them landed. During the period when they were in government, four gigawatts of dispatchable capacity left the system and only one came on. We actually need to take steps to sort that out, because the previous government was repeatedly warned by the market operator that a failure to deal with the impending closure of coal-fired power stations was going to cause a reliability problem. We have sought advice from the experts at the market operator to help us design the policy settings that will actually allow us to replace that exit in capacity. It's a lot more than anything that was ever delivered by the people opposite. The very great shame is that, for a person who I know seeks to represent people in Queensland, you show an odd lack of interest in the opportunities that come about as a consequence of making and facilitating these investments, which have the potential to bring jobs and new industry to the communities that you claim to care about. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 14:32 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland During morning and evening peak hours, for every 100 megawatts of installed solar and wind generation capacity, the actual production of electricity averages just 10 megawatts. This means that achieving design capacity requires 10 times the installed rated capacity. Minister, what impact does this massive additional cost have on solar and wind installation capital costs and on electricity prices? 14:33 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator, your question actually omits a really important part of the advice that we received from the market operator. The advice that we received—and it's based on very significant economic modelling and engagement with a whole range of market participants and experts in the energy system—is that the optimal configuration of technology for a future grid involves renewables, firmed by storage, including batteries, and supplemented by gas. That's the plan that has been recommended to us, and the policy settings that we've put in place are designed to allow investment in those kinds of technologies to be brought forward. As I indicated in my answer to your primary question, there is a problem because there was an extended period when the lack of certainty in the policy settings of the previous government meant that the necessary investment didn't take place, and we are taking steps to remedy that problem. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 14:34 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland A modern coal-fired power station is expected to last 60 years. Solar panels and wind turbines are expected to last 12 to 15 years—at most, 20. Over the 60-year life of a coal-fired power plant, the combination of wind and solar cobbled together to replace a single coal plant will need to be replaced four times. Minister, when will Labor release its system cost of the 2050 grid system? 14:35 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales As the senator would know if he'd examined the Integrated System Plan, it does include a costing for the capital costs associated with building the grid out to 2050. So the answer is: it is released and updated on a regular basis by way of the Integrated System Plan. That's the basis on which we establish our policies to deal with the transition that's underway in the electricity system. The truth is that it is underway, Senator Roberts. I know that that is a proposition you don't agree with, but in just two years we've seen a 25 per cent increase in our national grid in the cheapest and cleanest form of energy that there is, which is reliable renewables, and we've ticked off enough reliable renewables projects to power three million homes. Those things matter. Establishing a clear pathway for the electricity supply that's necessary to meet the needs of households and businesses is an absolute priority for this government and should be for every other government as well. McPhillamys Goldmine 45 14:36 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator McAllister. In relation to Minister Plibersek's Indigenous cultural heritage decision against the McPhillamys goldmine, she said on 28 August: … the tailings dam can't be built on the headwaters of a river. Once you destroy this river it is destroyed forever. If this is true then why did the minister and her department approve the project, on environmental grounds, in the EPBC Act assessment that was completed last year? 14:36 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thanks, Senator Duniam, for the question. I think that Minister Plibersek has made it clear repeatedly—in statements to the parliament, in statements publicly—that she acted on the evidence before her and followed the advice and recommendation of her department, consistent with the law. So I don't think it assists our understanding to take a single comment that is made in a media interview, because it overlooks the balance of information that Ms Plibersek has put into the public domain about how and why this decision was taken. The truth is that the decision protects around 400 hectares of a 2,500-hectare site—16 per cent of that site—and the company now has an opportunity to find a more appropriate site for the tailings dam, one that avoids cultural heritage impacts. If they do so, the mine can proceed, and the minister and I—everyone in the government—welcome the news that they are working with the New South Wales government to do exactly that. The department that Ms Plibersek administers stands ready, of course, to look at other options that the company proposes, to ensure that any assessment that might be required can happen quickly. Of course, that willingness, and the capacity to do so, reflects the investments that the government has made to improve on time approvals rates. Some projects recently were ticked off within nine weeks. So I think, Senator Duniam, the minister has made very clear that she's acted consistent with the law. She took advice from the department and she considered the evidence that was before her. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam, first supplementary? 14:38 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I'm not sure I agree with what was just said. But, on 1 September this year, reinforcing the findings of their extensive assessments of the area, the New South Wales EPA said, 'Environmental risks to receiving waters are minimal and can be effectively managed with standard practices and relevant licensing conditions.' When will this minister concede that her claim about destruction of the river was entirely false? 14:39 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator Duniam, your question doesn't really follow from the information I've already provided to you. The basis of the decision that Minister Plibersek made is— Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Please continue, Minister. Senator McALLISTER 121628 Minister Plibersek has been very clear about the basis upon which she made this decision. An application was put before her under the act for protection on the grounds of cultural heritage. As a consequence of that, she took evidence from a range of parties, she sought advice from her department and she made a decision to partially protect some of the site. The truth is that protecting cultural heritage and economic development aren't mutually exclusive, and they must not be. We can actually do both, and that was a proposition that only a few months ago the coalition agreed with. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam, second supplementary? 14:40 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania On 28 August, New South Wales Premier Chris Minns said that the state Independent Planning Commission's decision to allow the McPhillamys gold mine project to proceed was comprehensive and that it was also based, significantly, on the advice of the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council. He said: 'And under those circumstances, I think the correct judgment was made.' Given the environment minister has taken completely the opposite position, can she explain how the IPC, the Orange land council and the Premier of New South Wales, Labor's Chris Minns, have managed to get this so very wrong? 14:40 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I'm asked about comments made by the Premier of New South Wales. Really, it is up to the New South Wales government to explain their processes and the application of their laws to this particular project. Minister Plibersek's obligations are different to those of the New South Wales minister. She is responsible for applying federal law and to responding to applications that are made to her under federal law and, as I have previously explained to this chamber and to you, Senator Duniam, she takes that process very seriously. The minister's responsibility is to consider the evidence, to weigh it, to consider its relevance to the law and to make legally sound decisions, and that is the approach she has taken in this instance also. Child Care 46 14:42 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Minister Watt. Minister, early education is a fundamental right, yet across the country 700,000 people live in childcare deserts, according to research published by Victoria University. That is one in four people who has no access to early childhood education and care because of where they live. It's unacceptable that in a wealthy country like ours access to child care continues to be determined by your postcode. I've been hearing from parents and communities across Victoria whose kids are on multiple waiting lists and who are missing out on an early education because they can't secure child care. Minister, what concrete steps has the government taken to specifically address the issue of childcare deserts in Australia? 14:43 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Bilyk, for your interjection there. I know, Senator Bilyk, that you've probably got more experience working in the early childhood education and care sector than anyone in this chamber, so I thank you for that interjection. In answer to your question, Senator Hodgins-May, as I think I've pointed out before, the Albanese government is investing probably more than any government in Australia's history in early childhood education and care. I know it may not be enough for your satisfaction, and we know that, whatever Labor does, the Greens will always demand more. That's the business model of the Greens. We understand that. But it's an undeniable fact that the Albanese government has delivered a significant pay rise for early childhood education and care workers—a pay rise that was desperately deserved by those workers. We know that one of the key impediments to getting people to work in the sector or remain in sector has been low pay. I'm not sure about you, Senator, but, certainly, at the centres that I've been to over the last few weeks, since that pay rise was awarded, I've literally met early childhood education and care workers who are telling us that not only are they now intending to stay in the sector as a result of this pay rise but they're also being contacted by their friends who had left the sector because of the low pay and are seeking to come back. Having the workforce available is a key point in making sure that Australians can obtain the care that they seek for their children in the way that you're seeking. We're obviously doing a lot more than that, though, around reducing childcare fees and investing in the sector in a much broader range of ways than has ever been done before. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hodgins-May? Senator Hodgins-May 310860 I would just like to draw the minister's attention to the question, which is about childcare deserts rather than existing child care. The PRESIDENT 112096 The minister is addressing your question. Minister, please continue. Senator WATT 245759 I'd be surprised that you would be arguing that paying workers a fair wage is not part of the solution to childcare deserts. We know that there haven't been enough childcare and early childhood education and care services available, and that's what we're fixing. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hodgins-May, first supplementary? 14:45 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria Early education and care in Australia is a system in crisis. Rural, remote and regional towns in particular are suffering, where the acute lack of child care is hurting families, contributing to financial stress and impacting parents' mental health. It is clear that market forces alone will not create equal education outcomes or allow more women to participate in the workforce. Minister, will the government commit to providing supply-side subsidies for childcare providers to tackle childcare deserts? 14:45 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland We are doing that, particularly when it comes to regional Australia. The truth is that we did inherit a system that wasn't responding to the needs of regional and rural families when it comes to early childhood education and care. Through round 4 of the Community Child Care Fund we're providing around $80 million to over 430 early childhood education and care services supporting disadvantaged and vulnerable communities, including in regional and rural areas. Our reforms for cheaper child care are also making early learning cheaper for over one million families, including 265,000 families in regional Australia. Whether it be the funding that we're providing to centres through the Community Child Care Fund, paying workers in the sector the wage they deserve that makes it more attractive for them to stay in the sector, or providing greater fee relief for Australian families who need childcare services, we are doing everything we can, and we will keep investing to fix the problem. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hodgins-May, second supplementary? 14:47 Senator HODGINS-MAY 310860 Victoria A report out today by the Parenthood found that a staggering 86 per cent of regional, rural and remote parents who are struggling to access child care say it's causing them significant financial stress. Parents feel broken by the stress of searching and waiting for childcare spots. While their kids miss out on crucial early years education, they continue to miss out on much needed paid work. Minister, we are in a cost-of-living crisis. Why, then, won't Labor listen to parents and families and finally deliver on making child care free and universally accessible for all families? 14:47 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Unlike the Greens, the Labor Party is actually delivering the early childhood education care and services that so many families in regional and rural Australia are seeking. We're not just interested in coming in here and making complaints, grandstanding or jumping up on stage with the CFMEU, as we know the Greens like to do. What we're actually doing is delivering the services that Australian families need. We acknowledge that there's a long way to go because we did inherit a system that was fundamentally broken by the coalition, despite their claims to be the party representing rural and regional Australia. That's why we are now, through the Community Child Care Fund, investing more in services, delivering the pay rise that workers in the sector need, reducing the fees to be charged— Senator WATT 245759 Oh, it's the head of the Setka faction of the Greens over there, Senator Shoebridge, chipping in. We are doing what the Greens can only complain and grandstand about. We're actually getting it done. We're interested in results. (Time expired) Anindilyakwa Land Council 47 14:48 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia My question is for the Minister for Indigenous Australians, Senator McCarthy. On 29 August the minister released an independent report into the Anindilyakwa Land Council's progress towards addressing issues raised in a performance audit conducted by the Australian National Audit Office. Can the minister please explain what action has been taken to improve governance arrangements for the Anindilyakwa Land Council? 14:49 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Last year, the Australian National Audit Office, the ANAO, conducted a performance audit of the Anindilyakwa Land Council. This report is to be tabled in parliament. In late August I received the independent report on the Anindilyakwa Land Council's progress in addressing recommendations made by the ANAO. The report shows the ALC governance and operations remain deficient. Although the ALC's board have acknowledged these findings and remain committed to implementation, their lack of progress is unacceptable. In response to the independent review findings, I took several steps immediately after receiving the report. I wrote to the ALC board on 29 August to ensure the board and voters were aware of the review's findings ahead of ALC board elections, which took place on 3 September. I've taken the unusual decision to withhold approval for the ALC's 2024-25 budget. Instead, I have approved an operational budget until 1 December this year. The full budget will only be considered when ALC has demonstrated it is sufficiently prioritising and implementing the recommendations of the ANAO report. I have asked the NIAA integrity unit and the new ALC board to meet as soon as practicable after the election results are finalised to discuss the review and the board's role in implementing the ANAO recommendations. I've made sure that the full independent review report is available on the NIAA website to ensure transparency of the review, its findings and recommendations, particularly in the lead-up to the ALC elections. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pratt, first supplementary? 14:51 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Thank you, Minister, for your response to the issues raised in the independent report. I'm pleased to hear of the prompt action you've taken to ensure the Anindilyakwa Land Council is moving to implement the recommendations of the ANAO report and to improve governance and performance so it can best support the traditional owners it represents. In that context, please, Minister, can you share with us what is being done to strengthen governance arrangements for this and other land councils? Opposition senators: Time! The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator McKenzie and other senators, I'm in charge of the time, not you. Minister McCarthy. 14:51 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Thank you, President—good to see they're awake over there! I take land council governance very seriously, and, to those who are calling for an audit of land councils, I do remind the Senate that in the Northern Territory last year there wasn't just one audit; there were four— Senator Liddle 300644 Let native title holders speak! Senator McCARTHY 122087 four audits of land councils by the Australian National Audit Office. I'll pick up on that interjection. I'm more than happy to provide that briefing for you, Senator Liddle, as I did for the Greens and for Senator Pocock. But the Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, has referred that very matter to the Australian Law Reform Commission. So you are very welcome, Senator Liddle—very welcome—to attend that and be briefed on what the Australian Law Reform Commission is doing, and I'm more than happy to arrange that for you. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Pratt, second supplementary? 14:52 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia Thank you, Minister, for confirming the government's commitment to land councils operating with integrity. The integrity of land councils is critical to a well-functioning land rights and native title system. Can the minister please explain why land council governance is so important, and what you are doing to support it? 14:53 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I do appreciate the questions from Senator Pratt. We all know that, without good governance, land councils cannot deliver on their purpose, and there are areas where their governance can be improved, which is why I've told the Senate what has happened with the Anindilyakwa Land Council. However, we know exactly where these areas are because they are reviewed regularly. As I've said, we have four audits into the NT land councils, Senator Liddle, that are currently being implemented, which make specific recommendations for change— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Liddle, may I invite you to make a contribution at some other time, not during question time. Minister McCarthy, please continue. Senator McCARTHY 122087 I'll be interested to hear that contribution. For the benefit of Senator Liddle in particular, you are more than welcome to receive the briefing on the native title work that's being done by the Australian Law Reform Commission with the Attorney-General and also on the audits that are being done of the land councils. Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union 48 14:54 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia My question is to Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. CFMEU national secretary Zach Smith, whom the Albanese government refused to sack from the CFMEU, despite overseeing an appalling culture of law-breaking, recently said in a letter to CFMEU members: 'Politicians who have never stepped onto a construction site have overwhelmingly stripped away our union's democracy. You are right to be angry about what has happened. I'm angry about what has happened. I will continue to lead this union, serve the members and put your best interests forward. I will not be silent.' Minister, who is actually running the CFMEU at the moment? Is it the administrator, Mark Irving, is it John Setka, who keeps on turning up on government building sites to address CFMEU members, or is it Mr Smith, who has emphatically and publicly told members that he is still in charge? 14:55 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The short answer is that the administrator is running the union. Senator Cash I0M Really? Are you sure? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, you've asked your question. Senator WONG 00AOU What I would say to you, Senator Cash—and I note how much you wish to yell about this. I note you have always wanted to yell about it, and you've actually done so little, ever— Senator Cash I0M He's turning up on construction sites. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash! Senator WONG 00AOU to actually improve governance inside the union. Can I remind senators why it is that this government took the strongest action that was available to us in relation to the CFMEU. Senator Cash I0M Because you did nothing. You fought us every step of the way. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator WONG 00AOU It's because we believe that trade unionism matters to Australians. It matters to workers. Senator Cash I0M Hand the money back. Senator WONG 00AOU We do not believe that corruption— Senator McGrath 217241 Hand the money back. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order on my left! Senator WONG 00AOU violence and thuggery belong in the trade union movement. That is why we have done this. We have done this despite your opposition— Senator Cash I0M We supported the ABCC. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash! Senator WONG 00AOU and we have done it despite those at the other end of the chamber—the Greens, who call themselves progressive and who have aligned themselves with corruption, thuggery and violence in the trade union movement. We on this side understand the importance of the trade union movement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Cash, I have called your name at least six times. You are being incredibly disrespectful towards me—Senator McGrath, equally. You are required to listen in silence. You have asked your question. The minister is responding. Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU You did nothing for 10 years. We put them into administration. Let's be clear. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator Brockman 30484 We know you ran a protection racket. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, I'm just wondering when you and the rest of the senators on my left are going to come to order. I called you to order, and the minute the minister got back up on her feet there was disorder. You are being disrespectful to the orders that I require you to adhere to. Minister Wong. Senator WONG 00AOU I would remind Senator Cash and those opposite that the administrator has the power to terminate or suspend officials inside the CFMEU. I know that doesn't suit Senator Cash's political objective, but the administrator has the power to terminate or suspend officials of the union. That is the answer to your question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator WONG 00AOU I know, Senator Cash, that it doesn't suit your political agenda for me to continue to assert that fact—for that fact to be true. The administrator has the power and the administrator is running the union. What I would say to Senator Cash again— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, before I call you for your first supplementary, I have asked and asked for you to come to order and you've completely ignored me. I know you're on your feet, Senator Polley, but I have the floor at the moment. Please sit down. I will come to you. Senator Cash, I am asking you, once you've asked your question, to sit and listen in respectful silence. Senator Polley. Senator Polley e5x On a point of order, I would like Senator Brockman to withdraw the slur that he made during the last little tete-a-tete that they were having. I ask you to ask him to withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Brockman. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! You may not have noticed, but Senator Brockman was on his feet. Senator Brockman, I didn't hear it, so— Senator Brockman 30484 I'm not sure what they're concerned about either, but I'm happy to withdraw. The PRESIDENT 112096 Thank you, Senator Brockman. Senator Cash, I am going to ask you to ask your first supplementary and then I'm going to ask you to listen in silence. 14:59 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia How is the CFMEU's administrator supposed to do his job, given that Mr Smith is telling his members that he's still in charge? Will you, Minister, take the opportunity on behalf of the Albanese Labor government to condemn Mr Zach Smith for undermining the administrator? The PRESIDENT 112096 I'm waiting for silence before I call Minister Wong. 15:00 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia The administrator is in charge, and the only person who is giving a platform for some of the comments is Senator Cash. I would make this point: Senator Cash in the primary was dealing a lot about Mr Setka. I would remind Senator Cash that it was under her and the government she was a part of that Mr Setka's power grew—that the corruption and the thuggery and the violence grew under the coalition, whilst the ABCC was in place and also while Senator Cash was the relevant minister. So we have taken stronger action than you were ever able or willing to take, and you know why we have done it? It was not as you wished to do, which was to seek to break the trade union movement, but because we want a trade union movement that is stronger and grounded in the values of the Labor movement, and corruption and violence are not grounded in the values of the trade union movement. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Cash, second supplementary? 15:01 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia Minister, Mr Smith also told CFMEU members in his public letter—and I quote: 'As long as you stick by tough, militant trade unionism, this is not the end of our union. As always, the CFMEU is here to stay.' Isn't it clear that numerous CFMEU officials like Mr Smith are not committed to changing the CFMEU's appalling culture? What action is the government going to take against Mr Smith? 15:01 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Again I remind Senator Cash that the only person giving a platform to the comments that she is quoting is Senator Cash. I would remind Senator Cash that the administrator is in charge. Senator Cash I0M You're turning a blind eye! Senator WONG 00AOU I know she might not like that, but the administrator is in charge— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Minister Wong, please resume your seat. Minister Wong, please continue. Senator WONG 00AOU The administrator is in charge, and the administrator has the power to terminate or suspend union officials and to date has terminated or suspended nearly 20 officials. Senator Watt 245759 There you go! Senator WONG 00AOU So that is a far more stringent set of actions that are taken under the administrator and that have been put in place by this government than have ever occurred, despite all of the protestations that those opposite—in particular Senator Cash, with police raids and other things—were involved in. What I would say to you, Senator Cash, is: you should back the administrator. We back the administrator, and we do so for the principled reasons we have outlined. President, I ask that further questions be placed on notice. MOTIONS 50 MOTIONS Cost of Living 50 15:03 Senator FAWCETT DYU South Australia I rise to take note of answers to questions asked by coalition senators. What has become increasingly apparent is a marked difference between the rhetoric and the ideology of those opposite and the reality faced by the Australian people. We saw today answers from ministers saying they take the advice of experts. And yet we see in a subsequent answer by the same minister a defence of decisions by this government where the advice of experts was actually ignored. We see the rhetoric about what this government is seeking to achieve in terms of cost-of-living relief, investment in the economy and things made in Australia, but the lived reality for people in Australia is different. It's fascinating to highlight that, despite the rhetoric of those [inaudible], the reality is that the national accounts figures have revealed the slowest GDP growth since the 1990s outside the period of the pandemic, the sixth quarter of negative GDP per person growth and the longest per-capita recession in 50 years. That's 18 months of a household recession under this government. I do seem to recall a slogan during the last election saying, 'It won't be easy under Mr Albanese,' and that has certainly proven to be the case with living standards—that being the real disposable income per capita—falling by 8.7 per cent. I notice an article in the Australian Financial Review that highlights that Australia stands in stark contrast to most other comparable nations around the world. Productivity has collapsed by 6.3 per cent, household savings are down by 10.2 percentage points, personal income taxes are 25.3 per cent higher and interest paid on mortgages has almost tripled. Gas is up by 33 per cent. Electricity, nationally, is up by 14 per cent and by even more in my home state of South Australia, where—I'll just remind the Senate—despite all the rhetoric about the transition to variable renewables being the pathway for the future, South Australians are paying 45 cents per kilowatt hour, which is by a long stretch the most expensive power in Australia and amongst the most expensive electricity in the world. Rents are up 16 per cent, health is up 11 per cent, education costs are up 11 per cent, food is up by 12 per cent and financial and insurance products are up by 17 per cent. These have impacts on people in the real world. Despite the ideology and the rhetoric from those opposite, when I've visit the operator of a small caravan park in South Australia, she tells me about the fact that those rising insurance and electricity costs are making her business marginal in terms of the ability to continue trading and providing a service for people who choose to travel through or holiday in that part of regional South Australia. The rhetoric we heard here today was from a government that says it listens to the experts. But we also had evidence here today that that is clearly not the case. If we are concerned about growth and economic opportunities and work and income for families, then you would think that we would be listening to the experts when approving investments in things like mines here in Australia. We heard today and we've seen in the press the fact that the experts in the case of McPhillamys mine in New South Wales—the state EPA—highlighted that the waters from the tailing dam would not affect the rivers and normal processes would look after that. We saw the fact that the local Indigenous body highlighted there were no issues from a cultural perspective to stop this project. Yet the minister concerned blocked the development of this mine by one action. It was a decision around the tailing dams which didn't come from the experts but came from a group of people who didn't even reveal their last names, in terms of the registration of the organisation, over facts which they said they couldn't disclose publicly because, essentially, they are secret business. This is not a government where the reality that affects Australia matches their reality. 15:08 Senator BILYK HZB Tasmania I still find it—I would use the word 'gob-smacking' I suppose, because I can't think of anything else at the moment, that the opposition would come into this place without any hint of irony and complain about the cost of living. Let me remind people when the current wave of inflation started. In recent years, the peak of quarterly inflation was reached in March 2022 when those opposite were still in government. They created this crisis through almost a decade of wasted opportunities and inaction in government, and now they've got the gall to come in here and demand that we fix everything—before we were even in government, probably. They would be happy if we had done it then. Our responsible economic management has helped to fight inflation, and it has kept Australia out of recession. Without our government spending on essential health services and our cost-of-living relief, Australia's economy would not have grown at all in the last quarter. Our economic plan is all about fighting inflation without smashing the economy. That is the responsible way. And we're helping people who are feeling under pressure. We understand that people are feeling under pressure. The national accounts confirm that the economy barely grew last quarter, reflecting global uncertainty, higher interest rates and persistent inflation. Those opposite are in denial about that. They're in denial about the fact that there's global uncertainty. There are significant global challenges, and Australia is not immune to these. Many OECD countries have seen at least a negative quarter of growth. The Albanese Labor government has a responsible economic plan focused on ensuring that inflation continues to moderate. But those opposite oppose things that we try to put in place to improve life for everybody. They opposed our energy bill rebates. They oppose our housing agenda. The one that really galls me is that they oppose wage increases. In particular, they opposed the early education and care 15 per cent wage increase. Can you believe that? As Minister Watt mentioned earlier, I was an early childhood educator. I did that job for close on 12 years. I know the work that early childhood educators put in. But I also know they're treated like rubbish, and not necessarily by their bosses but by the community, who often think they're just there child minding. Well, let me tell you, if you'd ever worked in the area you would realise the effort that goes into minding your child. Every child is treated as an individual. Every early childhood education centre has to have program planning for every individual child. They have to make sure any special needs of that child are met. They have to make sure they meet all these criteria. I worked in a centre that was responsible not only to the local government area but also to the state government and to the federal government. I had to fulfil the responsibilities of three layers of government—hours spent on paperwork—to receive a pittance in return. It's not good enough. People used to say to me, 'My child's the most precious thing in my life.' Well, make sure the people who are looking after this precious person in your life are paid responsibly. Where else would you get people doing the job that early childhood educators do? There's a reason it's a predominantly female workforce. It's because they're the people who will actually do that work, whereas men will often demand higher wages. I'm not saying there are no men in the early childhood education area; don't get me wrong. And the ones who are there are brilliant. But it's so hard for early childhood educators to get a mortgage, to get a loan to buy a car. It shouldn't be. These people are looking after people's kids. As I said, everyone says how much they love their kids. The parents demand a really high standard of care. Of course these people should get a wage increase. But what happens? Those on the other side don't want it to happen. Nearly 40 years ago I was one of the people who started the call for— (Time expired) 15:13 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland Senator Bilyk has just highlighted something I wanted to touch on, and that is the problem of wishful thinking. I completely recognise the hard work our childcare workers and those in the industry do. It's a very tough job and a very important job, as Senator Bilyk said. The problem is, we'd all like to give people a pay rise, we'd all like to see people's wages go up, but if we just increase wages without combining it with increased productivity and better outcomes for our economy we get one thing. We get a certain thing when we push wage rises without corresponding productivity improvements, and that one thing is called inflation, and that's what everybody is afflicted with right now. So, you give these wage increases, but not very long after that it's all eaten up in the fact that that childcare worker with the higher wage suddenly faces a 30 per cent increase in their grocery bills, suddenly faces thousands of dollars more on his or her mortgage repayments. So it's great to have wishful thinking, but it would be better for everybody if we could focus on what really can improve the lives of Australians, and it takes hard work. It cannot just be handouts. That's not a sustainable way of building a strong economy. That goes to the heart of my question today to Minister Gallagher. I mentioned that the government's economic agenda, as Senator Bilyk just outlined, seems to be based just on handouts and on more and more government spending and subsidies, and not on actually improving the underlying performance of our economy, which is the only sustainable way to deliver real increases in the standard of living of Australians over time. The finance minister could not answer my very simple question about how much productivity has fallen under her government. She didn't have the answer to that. I hope that was more because she was embarrassed about the answer than that she didn't know it, but I have the answer here. The figures came out just last week. The national accounts showed that, on the basis of GDP per hour worked—basically, all the economic output we make divided by how many hours people work; it's a measure of productivity—that figure has fallen 6.3 per cent in just two years. As I say, the finance minister didn't know, apparently, the productivity performance of her own government. She seemed to know a lot about the productivity performance of the previous coalition government. She was saying that that was poor and that it wasn't very high. That's all she wanted to focus on. She didn't have the exact numbers. I've actually compared them and, yes, our productivity performance has been somewhat slow for a decade or so, but, in the 8½ years that the coalition government were in power, on an annual basis, that GDP per hour figure grew at an annual rate of 1.3 per cent. That is relatively low compared to other periods in our history, but it still grew, and it grew at a reasonable rate—1.3 per cent—helping to support wage increases without a breakout of inflation in that 8½ years. As I mentioned, during the two years we've been under this government, productivity has actually declined. It has gone backwards. On an annualised basis, productivity has gone backwards by 2.9 per cent. Under the coalition, it went up by 1.3 per cent. Under this government, productivity has fallen by 2.9 per cent on an annual basis. That is why we're getting this inflation. When you look at it on an industry basis, you start to see the picture emerging of what is going on in our economy. I admit that these industry figures are only available for one year of this government. They will be out later this year for the first two years of this government. In the first year of this government, mining productivity fell by four per cent, and electricity, gas and water productivity fell by 7.2 per cent. So, when you get your energy bills, that's one of the reasons they're going up. We're spending more money—there are more subsidies going into wind and solar factories—and we're getting less or the same output, so productivity is reduced by seven per cent. That's why your bills have to go up. That's why you're paying more. Wholesale trade productivity, which would be dominated by our food and groceries trade, has fallen by 11 per cent. That's why you're paying more when you go to the check-out. I should have used the other figures. Under the coalition, that grew by 2.2 per cent on an annual basis. Going back to the energy situation, it was flatlining under the coalition but has fallen by seven per cent under the Labor Party. Real estate productivity has fallen by five per cent. Finance has fallen by 2½ per cent. Again, there were positive or neutral figures under the coalition but massive falls in the first year of this government, making housing and rent more expensive, making interest rates higher and making banks having to charge you more as well. This is why we're getting poorer at a record rate. During the first two years of this government, our standard of living and our real wages have gone back to levels that we haven't seen since 2011. They're not taking this seriously enough. They've got to get serious about it. They've got to stop blaming the RBA and start doing the hard work of lifting our nation's productivity and making our standard of living higher again. 15:18 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Coming back into the Senate chamber after two weeks, I would have expected there would be a lot more optimism from those opposite. I was thinking that they would come into this place with some policy ideas, yet all we have is the same negativity that we have heard since the last election. The government has been very, very upfront and clear—as Senator Gallagher has been today—about the state of our economy. But we're also quite clear about what the government has been doing to help people, whilst we go through a very turbulent time in the economy, in particular in terms of cost-of-living relief that the parliament has passed—no thanks to those opposite, but with the support of the government and the crossbench—to support the many millions of Australians who do rely on, and need the support of, the government of the day. We understand it has been and it continues to be a very difficult time for many Australians. But let's not forget that the government has, from day one, as part of its economic agenda, made sure that we have supported the most vulnerable people in our society. We also inherited an inflation figure that had a six in front of it. Since coming into office, we have lowered that. In fact, we've halved that; it now has a 3 in front of it. But we know there's a lot more work to be done, and that is why we are continuing to work, as a government, with many organisations, with many entities, including the RBA—although those opposite will have you believe that somehow we're 'against' and 'at war' with the RBA. What the government, and the Treasurer particularly, is trying to do is also reform government processes that, in some ways, need to be looked at every so often. We're trying to modernise the RBA for the 21st century. It's also important to put things into context. Senator Canavan and others made some remarks here in the Senate today and provided some figures, but it's also worth mentioning on the record that those opposite, when they were in government for 10 years, had the deliberate design feature of their economic policy, their economic plan, to keep the wages of Australians low. Not once did they ever put in a submission to the Fair Work Commission to support an increase to the minimum wage—not once. But we backed those increases, and guess what? The commission has now accepted the government's arguments and we've started to get wages moving again. We've also introduced a tax cut for 13.6 million Australians. Remember stage 3? Stage 3 meant that only a certain number of people were going to get a tax cut whereas now every single Australian is getting a tax cut, particularly those on low and middle incomes. This also complements the other measures the Albanese government has also managed to put in place through this parliament: cheaper child care; an increase in the Commonwealth rent assistance; electricity bill relief of $300 for every single household, and $325 for over one million small businesses. We've also managed to introduce fee-free TAFE, HECS bill relief and a freeze on many medicines on the PBS scheme. We're helping Australians every single day, and these are just some of the measures I wanted to highlight during this take note debate. It's no surprise that the current Treasurer and former treasurer Wayne Swan would say that mortgage increases are difficult for families because the simple fact is they are. No-one wants to see mortgages go up—no-one does. But what's also important to note is the national accounts have shown that it's the government spending that is keeping the economy growing. Without the government, we would be in recession right now. I don't know if that's something that those opposite actually understand or want. Do you want to be in recession? Is that the ultimate endgame for the coalition? The Treasurer only last week made this point very clear, and I quote: … without growth in government spending, there'd be no growth in our economy at all. … this justifies the way that we've managed the economy responsibly—fighting inflation as our primary concern but doing that without slashing and burning in a budget in an economy which is already weak … The government is committed to ensuring inflation continues to moderate, and we'll continue to help families where it matters most. Just touching on the RBA, with the 30 seconds I have left, I would make these points. The government cherish the independence of the RBA. It's why we are reforming the bank, to make sure it is as strong and as effective as it can be. Our reforms are all about making the bank stronger and more independent. The review recommended that overriding power will be removed to strengthen the independence of the bank. The power has never been used. In the interest of bipartisanship, I call on those opposite to back the government on our reforms. 15:24 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales Coming into this chamber for question time, it's like waking up in the year 2000, turning on Rage and listening to Shaggy and RikRok saying, 'It wasn't me.' Every excuse, every reason—that's what we get from this government in here. 'We're smashed by the RBA on the economy.' 'Home owners are being hammered with interest rates.' 'It was Putin's original invasion of Ukraine that put up energy prices.' 'We have world commodity prices coming down, causing these problems. Woe is us', says this government. All we hear is, 'It wasn't me. Look here! Look there! The last government left us in this position.' This is what we've all heard raked out today in the talking points. I'll tell you what: when you want someone at the wheel, managing the economy, you want someone that takes responsibility. When we hear the government say, 'We've got a choice between recession or inflation,' it's because those two are the only levers they've got. They don't have any imagination. They don't have any skills. They come in and talk about things they didn't vote for. Nothing's been blocked. They get together with their buddies in that corner, the Greens, and they've got everything through one way or another. Why didn't we vote for them? It's because they haven't worked, they didn't work or they wouldn't work, and the scoreboard shows it. If you're getting your policies through after 2½ years of government and your only two choices are recession and inflation, something is wrong. But we sit here, and we've had excuse after excuse. Everyone is to blame except the people with their hands on the controls, and that's not good enough. Individually they go, 'Here the child care is cheaper and this is cheaper and that's cheaper.' You'd think that you'd never had it better in Australia. But when you're a government that supports the whingers over the workers and thinks feelings are more important than facts and when you think words can do what actions need to do, this is where you end up: being a one-term government, potentially. They came in with such promise. It's like my school reports: 'Ross would do better if …' This government would do better if they actually took things seriously and stopped the hubris around how great they are, how wonderful the world is and how, if we had voted for something—even though it got through—the world would be better. I'll tell you something about helping people out, which we all want to do: it is easier to help out people when you are growing the pot that helps everyone, and the pot that helps everyone is the builders, the miners, the growers, the farmers, the helpers and the healers, not those that sit around and pontificate around getting more public employment, more and bigger unions and more and bigger service funds. We have to get to what's really going to help and get real workers on the ground doing the things they do. Question agreed to. Energy 54 15:27 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy (Senator McAllister) to a question without notice I asked today relating to the cost of the net zero wind and solar transition. With this so-called transition, both major parties are artificially increasing the cost of energy, pouring fuel on the inflation and cost-of-living crises. Labor and the Liberals planning to run the grid on net zero is trying to smash a square peg into a round hole. In question time I used simple, proven facts and figures to show these plans are ridiculous. It comes down to something called 'capacity factor'. That describes how much electricity we actually get from various types of power stations. A coal-fired power station runs at nearly a 95 per cent capacity factor or higher. That means, if we install a 100-megawatt coal-fired power station, on average, including downtime for maintenance, we get about 95 megawatts out of it over time. Wind and solar are far lower. Their average capacity factor is just 23 per cent. That means that to replace 100 megawatts of coal-fired power we need to build 400 megawatts of wind and solar. Even if we do this massive and costly overbuild, it's not guaranteed that wind and solar power will be available when we need it. At peak hours, morning and evening, when most people turn on devices and appliances, the capacity factor of wind and solar is just 10 per cent. We're up for 1,000 megawatts of wind and solar to replace each 100 megawatts of coal-fired power, plus the billions of dollars in batteries and the tens of thousands of kilometres of transmission lines. A coal-fired power station lasts 60 years—four times longer than wind and solar, which must be replaced after 15 years or so. That's another four times the expense for solar and wind, making it a total of 4,000 megawatts to replace each 100 megawatts of coal power—40 times more expensive. This supposed plan is not a plan; it's lunacy. It's costing trillions of dollars. This insanity and deceit are driving up the cost of living. Only One Nation will stop subsidising large-scale wind and solar to bring down power bills for all Australians. Question agreed to. Family, Domestic and Sexual Violence 55 15:29 Senator WATERS 192970 Queensland I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Prime Minister (Senator Wong) to a question without notice I asked today relating to funding for family, domestic and sexual violence services. I asked why the government is still underfunding family, domestic and sexual violence services, and what I received was a list of very welcome but inadequate and insufficient announcements that the government has made. People might realise that National Cabinet, last Friday, announced an amount of funds for family, domestic and sexual violence, but, unfortunately, that amount is still only 78 per cent of what the women's safety sector says it needs to meet demand—and that was on figures from about six years ago; I am convinced that demand will have increased since then, given the important awareness raising and the public discussion we've had around this issue. Seventy-eight per cent means one in four women may not get the funding and the support they need from frontline services when they reach out for help to flee violence. I asked the government, 'Why are you prohibiting women from getting the support they need when you can find money for nuclear submarines—$368 billion over a decade—and when you can find money for property investor subsidies, which is making the housing crisis worse—$159 billion over 10 years—and when you can find money for fossil fuel subsidies to the tune of $11 billion every single year, yet you can't find 100 per cent of what frontline services say they need to meet demand, to help everyone who reaches out when they're trying to flee violence to stay safe and to start a fresh life?' I didn't get a satisfactory answer, but what I conclude is that that is an indictment on this government's priorities. On top of the fact that 78 per cent is totally inadequate, money on paper is no guarantee that the services will actually get that money. Previous federal funding under the plan has disappeared into state government administration, with no transparency on where it ends up, and services say they are not getting it. We desperately need more transparency of funding under the national plan. On that note, it's not clear to me whether there has in fact been a reduction in funding under the national partnership agreement for the money under the national plan that goes to states and territories. Over the five years it's about $70.2 million per year, but existing funding is $79 million per year—so it looks to me like there's actually been a cut of $9 million over the next five years in money going to the states and territories to prevent violence against women and to fund frontline services. I'm going to pursue that in estimates because that would be a complete outrage if that is in fact what the figures suggest. It's extremely disappointing that National Cabinet kicked the can down the road on alcohol sales. We heard absolutely nothing about gambling advertising; it's been in the papers and in the press for weeks and weeks now, and we are still waiting to hear from the government whether they will do anything at all to ban gambling advertising. We know that gambling and the financial insecurity it causes can be a huge exacerbator of violence. The Albanese government is failing families until it bans gambling advertising. There are some other positive things in the National Cabinet announcement. But despite the headline on community legal centre funding, it looks like only a fraction of that will be new money that will go to new staff. It will be shared amongst four types of legal assistance providers over five years—so only a fraction will go to community legal centres, yet each week a thousand women are turned away from a legal service because those services don't get enough funding. You could not fund submarines, property investors or fossil fuel subsidies, and you could fully fund women's safety. Please do so. Question agreed to. NOTICES 55 NOTICES Presentation 55 BUSINESS 59 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 59 15:33 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That general business order of the day no. 56 (Ending Native Forest Logging Bill 2023) be considered on Wednesday, 11 September 2024 at the time for private senators' bills. Question agreed to. NOTICES 60 NOTICES Postponement 60 COMMITTEES 60 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 60 15:34 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 If there is no objection, the business is postponed. (Quorum formed) MATTERS OF URGENCY 60 MATTERS OF URGENCY Interest Rates 60 15:37 The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator McKim has submitted a proposal under standing order 75 today: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Government to stop letting the Reserve Bank of Australia smash the economy, renters and mortgage holders, and to instead use and retain its power to overrule monetary policy decisions of the Reserve Bank, and to directly tackle the causes of inflation by stopping price gouging, capping rent increases and making big corporations pay their fair share of tax. Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 15:38 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The need for the Government to stop letting the Reserve Bank of Australia smash the economy, renters and mortgage holders, and to instead use and retain its power to overrule monetary policy decisions of the Reserve Bank, and to directly tackle the causes of inflation by stopping price gouging, capping rent increases and making big corporations pay their fair share of tax. The fact is that millions of people who rent in Australia and millions of people who hold mortgages in Australia—in particular, young people and their families—are getting absolutely smashed at the moment because of the relentless Reserve Bank rate hikes and the failure of Labor to step in and offer meaningful assistance to control inflation and help people with cost-of-living pressures. Since Labor came to power, in 2022, rates have gone up by a staggering 31 per cent—that is, 31 per cent in the first two years of a Labor government. The average mortgage repayment has increased by an equally staggering $1,667 a month. People are getting smashed, and Labor are sitting on their hands. Last week the Governor of the Reserve Bank finally conceded that the RBA's rate hikes are pushing some people so close to the brink that they are facing the brutal reality of having to sell their homes, and she noted that low-income people and low-income families are particularly struggling. And of course the reason the Reserve Bank is having to step in and use the only tool it has in its toolkit, in the form of interest rates, is that Labor won't step in and stop corporate price gouging, which is driving inflation. It won't step in and cap rent increases, which are driving inflation. And it won't step in and put in place a corporate superprofits tax, which would disincentivise corporations from price gouging and the obscene profiteering that they are undertaking at the moment. Hiking rates penalises those who are least responsible for inflation and it actually helps the people who are most responsible for inflation—mostly older folks, mostly people with savings—who are increasing their spending at the moment, while people with debt, mostly younger people, are getting smashed for a problem they didn't cause. The RBA is driving this country closer and closer to a recession, and they're bringing the economy to its knees. The June quarter figures showed that the economy grew by just 1.5 per cent in the last year. Apart from the abnormal 2020-21 pandemic year, that is the worst result since the 1990s recession. If we take out population growth, GDP fell by 0.4 per cent in the June quarter. That is the sixth consecutive quarter of negative GDP per capita growth in Australia. We are in a per capita recession. It is no wonder people are hurting. Finally, people like Wayne Swan, Minister Gallagher and Minister Chalmers are conceding what the Greens have been saying for many months: that the RBA is smashing the economy. But what Labor won't tell you is that they've got the power to do something about it, to intervene and bring interest rates down. That's what Labor should be doing: intervening, overriding the RBA, bringing down interest rates and providing some relief to the millions of Australians who are getting smashed by food and grocery prices, by rent increases at a staggering rate and by staggering mortgage increases. Not only is Labor refusing to use that power; they are trying to get rid of it, because they want to take section 11 of the Reserve Bank Act out of the act and remove the power of a democratically elected government to override a bunch of unelected technocrats on the RBA board. And of course the reason Labor wants to get rid of this power is that they want to wipe their hands of any responsibility they have for the economic pain that people are facing and that that they are allowing the RBA to inflict on people. So, I say to Australians: if you're facing the imminent prospect of having to sell your home or you can't afford to pay your rent or your mortgage bills at the end of the month, know that Labor has the power to intervene and bring down interest rates and meaningfully help you with the cost-of-living crisis that you are experiencing, but Labor is choosing not to do that. 15:43 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland Well, clearly the country has a surplus of money at the moment. That's why we have inflation at levels we haven't seen for a generation. But it's been pretty clear from listening to the Senate for a couple of hours this afternoon that we also have a great surplus of wishful thinking in this place. I was in here earlier when Senator Bilyk was saying, 'Oh, we just need to pay people more money.' Senator McKim is now saying, 'All we need to do is lower interest rates and everything will be fine.' But there is in no way any logical or reasonable discussion of what would happen if we did what Senator McKim suggests. What would happen if we just said, 'Yep, let's intervene and drop the interest rate by'—I don't know: 25, 50 or 100 basis points? What is likely to happen? We already have inflation well above three per cent, the highest in the developed world. If we were to just go and cut interest rates, take the easy solution that Senator McKim suggests, that would certainly—it has to, by definition—put more money into the money supply to lower interest rates. That's how the Reserve Bank does it. They buy up bonds. They either print money or go into their vaults, take more money and chuck it into the economy. That will increase inflation, and no-one will be better off at the end of it. In fact, almost certainly we'll be worse off over time because inflation will get out of control, we may end up with a wage price spiral and we will be back to where we were in the 1970s. It will take years and decades and a lot of economic pain to fix up. So it's a very childish approach to these issues. I think Australians are desperate for some leadership from this place. They're sick and tired of this juvenile pointscoring from the likes of Senator McKim. They all know in their real lives that things are tough. They all know there's no easy answer when you're struggling to pay the bank or when you're worried about whether your credit card says 'insufficient funds' at the check-out. At least there's no-one there to see you these days. You've got no check-out person there to witness your embarrassment. But people are worried about that. They know there's no easy answer; they have to make tough choices in their own lives—to decide not to get a new car, not to go on a holiday or to cut back on other expenses. They make those decisions. Yet they look at this place and they look at their leaders, who are not willing to make any tough decisions at all. They're telling them these sweet nothings: 'You can have it all. We can cut interest rates and we can just get rid of price gouging, and everything will be fine.' Life is not like that, Senator McKim. These are very tough times for Australians, and to get out of tough times you have to make tough decisions. You have to make tough decisions about working out what the appropriate interest rate is. The really tough decision we have to make is about how we reform our economy to help business get going. The real result of inflation and the cost-of-living crisis we have right now is our terrible productivity growth. Senator Gallagher is back here. She was a bit embarrassed before to state the productivity figure under this government, which has fallen, as I said earlier, by 6.3 per cent in two years—an average decline on a compound annual growth rate of 2.9 per cent. Senator Gallagher was trying to claim to the Seante earlier that the growth under the coalition was much worse. Actually, I went and had a look at the figures, and growth was 1.3 per cent in GDP per hour worked on a compound annual growth basis during the coalition's term in office. So it's terrible. That's 1.3 per cent compared to -2.9 per cent. That is the reason people are struggling right now: our productivity has fallen through the floor. Nowhere in this motion—I only caught just over half of Senator McKim's speech—did I hear him mention the word 'productivity'. That's the key way to get out of this crisis. It's hard. It's not an easy answer for people to say. It means we probably have to work harder, work smarter and make tough choices about what we do about our energy situation and our housing situation. But that's the only answer to get out of this crisis. Senator McKim just completely ignores it. It is a juvenile response to this issue. The government at least says some things about it, but it's not willing to change course at all. Its answer—I asked this to Senator Gallagher earlier —to my question about getting productivity growing was, 'We need to invest more in solar and wind,' like these things are working. They've been complete and utter failures. Productivity in our energy sector has fallen by seven per cent under this government. That's a seven per cent fall in the productivity of our energy systems because of this mad rush to invest in types of energy that don't work. When the cost of energy goes up, the cost of doing everything goes up. So it's about time we had a hard look in the mirror as a country and realised that a lot of what we're doing right now is wasting our taxpayer resources that people worked so hard for. We just dole it out on a handout basis like candy. We're also making silly decisions on things like net zero emissions, thinking it won't come at a cost. It is, and everybody is facing that cost right now. 15:48 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria Despite the inevitable shouting from the Greens and the grandstanding and fearmongering from the coalition, our plan is actually working to put downward pressure on inflation. Inflation is moderating because of our government's plans, and that is just a fact. When we took office, inflation had a six in front of it. Now it has a three in front of it. The pain and the bite of high inflation is actually easing. The data shows us that it is tracking down. It is a fact. But we know that, while progress is being made, there is still a lot of work to do. We are rolling up our sleeves and we are doing just that. Importantly, there is real work to be done to make sure that the moderating inflation and the impacts of that are truly felt across Australian households, because we know that Australians are doing it tough. We know that they are feeling the pressure right now, and that is why our government is doing so much work to ease the cost-of-living pressures that people face. It's why our budget, our cost-of-living measures and our economic plan have all been needed, and they are working. Our targeted and careful spending is balancing the need to keep the economy ticking all while we are bringing inflation down and delivering responsible cost-of-living relief too. We've done the hard work, and we've found savings in the budget. We are being responsible. We are being restrained where it's needed, and we are doing that in a way where we are keeping the economy moving at the same time. We're generating hundreds of thousands of jobs in the economy, and we are getting wages moving. We are getting the wages of women moving and boosting women's workforce participation too. All of this is needed, and it is all a priority for us. It's work that we are getting on with. We are getting on with the job while others scream and fearmonger. We are actually delivering our economic plan and putting downward pressure on inflation. We've seen from the national accounts just why our plan is so important, because we know that the RBA's interest rate rises are putting real pressure on families and households. They are putting real pressure on business and the economy as well. We know that households are cutting back their spending. We know that without our careful, targeted cost-of-living investments the economy would have slowed even more, and that's exactly why we're delivering real cost-of-living relief to households that is bringing down inflation, like our energy bill rebates, cheaper child care, cheaper medicines, our investments in Medicare and significant increases to rent assistance. All of this cost-of-living relief is directly tackling the inflation challenge, and, of course, our tax cuts for 13 million taxpayers mean that workers are keeping more of what they earn—earning more and keeping more as well. Our tax cuts for every taxpaying Australian are easing cost-of-living pressures, and that's why we made those changes to the stage 3 tax cuts. We know that if those opposite were in power we could absolutely guarantee that things would be a lot worse. Not only would those opposite have failed to put downward pressure on inflation; they would have slammed the brakes on the economy, because they've opposed our cost-of-living measures when they had the option to support them. They have opposed measures that are actually directed at bringing down inflation. They basically came to this place and tried to vote for higher inflation. They have also told Australians that they'll cut the budget to the degree of around $300 billion and that they'll do that at a time when the economy is barely growing. At this challenging time, they want to slash, cut and burn the budget in a way that we know would hit the economy even harder. We will get on with the job of providing targeted cost-of-living relief to Australians that actually puts downward pressure on inflation. We will get on with providing the support that the economy needs to keep moving forward, and we will do that in a responsible way. We have banked two surpluses already in a way that the RBA governor said put downward pressure on inflation, and we will keep our responsible plans moving forward. 15:53 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Inflation is out of control across the Australian economy. It's disgraceful though for the Greens to leverage this human disaster to advance their green communist ideology. Advocating price controls is the economics of wishful thinking—a victory of feelings over facts, common sense, historical experience and basic economics. Price controls don't work. They have never worked and will never work, and they make things worse. The price of an item is not some magical creature with a life of its own that government can control. Price is an outcome of other factors—material costs, input costs and retailer margins, to name a few. In recent times, the Greens have talked about the lack of competition in retailing, especially in food retailing, but they have missed the point. The answer to poor competition is not price controls; it's more competition. It is Harris Farm Markets opening new concept stores that rival Coles and Woolworths. It's the Reject Shop, which increasingly undercuts Coles and Woolies by significant amounts. It's your local butcher or produce store, which now sell products cheaper than Coles and Woolies. To a degree, the Greens are using misdirection. They're asking Australians to look over here at profiteering instead of looking at the root cause of inflation, which is the increasing cost of business inputs, starting with the Greens' own net zero energy policies. Net zero fairytale power is pushing up power prices, and, if power goes up, everything goes up. Farmers need power to run their coolrooms, they need diesel to run their farm equipment and they need fertiliser, which is made from natural gas. Manufacturers and wholesalers need electricity, gas and diesel for every aspect of their operations, yet the Greens are over there on my left—on everyone's left, really—advocating for no new oil or gas projects. Scarcity causes the price to rise. Their own net zero policies are a major cause of inflation. Now the Greens want to fix that with price controls. Controlling the price causes producers, wholesalers and retailers to go broke as their input costs exceed their selling price. To stay in business, these companies will most likely stop selling anything they sell at a loss. This is exactly what happened in Venezuela and Sri Lanka, where price controls led to food shortages and black markets appearing for food staples. Criminal gangs moved into those black markets. I know Coles and Woolies are bad, but I would take them over criminal gangs. Sri Lanka is especially relevant here. Their food crisis was caused by forcing farmers to abandon the use of hydrocarbon fertilisers and pesticides in the name of net zero—inhuman. Farm productivity fell and prices rose, as farmers tried to make enough money to feed their families. The government intervened with price controls. The result was food shortages, starvation and then rioting that forced the government to back down and, once again, allow modern production techniques to feed the people. Another problem with price controls is that investment moves away from industries that are rendered unprofitable with price controls. Investment in buildings, equipment, software and staff training will fall in price-controlled industries. That is fact that has been proven repeatedly throughout history. This leaves long-term supply deficits that will keep prices higher for longer and hurt everyday citizens. Unlike the Greens' policies, One Nation's policies will solve the cost-of-living and housing crisis without making either problem worse. We will do the opposite of the Greens, which is always a good policy. We will reduce red, green and blue tape. We will reduce new arrivals until the market can fairly provide for those who are already here. In housing, we will prevent homes being owned by those outside of Australia and allow councils to impose penalty rates on vacant homes or on those being used for casual letting which conflicts with the zoning. We will review the federal government housing code, which imposes unnecessary requirements, including making every house wheelchair friendly despite there being no wheelchair users in the house. I understand that that adds about $40,000 to the price of every new house. We will allow Australians to use their super to invest in their own home. We will create a people's bank to provide mortgages at five per cent interest over 30 years on a five per cent deposit and allow a HECS debt to be rolled into the mortgage so that people can get a home loan. This policy means that an Australian with a good job, even if they have a HECS debt, will be able to afford their own home now and start paying it off. There are many, many ways to solve the humanitarian disaster that the policies of successive Liberal and Labor governments have created. Price controls and green policies on housing, immigration, the environment, mining and farming are the exact opposite. One Nation wants to free up the people and free up our markets. 15:58 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales Well, it's a pretty ordinary debate, really. We've got what passes for 'economic populism' from the Left, sort of—from the Greens political party—and a pale imitation of right-wing economic populism from Senator Roberts, and then you've got a whole chorus of nothing from the Liberal and National parties. That is what passes for, allegedly, an economic debate brought on by Senator McKim, and then I think we've got something later on from Senator Hughes. It's the same old nonsense. The truth is that inflation is a very significant challenge for this economy, just like it is for every economy around the world. The truth is that inflation, left unchecked, has a deeply unequal impact. It has its toughest impact on low-income households. Now, I don't want to spend a lot of time on Senator McKim's prescriptions for what should happen in the economy. At least he's honest enough to advance some. The key element of the Greens political party's approach—it's always economic populism; meme first, nothing later—is a rent cap, something that the Commonwealth government can't implement. It's constitutionally prohibited from implementing it, and if it was implemented, what it would lead to is less housing construction and poorer quality accommodation. It would be back to the slums of the 1930s. That's where Senator McKim wants to take Australians. Social media memes do not equal sensible economic policy that goes towards solving very real challenges, and leading people into a cul-de-sac, which is what the Greens political party does by talking absolute rubbish and pretending to people that there are simple solutions for very challenging problems is exactly the kind of left-wing populism that's not actually left-wing—because, if you're actually left-wing, you advance solutions and you mobilise people around them, and they're credible—it's just populism. But let me turn to the alternative party of government, so-called. What I think is remarkable and is a lesson for all of us is that everybody's got a capacity for personal growth. Having had no interest in all of these issues over the miserable decade that they were in government, suddenly they're on about productivity in the economy, despite the fact that, for the decade they occupied the Treasury benches, productivity growth was at its lowest ever and they did nothing about it. Suddenly they're interested in wages growth, while, during their period in office, wages growth was at its lowest ever. In fact, if you applied the average level of wages growth during the miserable Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison period, 2.1 per cent, to workers' wages over the period of this government, where growth in average weekly earnings has been 3.8 per cent, Australians would be $4,700 a year worse off. That's the truth, and all of this nonsense about real wages growth from those opposite, who never displayed any interest in it when they were in government, is a most callous position that has an utter disregard for the ordinary living circumstances of average wage earners. On fiscal policy, suddenly they're deeply interested in proper, sound fiscal management, but they delivered not one surplus in government, not even the one that they promised, and they left Australia one trillion dollars in debt with nothing to show for it. They're very interested in building homes, they say, but they took their hands off the wheel completely during their period in government. There is no policy over there—none—but you can see it beginning to take shape. If they ever got into government or if they had governed over the course of the last two years, what do we know? It would mean savage cuts to public expenditure. Opposing Labor's sensible cost-of-living measures would mean higher inflation, and the economy would be in recession today. That would be the effect of the so-called economic policy prescriptions of those opposite. Australians would be poorer and in a recession. There would be fewer jobs and higher inflation. 16:03 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I, too, rise to speak to this motion before us today. Since the Labor government came to power in 2022, rents have gone up by 31 per cent and the average mortgage payment has increased by $1,677 a month. The ruthless Reserve Bank rate hikes, as my colleague Senator McKim said earlier, are smashing millions of renters, mortgage holders, young people and families across the country. Despite this, we've heard the governor of the RBA spell out that they don't expect the RBA will cut rates in the near term. 'The RBA is smashing the economy.' The governor of the RBA even conceded that these rate hikes are pushing people so close to the brink that some are facing the brutal reality of having to sell their homes. Goodness knows where they're going to find one to rent when they sell it, or a rental that they can afford. Through all of this pain, as my colleague Senator McKim has pointed out, the key thing to remember is that Labor and the Treasurer have a specific power in the legislation to overrule the RBA and bring interest rates down. But every day, Labor, like they do on so many things, make an active decision not to. Not only are they making an active decision not to, they are actually trying to secretly get rid of their own power to overrule the RBA and their rate hikes for good. Why are they doing this? Well, the Treasurer is trying to get rid of the power to overrule the RBA because that way the Labor government can just wipe their hands clean of the job of actually governing and dealing with the issues that they're causing. They want to wipe their hands clean of the job of actually caring about people in this country. Just as the Treasurer is wiping his hands clean of the rate hikes smashing millions of people across this country, Labor are also wiping their hands clean of the millions of people who are living in poverty. The cost-of-living crisis is destroying people on income support. Today, ACOSS reported that more than 70 per cent of Centrelink recipients are cutting back on meals, medications and seeing friends due to cost. They're not worrying, as Senator Canavan said, about whether they can go on a holiday or buy a new car; they're worrying about whether they can eat or take their medication. Seventy-one per cent are cutting back on meat, fresh fruit and vegetables; 74 per cent are having difficulty affording the medicine or medical care they need. Someone in the ACOSS report said they're taking only half of their prescribed diabetes medication. Labor could introduce a super profits tax to take the pressure off inflation, but they're too busy protecting their corporate mates to do that. So for those on income support, skipping meals or skipping medication, the message from Labor is clear: tough luck. 'We're not going to leave anyone behind,' they said. Well, tell that to someone who's on income support. Instead of letting the RBA turbocharge this cost-of-living crisis, Labor should be fighting inflation and corporate profiteering by supporting the Greens' super profits tax policy; freezing rents, which are a big cause of inflation; putting dental into Medicare; raising the rate; maybe tackle supermarket price gouging—that's driving up inflation. Senator Ayers said that inflation is having the toughest impact on low-income households. Well, people on income support are in the lowest income households in the country. When are you going to help them? You also said that rent caps don't work. They have them in the ACT. I don't see slums forming anywhere around here. I think Labor just thinks it's all too hard. Senator Ayres said he wasn't going to spend too much time on the Greens. Well, he spent quite a lot of time attacking what we're putting forward. Maybe, instead of attacking us, you could go to the people of Australia and actually do the job of tackling inflation, tackling the cost-of-living crisis and helping people out of poverty. (Time expired) The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x The question is that the motion moved by Senator McKim be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [16:13]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Polley)

11 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Pocock, B. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 29 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Bragg, A. J. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Hughes, H. A. Kovacic, M. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Sterle, G. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE 65 MATTERS OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE Economy 65 16:16 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x A letter has been received from Senator Hughes: Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion: With Australia in an entrenched household recession, anaemic growth, productivity going backwards, and suffering now worsening under Labor's cost of living crisis, the Treasurer is blaming everyone but himself and his three failed budgets. 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. 16:16 Senator HUGHES 273828 New South Wales Every single Australian and their family are doing its tough, yet every single day we hear from this government and particularly the Treasurer that it is everyone else's fault other than that of the government. Rather than taking responsibility, rather than accepting— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Just a moment. Senator Hughes, you will need to move the resolution first. My apologies. Please just continue. No, you don't have to. I was getting some other advice. Senator HUGHES 273828 Okay. We're all good? The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Please continue. Senator HUGHES 273828 You were just worried I was getting into a bit of a pattern there, and you thought you'd just interrupt that thought! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Senator Hughes, the clock was stopped, so please continue giving your contribution to the debate. Senator HUGHES 273828 We know that this government has spent its entire term fighting everything except inflation. They have spent this entire term trying to divide our nation—to tear this nation apart by its very fabric. We know there was the half a billion dollars spent on the referendum, with its whole objective of dividing this nation by race. They have done everything they can to not look at inflation. We know that those on the government benches now have forgotten that COVID occurred. All of a sudden, that is the word that cannot be spoken. It's like the $275 that was coming off our energy bills—the number that can never speak its name. But we now know as well that we don't mention COVID because they don't want to acknowledge what was happening over the last few years of the coalition government. But, even with that, this government inherited low unemployment, it inherited strong growth and it inherited a country that was well on its way to recovery out of COVID. It's extraordinary how our country performed throughout COVID and how many jobs were saved. But they have managed to tip all the cookies out of the cookie jar, spill the mess everywhere and continue to make it absolutely appalling for every single household. The reality is we've been in a per capita recession for 18 months. Those that sit on the treasury benches may be in denial about this, but I'll tell you who's not in denial about the fact that we are in a per capita recession and we have been for 18 months, and that is every single Australian family whose mortgage repayments, the interest repayments on their loans, have tripled—triple repayments on those interest rates. The pressure that is being put on Australian families is extraordinary, yet those opposite seem to almost make fun of the situation. They're one step off saying that Australians have never had it so good, and the reason they need to keep trotting out the same talking points is that Australians don't believe them. Australians aren't feeling it. Australians know that the average Australian family needs to find an extra $35,000 a year. That's not the kind of cash that is just hiding down the back of the lounge. The average Australian family is having to find $35,000 a year, yet this government will not take any responsibility. They will continue to project every single one of their failures onto someone else. It was just incredible to hear the Treasurer come out and start to hark back to the war in Ukraine. That was their line when they first came into government 2½ years ago: it is everybody else's fault but theirs. But we know that the sticky inflation is staying so sticky because of everything they're doing. That's because, as the RBA tries to slow the economy down to get inflation back under control through its lever of interest rate rises, what we're seeing here is a government addicted to spending—a government that has over $300 billion of new spending. We have a government that is actually taking no notice of what's happening in the private sector, which is the sector that actually creates jobs—the market. They're not taking any notice of what's happening in the marketplace and the private sector with the slowdowns, and they're artificially buoying up the economy through directly paying and increasing the Public Service and the workforce in those care economies. It is not sustainable. In fact, hearing it described as a Ponzi scheme today is probably the best description of the way that this government is handling the economy. Australia cannot afford another term of government by those sitting opposite. It is extraordinary how this economy is continuing to contract. Australians are continuing to do it tougher and tougher every single day, and there is no end in sight. Things just look like they're going to keep getting worse. No-one's happy about it. You're the government. Do something about it. 16:22 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I rise today to speak on this matter of public importance moved by Senator Hughes on the economy. I have to confess how bitterly disappointed I am—and continue to be—by the coalition's repeated failure to bring anything of genuine substance into this chamber for a discussion. The attitude of this opposition is well evidenced in what has been brought to the chamber today. It's an opposition not defined by ambition or aspiration or good will. Those are the values which we on this side of the chamber very much hold dear. But today's MPI reveals an opposition defined by their relentless drive to undermine progress, to diminish hope and to dance on the struggle of Australians who are responding to challenges in our economy and who are working very hard to do that. Instead, what we see is a gleeful opposition coming in here, pretending that they care but crying crocodile tears and actually delighting in every moment that they can say that Australians are doing it tough. And that's all they do. They say the words, and then they say: 'But don't give them any assistance. Don't give Australians assistance. Don't spend.' We heard it through Senator Hughes's contribution: 'Yes, Australians are doing it tough, but do not spend. The government should not be spending. The government should not be helping Australians. They should not be spending.' So what we've seen is the reality of many challenges to families. High interest rates are the legacy of 10 years of economic mismanagement under the coalition, and certainly that has left Australians with less than they deserve. We do know that Australians are doing it tough, and they need a government that will acknowledge that and respond to it, and that is what we're doing. If Senator Hughes genuinely cared about supporting Australians, and, if the terms in her statement here before the Senate mattered in reality— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Sorry, Senator O'Neill. Senator Scarr, do you have a point of order? Senator Scarr 282997 Point of order: impugning the motives of a fellow senator in terms of saying, 'If Senator Hughes genuinely cared', as if she didn't. I think that should be withdrawn. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Senator Scarr, there is no point of order. Senator O'Neill, please continue. Senator O'NEILL 140651 I can only wait for Senator Hughes to bring forward some dollars to go with the profession of care, because at the moment all we hear from the opposition is: 'Don't spend. Don't support Australians.' The affectation of care and the reality of responding are two different things. We need actual policies to be advanced in this place, to be put on the record by the coalition, instead of these hollow talking points. The reality right now for Australians, who we are governing for, is that inflation absolutely is still higher than we would like it, but it's less than the six per cent that it was when we came to government, which was what was inflicted on Australians under the Liberal-National coalition. We can absolutely say that underlying inflation is moderated and the momentum of inflationary pressure is actually going downwards. That is a good thing. It is worth celebrating, and it is worth saying to people that, if you're struggling, hold on. We see that struggle, and that's why we want to assist you with things that you need, such as your electricity. We know that, under the coalition, they didn't deliver a surplus and they didn't manage the economy well. We know that, under the opposition, people's electricity prices really became a problem, and today we had questions in question time where Senator McAllister was explaining what the chaos of energy policy under the Liberal-National coalition determined in terms of the market's reaction. It's into that chaos that we have brought order. Of course, we've made commitments to assist families in real terms with what they need—to assist every single household under every roof in this nation. Australians can expect $300 to help them, not to pay their bill in its entirety but to help them. That's $300 per household to make sure that they get a bit of relief from the energy costs that we know are part of why Australians are doing it tough. We know that the challenges facing small businesses are significant as well, and that is why we have a small business package to assist. Over a million businesses are going to get the benefit of support from Labor. Making rent cheaper for a million households is a great commitment to help people. We've delivered tax cuts for every working Australian. All of these things are indicators of support for— (Time expired) 16:27 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Is the Albanese Labor government ever going to take responsibility for anything it does? Earlier today, I highlighted a report by the Queensland Council of Social Service showing the average family is over budget by $116 per week in Labor's cost-of-living crisis. This is the reality faced by the Australian people today. We're going backwards in our standard of living. We can't keep up with the inflation driven by record immigration and increased Labor government spending. This spending is also increasing our national debt, which is approaching $1 trillion. Last year, we paid about $18 billion in interest on this debt. How many hospitals, schools, affordable houses or aged-care facilities could be built with $18 billion a year? This is just crazy. Labor claims it has created thousands of new jobs, but what good is this to our economy when two-thirds of them are being paid by taxpayers? There are all these new public servants in the back office, many on generous salaries unjustified by their responsibilities, when we should be generating real jobs that boost productivity. It's just another way that Labor's policies are driving inflation. Labor won't accept the blame for its disastrous policies. Labor has tried to blame foreign wars, the former government and the RBA—anyone but the person who is truly responsible, Anthony Albanese. He is the worst Prime Minister we've ever had, even worse than Gough Whitlam, if you can believe it. Make no mistake: Labor bears direct responsibility for Australia going backwards, for Australian families going backwards and for Australian farmers and businesses going backwards. If you want to blame the previous government for what happened with the high inflation, well, don't forget COVID and the impact it had on this country. If they didn't bring in policies, a lot of people would have lost their livelihoods and homes. 16:29 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales I would like to thank Senator Hughes for bringing this matter of public importance, because, as we know and as I have spoken about time and time again in this place, the cost-of-living crisis in our country is the most important issue affecting everyday Australians. It is the most important issue affecting young Australians. It is the most important issue affecting Australian families. People are struggling and juggling every single day just to make ends meet and buy the things that they and their families need. Yet, in the face of this, we continue to see inaction on the part of the government, and special little accounting tricks and special little rebates that everybody gets, not just people who need it, because you can't quite work out who needs it and who doesn't, and now an attempt to destroy the credibility of and confidence in the independent Reserve Bank of our country. The Reserve Bank has one lever—monetary policy—to lift interest rates. They don't have any other levers at their disposal. They act on the basis of what's occurring in our economy. And what is occurring in our economy is homegrown inflation as a result of the actions and inactions of this government. It was extraordinary last week to see the Treasurer pointing at the independent governor of our Reserve Bank and blaming her, her team and the board for high interest rates—blaming them for using the one lever they have at their disposal to bring down inflation. That is incredibly unfair, and it is not very good leadership, in my view. Interest rates have hit mortgage holders. Interest rates have hit renters. Interest rates have hit small businesses. Everybody is struggling. And the reality is that this government just keeps spending, based on a predetermined agenda that they are trying to keep to, despite the fact that it's very clear that it is having significant impacts on our economy and that Australians continue to suffer. Let's face the absolute reality here. It is this government that is forcing the hand of the RBA, and we have been talking about that for months and months. I've been talking about it all year, as have my colleagues. So, Senator Hughes has rightly put this as a matter of public importance today. Senator O'Neill talked about this energy rebate and how that is helping Australian families and helping to bring down inflation. But Senator O'Neill didn't speak about the fact that it's our own tax dollars that are being given back to us in a rebate to bring down our electricity bills. So this isn't even going near the promised cut to power bills that the Prime Minister and the Treasurer couldn't stop talking about before the last election. It doesn't even come close to delivering that. But that's pretty much the government's solution to most of the economic problems we have—to just find a new way to spend, spend, spend. They have now focused on the election in May—or it could be in March or it could be in December. That is when they are going to face the Australian people, who are going to ask them why they have had to struggle and juggle the way they have and why we are global laggards when it comes to managing inflation—why they've looked for short-term gains and completely failed to engage with the critical task of fixing the root cause of our inflation. Why are we at the back of the pack when it comes to tackling inflation? Our core inflation rate is higher than that of comparable economies, our contemporaries, and it's been here for longer. And our living standards have fallen. Yet this government continues to blame the former government, and now they are blaming the RBA instead of acting themselves. 16:34 Senator SHELDON 168275 New South Wales It's always fascinating when the Liberals and Nationals bring forward these matters of public importance, but, even by their standards, Senator Hughes's motion today is truly something to behold! They've come here preaching about the cost of living as though they care, but let's be real. The only game they're playing is a never-ending tennis match. Every time we serve up a real solution to help Australians, they return it with a swift, resounding no: no to Labor's tax cuts that are helping 13.6 million Australians earn more and keep more of what they earn, no to cheaper medicines that will help patients save billions over the next four years, no to the energy price relief that helps the average family save $230, no to wage rises for 2.6 million low paid workers, no to helping build 30,000 social and affordable homes, no to helping over 200,000 students gain access to fee-free TAFE and no to never-before-seen historic wage rises. They just say no, no and no. But of course, when it comes to things such as lowering workers' wages, worsening their rights and conditions, and stripping away their protections, suddenly they're all for it. When it's about helping billionaire business groups that pay for their campaign, they're quick to jump on board. This was never more evident than in Senator Cash's leaked secret letter in May of this year. In it, she described New South Wales Liberal workplace policies as 'good ideas that align strongly with the coalition's approach'. And what were those good ideas? They were scrapping the better off overall test, which would wipe protections for millions of hardworking Australians; making it easier for bosses to unfairly sack all Australians; gutting minimum wage awards for millions of Australians; and reintroducing individual contracts for all hardworking Australians. Now, imagine being 18 years old and having to negotiate directly with your employer, like the CEO of Westpac, or being a struggling single parent of three and having to negotiate directly with corporate giants like BHP or Qantas. That's what this would lead to. These are also the same people who repeatedly endorsed the building code—the building code that smashed productivity by putting a limit on the number of apprentices working on site. We have abolished these horrendous laws, but the effects are still being felt in the construction industry. There are not enough apprentices. That's because they abolished those arrangements. That allowed that to happen. And, of course, these issues aren't just isolated to one sector. It is a recurring pattern that we see across every industry that those opposite interfere with. Take mining, for example. Thanks to Labor's historic closing loopholes bill, the same job, same pay laws have led to over 300 labour hire workers at Queensland's Batchfire Callide mine receiving pay rises of up to $20,000, and we've seen the same results at Qantas operations time and time again. Now, for the first time in nearly a decade, these laws are making industry giants like BHP negotiate collective agreements in the Pilbara. They're working together to get better productivity and fairer wages, which I suggest they should do. They should take up the opportunity, and approach and deal with these laws in a productive, positive way. Yet again, of course, we've seen those opposite staunchly oppose all of these initiatives. Peter Dutton and his so-called working-class Liberals and Nationals, along with their working-class billionaire paymasters— Senator Scarr 282997 Point of order: the senator should refer to members in the other place by their proper titles. Senator SHELDON 168275 I'm very happy to refer to the opposition leader, Peter Dutton—who's the person who's turning around and supporting those working-class billionaires to take money out of the pockets of every middle-class Australian in this country—by his proper title. The opposition leader, Mr Peter Dutton, is the one who's hell-bent on making sure billionaires get richer and Middle Australia gets poorer. We've seen the window-dressing from those opposite. When it came to wage increases for low paid workers in 2022, 2023 and 2024, Peter Dutton, the opposition leader, turned around and opposed those increases. As the member for New England, Barnaby Joyce, said, 'Someone earning another $110 a week is just more window-dressing.' It just never ends from that mob opposite. They can never get enough. (Time expired) 16:40 Senator REYNOLDS 250216 Western Australia Well, every time those opposite come into this place and they start with the bluff and bluster and blaming everybody else for the problems they have caused, you know we've hit a nerve. Sadly, to Senator Sheldon's point just then, the only government in recent times to take money away from workers has been the Labor Party. It has been under the Labor Party that per capita income has gone down for workers and the cost of living has increased. Under Prime Minister Albanese and Treasurer Chalmers, the living standards of Australians, including millions of families in Western Australia, are going backwards. That's under Labor. For all of their talk about costs and wages, they are the ones who have deliberately implemented inflationary policies that are causing such pain for Australian families. Driven by the Treasurer's economic management over three budgets now, core inflation is stubbornly high at 3.9 per cent. Our inflation is now higher than that of any other advanced country in the world. Despite what those opposite say, it is the result of this government's mismanagement. In fact, since December, we are the only G10 nation where inflation has been increasing. As said by the Governor of the Reserve Bank, who has been scapegoated by those opposite, it is their responsibility. And what has this resulted in for Western Australians? We've seen major increases in the price of household essentials, such as 10 per cent increases to food, housing, rent, electricity, gas, health, education, insurances and, of course, people's home mortgages. There's more bad news ahead for householders who were desperately hoping for a rate cut for their families before Christmas. Sadly, due to the incompetence of those opposite, that is very unlikely to occur. In fact, the Reserve Bank of Australia has ruled out any interest rate cuts this year. In Labor's three failed budgets, they've spent an additional $315 billion. They haven't been creating more jobs in the private sector. They've been pumping the economy with taxpayer dollars, which mostly go into the public sector. Two-thirds if not three-quarters of the new jobs haven't been created in private industry, which is where real jobs are created to assist with increasing productivity. Their answer to everything is, 'Tax more and spend—' (Time expired) 16:43 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I guess I would say there are two central charges you would make against this government. The first charge is that the government has had no time to solve the major economic problems facing the nation because it has been obsessed with working through a laundry list of issues that are important to the vested interests that put the government in its place. I mean the government is more interested in what is important to the CFMEU or the big super funds than it is in what matters to people, which is why it has failed on housing and inflation. The other central charge you'd have to make at this point in time is that the government has significant integrity issues. People that are sitting at the apex of this government have incurred integrity issues and trust issues because of the way they have chosen to conduct themselves in high, public office. You only have to go back to 2022 and the election campaign to see that the promises made to the Australian people by this government were that it would be easier and cheaper under this government, and that has not been the case. You don't need a politician to tell you that. Everyone knows that. But the point of consequence here is that the Treasurer, Mr Chalmers, has started to blame everyone for the woes that the government finds itself in: high inflation and low growth. We're in a pretty bad situation. Instead of being honest and upfront about what the government can do—the government can run a fiscal policy or it can run an economic policy, which is going to help businesses, small businesses and families—he has taken aim at the major institutions that have nothing to do with the capacity of Mr Chalmers himself to do his job. Every day, you see him attacking the Reserve Bank or the Productivity Commission. The most recent salvo against the Reserve Bank was that it was smashing the economy, and the point Mr Chalmers was trying to make is that the Reserve Bank had interest rates too high. The reason the Reserve Bank has interest rates too high is that the government has not stopped spending since it won office. If you look at the proportion of inflation that is in the economy today, a large proportion of that is because of public sector spending. The jobs figures that we see show that most employment growth now in Australia is happening in the public sector. More people are working for the government than ever before, and that is a rude shock to the average small-business person who gets out of bed every day and works hard. It's not fair. The integrity issues that I mentioned before, which are now accumulating for the government, include the making of false claims to the Senate. This was aired in the newspapers on the weekend, where we found out that Mr Chalmers had failed to comply with an order for the production of documents because he filed a public interest immunity claim. In that claim, the Treasurer said that the disclosure of certain information in relation to the Cbus super fund would be contrary to the public interest because it would disclose commercial-in-confidence information. But, because of the existence of freedom-of-information laws, we don't just rely on orders for the production of documents in the Senate. We also are able to access documents through FOI, and the information commissioner found the Treasurer had no case to cover up this file which he had received from Cbus. Last month, the information commissioner ordered that it be released. Last week, that file was released, and it revealed that there had been a secret lobbying campaign from the Cbus super fund to Mr Chalmers, not about anything commercial in confidence but about a special deal that the fund wanted so it could cover up the stamp duty costs in its member disclosures. It seems very strange that the Treasurer would spend time and capital making false claims in a public interest immunity order, but it is perhaps not surprising, given the amount of integrity issues this government is accumulating alongside its failures to address the key economic issues of the day. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB Order! The time for discussion has expired. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS 70 MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide 70 16:49 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I table the report of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. 16:49 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I rise today to add my contribution following the tabling of the final report of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. Today is a significant day. It's a call to action. I know that today will also be a very difficult day for many in the defence and veterans community, particularly those who have lost a loved one. I want to acknowledge Julie-Anne Finney, who is here today in the gallery—the mum of a veteran, her son David. The immeasurable grief of losing a loved one to suicide is heartbreaking. It's a pain that cannot be described. The Albanese government first called for a royal commission when we were in opposition back in December 2019. It was something that I was very proud to support and champion for some time in this place. As a member of the government, a federal government that has to take responsibility for the actions committed by any government in previous years, I'd like to thank the many veterans, those serving and family members who are courageously sharing the experiences of the royal commission today and who have done so over some time throughout the course of the royal commission. I want to briefly acknowledge the royal commissioners—the chair, Nick Kaldas APM; the    Hon. James Douglas KC; and Dr Penny Brown AO—for their work since the royal commission was established in July 2021. Throughout this time, the royal commission conducted 12 public hearing blocks containing 340 witnesses, 900 private sessions and over 5,800 submissions. There were stories, personal stories, from veterans and their families on the impact that suicide has had on them and their family. The royal commission has presented its final report, as the minister has now tabled, with 122 recommendations over seven volumes to address the cultural and systemic issues that current and former ADF members face, and the government will now work through the recommendations in a way that I hope will have bipartisanship and, in fact, the support of the whole chamber here, because we have an obligation to step up and fix the wrongs of the past. In August 2022, the royal commission released its interim report. Back then, it also made 13 recommendations, and I'm happy to say that the Albanese government has taken action on all 13. The interim report recommended a simplification of veteran compensation legislation. The government has taken on the challenge by putting forward the most significant improvements to the veteran compensation system in a century. The bill before the Senate, the Veterans' Entitlements, Treatment and Support (Simplification and Harmonisation) Bill 2024, was introduced in the parliament in July. Under this bill, all new compensation claims from 1 July 2026 will be handled under one single piece of legislation regardless of when or where a veteran served. The Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee, which I chair, has been undertaking an inquiry into the bill since it was referred on 4 July this year. The committee held a public hearing on 16 August here at Parliament House, and we will continue to have further insight and investigation into the bill as the matter progresses through the appropriate committee stages. The proposed reforms will make it easier for veterans and their families to understand what they're entitled to and allow DVA to process claims quicker. This year's federal budget set aside an extra $222 million for veteran and family entitlements across the two years from the start of this legislation. I'm proud of the work the Albanese government is taking to address veteran services, entitlements and wellbeing, but we know that there is a lot more to be done. Our ultimate objective here is to ensure that defence personnel, veterans and their families are well looked after and that they receive the care that they need and deserve. A fortnight ago, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs attended a public forum on the bill in Melbourne, as he has done in different parts of the country. It was a privilege to join him and many other veterans at the information session in Hawthorn and hear firsthand the experiences of veterans in attendance. I want to thank each and every one of those who made the effort to come to the public forum. The government is committed to a thorough and considered process which will deliver better outcomes for veterans and their families, because it is the right thing to do. Since coming to office, federal Labor has been working to improve the welfare of our defence personnel, our veterans and their families. I'd like to take a moment to pay tribute to Australia's current ADF personnel, who have pledged their service to defend our great nation and its national interests. For anyone who might be listening to this debate today or reading through the royal commission's report, it is important to remember there is support out there. There are services that provide support 24/7, whether that be Lifeline on 131114 or Open Arms—Veterans & Families Counselling on 1800011046, but you can also seek support from your mates, your comrades and your local RSLs and the many other organisations and people whom you trust. If there is an issue, please speak up. Talk to someone. The royal commission is a step forward. It's the first step by which the government is keen to challenge and make sure that we fix those wrongs of the past. The government will now consider the recommendations presented by the royal commission, and I look forward to working with fellow senators across the board, because here in the Senate we have an obligation to each and every one of our veterans, current and former. They deserve our support. We want to see people in the ADF have a successful career. They need to have a place that everyone can feel safe in, from the time they join to the time they transition to civilian life. I want to commend the work of our commissioners again and say thank you to the government for their support and for the support across the board in this place for the establishment of the royal commission. I look forward to discussing the recommendations with our veterans' community over the weeks and months ahead. I seek leave to continue my remarks, although I know that other senators will have to make a contribution as well. Leave granted. 16:57 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I would also like to make a contribution. I would like to acknowledge the chair of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, Mr Nick Kaldas, and his fellow commissioners, Dr Peggy Brown and the Hon. James Douglas. I thank them for their work and their empathy and for delivering a report that will make real change—and lasting change, hopefully—as long as our government can find its courage with both hands and implement their recommendations in full, not a piecemeal, cherry-picking exercise that is run or influenced by Defence to keep the top brass or their mates in a job. Defence's mission and purpose is to defend Australia and its national interests and to advance Australia's security and prosperity, but how can we do that effectively unless we care for our veterans when they are in service and when they leave? I called for a royal commission in my first speech in the Senate in 2014. In the years that followed we called on the Australian public to back us in the fight, and millions of Australians had our backs. We ran ads in marginal seats, we organised rallies and we started petitions, but I was just adding my voice to a fight that had already been going on for years. The first calls for a royal commission into veterans came from veterans in the early 1980s. By the early 2000s, the parents of veterans had started drawing chalk outlines of their dead sons outside the Department of Veterans' Affairs offices. In 2019, an army of mothers, fathers, veterans and their families were no longer asking for a royal commission; they were now demanding it. In 2019 these mothers came to Canberra to knock directly on the doors of those in power and to look directly in their eyes. The Morrison government suggested a national commissioner—someone appointed by the government who would have no power to compel witnesses or documents. What a waste! The national RSL and the usual suspects backed in the idea of a national commissioner and said that there was no need for a royal commission. 'Nothing to see here'—at least nothing that they could have control over. I'm calling out the national president of the RSL, Greg Melick, today. You did nothing to stand up for us. We've been asking you for months to resign. Now resign. These mothers and veterans had been warned that they would be resisted and were given full support by the Vietnam veterans, who had been living with DVA's poor record of supporting veterans for years. Finally, on 8 July 2021, the Morrison government announced a royal commission into defence and veteran suicide. It was a victory for all those mothers, those veterans and those families. The royal commission's work had just begun. There was relief, but there was also dread because each one of these Australians would now have to revisit their trauma when they retold their stories to the commissioners. In the interim report, the commissioners noted that there had been numerous reports and inquiries done since 2000 that were relevant to the topic of suicide and suicidality among serving and ex-serving ADF members. They identified over 57 previous reports and more than 750 recommendations. While acknowledging that many of these reports and inquiries were about discrete topics, the commissioners noted their dismay at the lack of response by Australian governments to these previous recommendations. I share that dismay at the lack of action, as do veterans right across the country. When the royal commission was established, there had been at least 1,600 deaths by suicide between 1997 and 2020 that we know of. That's more than 20 times the number killed on active duty over roughly the same amount of time. These numbers do not include serving and ex-serving members whose deaths were not officially recorded as suicides. I'm aware of cases where veterans have ended their lives in car accidents, making a last-ditch sacrifice so any life insurance they might have had could still be claimed by their families. On 11 August, the commissioners released their interim report, and their No. 1 recommendation was to harmonise the veterans compensation and rehabilitation legislation. The commissioners made it quite clear that Australia's veterans compensation and rehabilitation system was too complicated; that it impacted on the mental health of some veterans, both serving and ex-serving ADF members; and that it was at times a contributing factor to veterans ending their own lives. I think you would be hard pressed to find a veteran that didn't agree. I remember fighting my way through the dark forest of rules and regulations. It was a very dark, isolating place. I have to say the legislation to harmonise the compensation is a little late, but better a little late than never. Minister Keogh, I do believe, is trying to act quickly on this, and that legislation should be close to being ready for parliament. Although I'm sure it won't be perfect, there is no choice but to move forward and trust that the minister will smooth out any bumps along the road. I can assure you I'll be holding him accountable and I'll be making him aware of them as soon as I am. The second recommendation was to eliminate the backlog of claims. On this, I have to say that the Department of Veterans' Affairs is working hard to get these resolved. Despite some claims moving at a faster pace, there are still others lagging behind. As one advocate put it to me, it's a patchwork. That's because some of these claims fall under multiple pieces of legislation. The harmonisation will hopefully help to alleviate this. But for some people who have literally been waiting for years this cannot come soon enough. As you can imagine, I've spent a great deal of time thinking about how the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Department of Defence, charged with the care of veterans, have so utterly failed to support these Australians who were prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country. It's a problem with the culture—a culture that reflexively protects the institutions instead of protecting its people. In September 2023, in suicide prevention week, Commissioner Kaldas called out this culture. Two years into a royal commission, the defence establishment was still dragging its feet. Commissioner Kaldas told the assembled journalists at the National Press Club that veterans were still being driven to suicide two years after the royal commission had been launched. In Mr Kaldas's words, 'Defence's approach to investigating and reporting on suicides has progressed at a snail's pace'—a pace most veterans would be aware of. Commissioner Kaldas also called for an 'enduring, powerful, independent' oversight body to make sure that government agencies and the Defence Force prioritised the long-term reforms necessary to tackle the veterans suicide crisis. Commissioner Kaldas also reminded us that the Defence Force had failed to take a damning 2016 report into abuse, bullying and harassment as a wake-up call to lift its game. He said: It's troubling to imagine that such behaviour persists in any modern-day workplace. In my view, it's not just troubling; it goes to the root of the cultural problem within Defence. Instead of responding to criticism with a 'what can we do better' attitude, Defence closes its ranks, pulls up the drawbridge and says, 'Nothing to see here. Nothing to see here.' Three years later, and still there's nothing to see here. Commissioner Kaldas and his fellow commissioners did not expect to be stonewalled when they asked Defence for documents, but that's exactly what happened, even with a royal commission going on. Defence is still holding onto documents. This is what I mean about a problem of culture within Defence. Take the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force, the IGADF. This agency is essentially the military justice system within Defence. It was set up 20 years ago, and it hasn't had one damn audit on it—not one. When I pushed for the Australian National Audit Office to do an audit, the secretary of Defence, Greg Moriarty, picked up the phone and had a little chat to the Australian National Audit Office and they decided they weren't going to do that. That's how non-independent your Australian National Audit Office is today. It is not independent, because it is taking its orders from Greg Moriarty. That's what it's doing. So I pushed hard and I went over the top of him. Thank goodness the government of the day listened to me. They actually gave me a review—good one. The Minister for Defence has had this report now for five months. It took three months to do the report, and he's now had it for five months and won't release that damn report. On one hand, you're saying, 'We care about veterans,' and on the other you're saying: 'We don't want to know about that report. It's not important to the suicides.' I'll tell you what: it is part of the suicides that have been going on since it started 20 years ago. When Australians join the Australian Defence Force, they give up many rights and liberties enjoyed by most Australian citizens. They agree to do what they're told, they live where they're told and they educate their children where they're told to educate them—all in defence of our nation. They voluntarily accept the risk of service, which can often mean physical or mental injury or both, and sometimes they end up with a moral injury. All they ask for in return is that their nation looks after them during and after their service. Is that really too much to ask? We cannot let this royal commission go the way of the reports and inquiries that preceded them. It cannot sit on a shelf gathering dust while the Defence establishment moves on and nothing changes, although, as I have acknowledged, the DVA is trying to change. But I agree with the commissioners: the DVA in its current form cannot deliver the wellbeing support our veterans need. We need a national commissioner with strong powers to compel witnesses and to advocate for veterans and deal with their transition into civilian life. Just because a veteran has a physical injury, it doesn't mean they are less capable of service. You can't tell me that, just because you've lost a limb, you can't work as an admin clerk. That's rubbish—an excuse to throw them out instead of finding reasons to keep them in. That is half the battle and a battle that needs to be won. The world is more unpredictable than ever, and we have never needed a stronger Defence Force than we do today. But veterans are leaving, and no-one wants to join. Who would want to join an organisation that treats its workforce with such contempt? I call on the minister, the government and defence leaders to honour the work of the commission and to honour the sacrifice of all veterans and their mothers, fathers and families, who have worked so hard to make this happen. Don't just honour them on Anzac Day. Honour and care for them 365 days a year. Putting it quite simply, we owe them and we will always owe them. Our dedication to them must match their dedication and service to this country. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. DOCUMENTS 73 DOCUMENTS National Indigenous Australians Agency 73 Order for the Production of Documents 73 17:08 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales by leave—I table documents relating to the order for the production of documents concerning Anindilyakwa Land Council. COMMITTEES 74 COMMITTEES Human Rights Joint Committee, Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Select Committee, Public Works Joint Committee, Publications Committee, Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee, Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 74 Membership 74 17:08 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 273828 The President has received letters from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate requesting changes in the membership of various committees. 17:08 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales by leave—I move: That senators be discharged from and appointed to committees as follows: Human Rights — Joint Statutory Committee — Discharged—Senator Rennick Appointed—Senator Cadell PFAS — Select Committee — Appointed—Participating members: Senators Babet and David Pocock Public Works — Joint Statutory Committee — Discharged—Senator Rennick Appointed—Senator Kovacic Publications — Standing Committee — Discharged—Senator Rennick Appointed—Senator Antic Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee — Discharged—Senator Rennick Appointed—Senator Colbeck Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee — Discharged—Senator Rennick Appointed—Senator Reynolds Question agreed to. BILLS 74 BILLS National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Getting the NDIS Back on Track No. 1) Bill 2024 74

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

Returned from the House of Representatives 74 Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Bill 2024, Treasury Laws Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Bill 2022, Public Service Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2024, Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Declared Areas) Bill 2024, Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024 74

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

Treasury Laws Amendment (Consumer Data Right) Bill 2022

Public Service Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2024

Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Declared Areas) Bill 2024

Criminal Code Amendment (Deepfake Sexual Material) Bill 2024

Assent 74 COMMITTEES 75 COMMITTEES Environment and Communications Legislation Committee 75 Report 75 17:09 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania On behalf of the Chair of the Environment and Communications Legislation Committee, Senator Grogan, I present the report of the committee on the provisions of the Nature Positive (Environment Information Australia) Bill 2024 and related bills, together with accompanying documents. REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS 75 REGULATIONS AND DETERMINATIONS Work Health and Safety (Operation Sovereign Borders) Declaration 2024 75 Disallowance 75 17:10 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I move: That the Work Health and Safety (Operation Sovereign Borders) Declaration 2024, made under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, be disallowed. Let's be very clear as to what this regulation does and why the Greens are moving this disallowance motion. The next time a mother and her children seek asylum in Australia—and they travel here, often at huge risk, to build a better life and escape awful conflict—this regulation says not only that they can be stopped by a militarised force and then coerced, under the laws of this country set by both Labor and the coalition, to return to a country they fled when they faced persecution or forced into a detention camp in Nauru but that the quasi-military force authorised by this parliament, under the Albanese government, is now exempt from even taking reasonable care that its actions do not adversely affect the health and safety of that mother and her children. It removes the obligation under work health and safety laws to take reasonable care of women, children and others, often in the most dangerous situations, where they're exposed to terrible risks. When we say that the Albanese government are competing with Peter Dutton over how cruel they can be to people seeking asylum, this is the kind of action we're talking about. The Albanese government, following the pattern of Abbott and all the coalitions before him, are actually saying to the Australian Border Force, 'When you're at sea, when you're intercepting a boat with some of the most desperate people on the planet on it, often in situations of genuine risk, you don't even have to take reasonable care.' They are green-lighting dangerous cruelty on the high seas. This regulation will exempt Operation Sovereign Borders from the requirement—and I quote from the legislation—to 'take reasonable care that his or her acts or omissions do not adversely affect the health and safety of other persons'. It's a green light to watch a boat sink. It's a green light not to care if someone seeking asylum is lost at sea or seriously injured, harmed in the course of Border Force operations. The regulation also removes the requirement to preserve a site where a notifiable incident occurred until an inspector arrives. There's no requirement at all to preserve any of the evidence. All of the obligations that exist for police if they're engaged in running down a criminal, or for rangers and inspectors if they're arresting someone or engaging in coercive force—all of those obligations—have a reasonableness requirement. Nobody is required, under the Work Health and Safety Act, to take action that's not reasonable. If a house is burned down, for example, nobody is required to keep a dangerous wall standing. These things are all subject to reasonableness. But this government has removed any of those limitations. It says, 'You don't have to take reasonable care, and then you can destroy the evidence of your failure to take reasonable care.' And it's literally a cut and paste of what Tony Abbott put before—a direct cut and paste—in this endless fight between the coalition and Labor to see who can be more like the other in their actions to inflict cruelty on people seeking asylum. Removing the requirement to retain the evidence is a government mandated Labor-Liberal cover-up. In my role as immigration and home affairs spokesman I've met with multiple incredibly brave people who've gone through this system and who've seen the indifference, the lack of care, the outright cruelty that they and their families have suffered at the hands of initially Border Force and then whatever private multinational, bottom-feeding prison corporation Labor or the coalition chose to put in charge of them afterwards, whether it was Serco or any of those. If you take the time to listen, you'll hear about the layers and layers of cruelty that exist in the system already. Last time this parliament sat, a few short weeks ago, we had a series of young people who'd been held in torture-like conditions on Nauru. They read their poetry about what it meant to be dehumanised by the asylum system set up by the Labor and Liberal coalition. They spoke about the epidemic of self-harm on Nauru, the hopelessness, the systemic violence, the intentional systemic torture they faced. They spoke to it with a beauty and a strength in their poetry that I can't replicate here in this speech. But where were the government members? Where was the coalition? These were truths you didn't want to hear and you weren't willing to attend to. If they listened to the poetry about the existing cruelty of Australia's detention system, propped up by successive governments, maybe that might move this government to agree with us and the Greens and to disallow this regulation. Betelhem is one of those amazing young people who came and shared her poetry with us. Part of her poems says this: Let me ask you something. What kind of people refuse to hear the cries of fellow human beings in pain? What kind of people refuse to be moved by the suffering of other humans? What kind of people say no to helping a sick child? They are the kind of people who are prepared to sacrifice the lives of innocent people for their own political lives. They are the kind of people who choose to believe that refugees are not human. They are the kind of people who use false and harmful labels to make other people fear and hate refugees. They are prepared to make innocent people very, very sick, to even let innocent people die, because they can't think of another, more humane way. Those are words that apply directly to what the Albanese government is doing here—Labor putting forward fresh regulations to exempt Border Force officers from having to even take reasonable care of people like Betelhem and her family, and families just like them, when they meet them on the high seas to the north of this country, when they interdict them off Christmas Island, without even having to take reasonable care, and then to be able to destroy the evidence afterwards. That's why we're moving this disallowance regulation. It's because we listened to those who have borne witness to the layers and layers of systemic, deliberate cruelty in the immigration system. If a system is so obviously cruel and harmful that we need to exempt people from taking even basic care of another person in that system, then surely that's an indication that you've got it wrong and that the system should stop. There are currently some 47 people who have been interdicted by Border Force in Operation Sovereign Borders and who are just rotting in PNG, with no support and no help, and with many of them in utterly desperate states. And this government has done nothing. The previous government did less. There are almost a hundred people in that hell in Nauru, which Betelhem wrote the poem about. They're literally living in that hell. According to the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, 20 per cent of the refugees in PNG are so unwell that their lives are at imminent risk, and this government does nothing. A hundred per cent of the refugees in PNG and 65 per cent of people held in Nauru suffer serious physical health conditions. Eighty-eight per cent of the refugees in PNG—and they've effectively all been found to be refugees; it's just that they came in a way that Labor and the coalition are offended by—and 22 per cent of the people held in Nauru suffer severe mental health conditions. That's because that is what the system is designed to do. It's a torture system. It's designed to create mental trauma. It's designed to harm. It's some kind of obscene warning system. It's doing what it was designed to do. It's not an accident; it's actually designed to harm people's mental health. It's designed to harm their physical health. A hundred per cent of people in PNG who are the subjects of this system—who are stuck there and trapped there—report difficulty accessing medical care. They're being declined care. They're being asked to pay for care when they have no possible financial capability to do it. Over half the people in Nauru reported concerns with the limited health care available in Nauru. A hundred per cent of people detained in Nauru and PNG have reported experiences of trauma, including persecution, treatment at sea by Australian authorities and others, family separation, medical trauma and experiences of violence in detention. That's 100 per cent of the people detained in Nauru. Forty per cent of the refugees in PNG suffer chronic suicidal ideation and have a history of suicide attempts. One in 10 of those held in Nauru experience suicidal ideation. This government must know this. Labor knows this. These aren't secrets. The ASRC share that with us as they share it with Labor and the coalition. You know this. And yet Labor is actively moving these regulations to make the system even crueller and to reinstate Tony Abbott's brutal cruelty, because they want a bit of it themselves—because they think that might play out well in the upcoming federal election. That's their plan. It's just like Labor in the NT. Their plan was to 'out-cruel' the coalition on criminal justice, but Labor are doing it here on refugees. It didn't work in the NT. It turns out that, if you want cruelty and nastiness—if that's where your politics lie—you vote for the real coalition, not the fake one. That's what the NT told us. If you want cruelty and nastiness, get the real stuff! Vote for the coalition! Don't vote for the faux Labor effort! Where's it taking them? Where's it taking our politics? And, more fundamentally, where is it taking people seeking asylum? It's taking them to new levels of cruelty. That's what it's doing. They're losing the politics, losing the principles, losing the vote and treating people who have come here seeking asylum like just expendable political assets. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has said of these changes that they 'may limit the rights to just and favourable conditions of work, rights of life and security of the person'. The committee has been chasing further information from the minister to try to explain why these regulations are necessary. (Time expired) 17:25 Senator AYRES 16913 New South Wales The government doesn't support this disallowance motion. Having listened to this lawyerly exposition of the Greens political party position about this, I have to say this is the most cynical contribution I've heard from Senator Shoebridge thus far. It is reprehensible. The language that has been applied here to public servants doing their jobs as a 'quasi-military force'—that is cynical. It is calculated to create apprehensions in the community about decent people doing a difficult job under difficult circumstances. Suggesting that those people would watch a boat sink and that then they would act to cover it up—that is what Senator Shoebridge said not once, not twice but several times over the course of his contribution—is reprehensible. It is cynical. It is calculated to create more division. Senator Shoebridge talks about 'dangerous cruelty'. Dangerous cruelty is adopting a position that you know will cause little kids and women and men to drown at sea. That is what dangerous cruelty is, and that is precisely the position that is being advanced here. I have watched this debate over several decades. I have changed my view about some aspects of this, from bitter experience. For Senator Shoebridge, this is all about votes. That's what he said at the end of his contribution. Well, for the government, this is about security, and I want to go into some of those questions, but it is also about the responsible management of borders, and that has an absolute impact on securing the maximum amount of safety and discouraging people from engaging in dangerous voyages at sea. That is what this government's approach is and what previous governments approaches have been. The kind of soaring rhetoric that Senator Shoebridge seeks to engage in on this question is calculated to undermine that, and that should not stand. A nation's security is fundamentally linked to its capacity to effectively control its own borders, including the flow of people and goods across those borders. That is a basic proposition. Our security and our prosperity depend upon robust border policies. The primary deterrent to any resumption of significant people-smuggling networks is in fact that policy framework. That includes boat turnbacks and other activities under Operation Sovereign Borders, conducted by Australian Border Force and Australian Defence Force personnel to combat people smuggling and irregular migration. For a decade, this has effectively suppressed maritime people smuggling targeting Australia. It is essential to save lives, to ensure the integrity of our borders and to maintain public confidence in Australia's migration program. This instrument supports that by ensuring that personnel can conduct a full range of activities necessary to achieve these vital national security outcomes while protecting their own and others' safety. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 The question is that the motion moved by Senator Shoebridge be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [17:33]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Allman-Payne)

 14 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. McKim, N. J. (Teller) Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 27 NOES Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. McGrath, J. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. 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.

 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection (Kings Plains) Declaration 2024 78 Disallowance 78 17:36 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania I move: That the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection (Kings Plains) Declaration 2024, made under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984, be disallowed [F2024L00999]. In doing so, I think it's important to reflect on what's been happening in this debate around this very significant decision that was made by Ms Plibersek, the minister for the environment. What concerns me most about this debate, though, is the fact that the government seek to minimise what's happened here. They seek to pretend it's like a business-as-usual decision and just something that would happen any other day of the week, sweeping away the seriousness and the far-reaching consequences of what this decision actually means for the so many people that have been impacted by this decision, particularly in regional communities like Orange and its surrounds— Senator DUNIAM 263418 and particularly for the community of Blayney, as Senator Cadell points out. This is anything but business as usual—far from it. It's not just a small hiccup for the proponents of a project. It's not just something that we can do without, pretend it never happened and move on. It's not easily fixed up either, contrary to the claims that were made in question time today by the minister representing Ms Plibersek in this place, Minister McAllister. There is the idea that we can just turn around, resubmit applications and wave a magic wand, and would the proponents of this billion-dollar goldmine in Blayney, creating 800 jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, empowering local communities, including Indigenous communities, not just pop up tomorrow if they were to go back down to the offices of the department of environment and have another meeting! If this government thinks that this is business as usual and is an acceptable approach to take—that this is something good governments do—then we are in more trouble in this country than we realise. Here are some of the facts relevant to what we're talking about here. It wasn't just some small project in the middle of nowhere that had no impact on anyone. It was, in fact, a significant project and a massive investment in a community that needs it. As I say, there were 800 jobs for Blayney and Orange and the people of that community, and, of course, there were all the contractor jobs that go with that. There was the vote of confidence that would be felt in that community as a result of that investment getting up. There was the billion dollars in construction costs injected into the economy. And, as I've mentioned already, there were those hundreds of millions of dollars that would go into revenue from royalties in the state of New South Wales on the way through. I've mentioned the direct impacts, but the biggest impact, of course, is the one that relates to certainty—sovereign risk. The fact is that a proponent of a project will engage with government, go through all the processes, comply with every request, go through every test, jump through every hoop and over every hurdle, and then, at the end of this protracted process of near on five years, have a decision like this made to have their proposal knocked on the head at the 11th hour. I'll go to the detail of some of the things that the proponents have gone through to get to the stage they have. I know that there was a long period of engagement through that, but the decision was made right at the end and, of course, after a number of approvals had been given. Potential investors are watching this. I spent the last week in Western Australia talking to, amongst other groups, representatives of the mining community. Many of them are multinationals, and they're making decisions about where they invest their money. Do they come here to do business, create jobs and provide royalties so we can pay for things like child care, hospitals, schools, roads and the things we need to make our country a great and livable country? They're considering whether they invest here or go somewhere else where they will get a certain outcome, where sovereign risk isn't as much of an issue. For those of us who get paid every fortnight no matter what, including the people that made the decision here, perhaps that doesn't matter. It certainly worries me. Those people who work in industries like mining and the businesses that depend on it, in the small communities that it is based in, like Blayney, are very worried about it. Why did we get this outcome? Why did we arrive at this outcome, especially when, as we know, as is on public record, the McPhillamys goldmine, proposed by Regis Resources, had full state and environmental approvals—both state and federal? It is not an easy task to attain that level of approval. We know so many projects that fall foul of any of the processes that are required of them at the state, territory or Commonwealth level. This project had received all its approvals. It had been through the New South Wales Independent Planning Commission, had worked through any issues it needed to address and had received its full approval. It had gone through the assessments of the EPBC Act at the Commonwealth level and had been given the tick. That's a pretty good sign that this project was on solid ground. If you look at comments made by groups like the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council, the land council that is recognised at law as the one with authority to speak on behalf of country, it said—and this is an Indigenous representative group—that the proposed development in relation to the McPhillamys mine 'would not impact any known sites or artefacts of high significance': It is a matter of concern to OLALC that a range of claims have been made— and we'll come to those claims in a moment— on this issue, by people and organisations lacking the experience, expertise and authority to hold themselves out as authorities on Aboriginal Cultural Heritage … We question the motives of people and organisations who participate in promoting unsubstantiated claims and seek to hijack Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in order to push other agendas. Rather damning from the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council in relation to the project before us and why this happened. The minister, in responding to all the concerns that have been raised, the outrage in the community, the questions we've rightly asked in this place—which have not been answered, I might add, to any level of satisfaction. We've had changing answers provided, and changing reasons. It started out with the cultural heritage concerns, which we can see have clearly been debunked there. It then moved to other environmental considerations, like the destruction of the headwaters of the Belubula River—which is rather unusual given we're talking about a cultural heritage assessment, not environmental, and given they already had EPBC Act and state approval; I'm not quite sure how the minister, in referring to these environmental considerations, was in any way relevant to the question before her—and the impacts on the beekeeping sector and goat farmers in the local community as well. There were a range of answers given but no statement of reasons, not one—something the minister is supposed to provide to both the proponent and those who are interested in the process. We haven't seen that yet. I don't know; maybe the government will table that today and we can all go home happy and fulfilled in our pursuit of information around why this terrible decision was reached. Minister Plibersek overruled her handpicked adviser, who was engaged to provide advice under the section 10 application of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act—someone who ought to know, and who went away and did the work and determined that the application should not be upheld. The minister overruled that recommendation from her expert adviser. She disagrees with the Independent Planning Commission in New South Wales; with the group of people who have gone through copious amounts of work and determined, on both environmental planning and cultural issues, that the mine and its tailings dam were okay to go; with the Labor Premier, Mr Minns, who said this was the wrong decision; and with the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council. I'm not quite sure how all of these groups and individuals got it so wrong and the minister was right. And because we don't have a statement of reasons—all we have are these various vague responses—we don't know how this minister reached this conclusion, and I do believe that is an abrogation of duty. The minister chose not to come to Orange to talk to the community. She was invited. She would have had the opportunity to explain her decision to those in attendance at the Bush Summit last Thursday, or indeed anyone else in the community of Blayney or Orange. But the minister chose not to come, chose not to provide answers or give an explanation. That community deserves those answers. This country deserves answers about the decision-making process this minister has gone through. We have an absence of a statement of reasons, so I wonder how this Senate, anyone in this chamber, could back this decision-making process and not support this disallowance without the full facts. The statement of reasons is necessary for us to understand exactly why the minister's decision was right. We're a house of review. We shouldn't be denying that community economic advantage and opportunity without a justification. You only need to talk to locals like Tanya Cassel, the butcher from Blayney, who said: We paid more than what we would have liked to— this is in relation to setting up their business in Blayney— but we knew the mine was setting up soon, and thought lots of business would come along with that … The mine was … going to be fundamental for town growth and employment. Sharon Kearney, the local newsagent, said: 'The town needs this industry to keep us moving forward.' She added: As a small business we need to be able to survive and keep going—putting industry and infrastructure into the town is what is going to make it grow. But that is not going to happen now; that will not be happening. This town, that community, this state, our country has been denied all of that because of Minister Plibersek's decision, which she has been unable to back in yet. I want to refer to two pieces of correspondence, because we are operating in a void at the moment. One is a letter that I gather was provided to a number of senators. It's from the CEO of Regis Resources, Mr Jim Beyer. In his letter he goes through the history of this project, and I want to take a little bit of time to go through that. He said, 'This decision'—the one we are talking about here—'has ceased progress on the project indefinitely and caused uncertainty within the community and our wider mining sector about the viability of investment in Australian mining.' I think he'd know a thing or two about that. 'As part of the application process over a number of years, more than 1,700 pages of expert reports, legal summaries, representations were submitted by Regis Resources, including 15 expert specialist heritage reports. Regis also engaged six separate expert archaeologists and anthropologists through the assessment process as part of the section 10 application.' This rather puts paid to the claim that Minister Plibersek makes, which is the company was seeking the cheapest, easiest and most convenient site for their tailings dam—quite outrageous! 'Additionally, since 2016, Regis actively engaged and consulted with 13 registered Aboriginal parties, including the section 10 applicant.' Then he goes through the process that he engaged in and makes the point that the final decision was made by Minister Plibersek on an application that bore no resemblance to the original claim, highlighting how difficult this process has been. 'Additionally, as part of the section 10 process, the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council submission clearly indicated that there was an absence of reasonable basis to assert particular Aboriginal cultural significance of the Belubula River, it's headwaters and springs.' He also makes the point: 'Minimum cost was not the primary selection criteria at any time. The construction methodology chosen for the site is downstream and is one of the most expensive, and also one of the safest. To find an alternative site for this facility, the tailings dam, could take anywhere from five to 10 years.' These are some of the facts missing from the answers provided from government and in public commentary from the government about this terrible decision. 'Should the minister have harboured other environmental concerns in relation to the project, such as downstream water quality or destroying the river, as has been cited in various media commentary since the decision, one might question why the minister had already herself approved the project on environmental grounds through the EPBC Act.' There you have it; some facts. I hope that weighs on people's minds as they make a decision on this motion. But let's see what Mr Roy Ah-See, a Wiradjuri elder, said about this. He had the guts to turn up to Orange and talk to the community about what was going on there. His letter to Minister Plibersek, which was published in part in the Australian over the weekend, says: You and your advisors completely rejected their evidence and have disrespected these highly regard Wiradjuri elders. Your advisers never even spoke with them. This is disgraceful. It's obvious your minds were made up. The letter goes on: 'You and your advisers have refused to accept the OLALC authority to promote and protect Aboriginal culture and heritage under section 52(4) of the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. In your recent interview on ABC morning news, you stated that you and your advisers spoke to "the most appropriate group" in this matter, and therefore you've systematically made the 121 Local Aboriginal Land Councils, which make up the land rights network, irrelevant.' He questions what this does to Indigenous control over Aboriginal land. Then he goes on to say, as he did in Orange: 'At the end of the day, what has happened here should be concerning for industry and for other sectors but, more importantly, for the structure of Local Aboriginal Land Councils. Here we've got a minister who's knocking back a million-dollar mine that would create economic empowerment for my people. The green attitude is that all our land should be locked up for environmental national parks, and that wasn't the intent of the New South Wales land rights legislation.' Around the grounds, everyone is criticising the minister's decision and her inability to back it in. Senators need to support this disallowance and do the right thing by anyone concerned. 17:51 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia What the actual flip is this disallowance supposed to do? I know Senator Duniam doesn't live here on the mainland with the rest of us, but it is shameful, actually, that we have the coalition standing up here on this disallowance motion in relation to a government decision about the headwaters of this wonderful, wonderful place at Belabula—in the headways of that river, in fact. It's another example of how big money in this country thinks it can bully and silence First Nations people's voices, and it's atrocious. It is absolutely atrocious that traditional owners met with us today to talk us through the six times that the consultation was put out for this particular process. In the last few weeks, those traditional owners have been bullied and personally attacked. Their motives around why they're protecting country have been questioned. It causes extreme and great distress. They are the custodians of this country, of that land and of those waterways. It causes them great distress, because it is an attack on their reputation, cultural knowledge and ability to protect that country by people who think that they can go in there and just ram through an objection to all of that based on the fact that you want to make money off it. It is ridiculous! And how disrespectful to think that these people would make this up. I mean, you stand up here in this place and say people lying. What benefit do you think that they get to lie about this—to put themselves through the emotional stress and economic distress? They have had to not work for weeks on end while they are fighting to protect their country and their water. They have blocked the construction of the tailings dam because of the precious cultural heritage connection that they have to this place. It's not just about the Dreaming story; it's about the creation story that exists in there. It is about the artefacts that have been found in that place. It is about the totemic system and the biodiversity that exist here. It is not the government blocking the McPhillamys gold mine. So let's clear up that fact to start with. The traditional owners' application was supported by some of those archaeological surveys. In every part of this country—in every corner of it—there is an archaeological, cultural heritage survey that happens under the law. That was actually done by Regis Resources for McPhillamys gold mine. It found that there was an extensive collection of archaeological sites that were identified and recorded. There are 19 artefacts scatters, 18 isolated finds and one open artefact site which were mapped. The outcome of that survey is publicly available. So, contrary to what Senator Duniam has said in this place tonight, they are publicly available. You can all see those. In the plains region this is a very significant area. It's about the three brothers' dreaming story, and it's well known in this region. There are songlines that run through this area, so the tangible and intangible cultural heritage is so important. This was previously recognised by the coalition's own minister, former minister Ley from the other place, in the section 10 declaration back in 2021 to protect the desecration of this proposed site from a go-kart track. The elders that I met with today have not just jumped up as has been assumed. What Senator Duniam has brought to this place is that they just jumped up one day and said: 'We'd like to stop a gold mine. We'd like to stop it from going ahead. We don't want anyone to muck it up. We will, in fact, lock up the lands.' That's what Senator Duniam has said, which is absolutely untrue. This is untrue because these dreaming stories are part of that connection that First Nations people have to these cultural places, and the Wiradjuri people of this region, in particular, know of the stories of the three brothers dreaming. The water that runs through this area, which has a matriarchal—a women's—connection to this place, is so important. There are strong connections to the waterways in this area. By overturning this decision, the government, in fact, sought to protect these waterways, because part of that living being of water that they are looking to protect is part of their identity and poisoning that through putting a gold mine close by is poisoning their spiritual connection to their culture. As someone who has lived in the Goldfields area of Western Australia, I can very much vouch for the mines getting bigger and bigger as their profits do and poisoning the waters in and across the northern Goldfields. As people continue to pillage our country, it has such a significant impact on our waterways. If miners want to continue to do this in this country, they need to conduct their operations through free, prior and informed consent. We know from the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia's inquiry into Juukan Gorge in the A way forward report that we absolutely need free, prior and informed consent. This government accepted the majority of those recommendations, and I had the pleasure of serving on that committee We absolutely need standalone cultural heritage, which this government committed to at the last election. We're still waiting to see that draft legislation. But I am pleased that Minister Plibersek from the other place has taken the stance as the federal minister for the environment to absolutely do her job under section 10 and make sure that she heard the elders, the traditional people, the custodians of this area to look after the cultural heritage that needed to be protected under this. In this instance, the government has absolutely done their job, and I would love to see more and more instances where section 10 is utilised to protect country. Nobody has been blindsided in this instance. Nobody has been led down the garden path. This is not causing uncertainty. This is about protecting country. Every day we stand in this place and talk about acknowledging country. Know that this was walked upon. These are ancient lands. There are ceremonial grounds. There are artefacts. There are people's bones under where you walk and where you put your buildings and drive your cars in this country. The fact that a goldmine can't go ahead and we hear 'boohoo' in this disallowance is disgraceful. This decision simply means that the Minister for the Environment and Water, Minister Plibersek, has chosen in this instance to protect a very culturally significant site. What we know is that goldmining has a significant impact on First Peoples' protection of their country. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People is so important. Australia is a signatory to that, and we're still waiting, 10 months later, to hear the government's response to the inquiry into it. I look forward to hearing what the formal mechanisms are in which we tell the truth. Well, this is truth-telling. In New South Wales this group of custodians have led truth-telling, and the framework for truth-telling, in their part of the country, and we should applaud that. We should not be thinking about the absolute mess that will be left behind from this goldmining, and the fact that the tailings dam just happens to be where there's a cultural heritage site. Do you know what? Find another location. If you are so damned intent on ruining the environment, don't put it in a culturally significant place; find somewhere else to do it. As for the reference to jobs, what we know in Australia—what I know through my research as the spokesperson for resources—is that in this country we actually employ more people in nursing and in hospitality than we do in mining. So people need to stop saying that. I'm someone who comes from a state that is very rich in mining, but it's not the be-all and end-all. We need to look after those workers but we also need to look after the First Nations people who live in those towns, because they actually had their own culture before FIFO came along, and we're not doing that. I congratulate this government. I congratulate the minister for the environment on the decision she made. It is the right choice to make at this time, and absolutely we need more decisions like it. 18:02 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I rise to support this disallowance motion. I listened intently to what Senator Cox had to say. I understand that she wants us to listen to the First Nations people of our country, and I totally accept that. So why can't we listen to the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council, who actually, under New South Wales legislation, are the responsible Aboriginal land council for this area and speak on behalf of country in Blayney. This is why people struggle with these concepts. At the end of the day, we are told we've got to listen to First Nations voices, but which First Nations voice is the voice we have to rely on? Senator Cadell 300134 The one that wants to stop the mine. Senator DAVEY 281697 Yes, in this instance it's the one that wants to stop the mine. This isn't the first time we have seen Indigenous issues and cultural groups being used by environmental activists to try to stop development. We've seen it before. Thirty years ago we saw the Hindmarsh Island secret women's business. We found that that was false, and look at the development that has occurred in that area—and the jobs—ever since that was overturned. Just last year we saw the court finding that Santos's Barossa Gas Project could proceed because the cultural claims being put against the project were false and had actually been fed to the traditional owners by activists. And now, in another example just this year, Woodside, after a decade of working with traditional owners for their Burrup gas exploration project, have found that they're dealing with a previously unknown whale songline. When you are working with the traditional owners you are working with the registered parties. How can you keep investing in a country when an indeterminate number of voices can come forward with applications? As my colleague Senator Duniam said before, during this process to get this mine over the line, since 2016 there has been active engagement with over 13 registered Aboriginal parties. There was extensive work done to look at the environmental impact of this proposed mine and to look at the Aboriginal cultural heritage impact. There were assessments done—they had archaeologists, anthropologists and environmental scientists have a look at it, and the departmental people, as Senator Duniam said before, all came to assess the site. The Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council worked with Regis Resources since 2016 to work through the concerns that they had and to develop Aboriginal management plans to ensure that the project could proceed, taking them in mind and making sure that Aboriginal concerns were addressed. But all of that means nothing. Since the section 10 application was lodged in October 2020, some four years after the first application process was commenced by Regis Resources, four years after they had been working with the 13 registered Aboriginal parties, the assessments have continued. It was assessed by the New South Wales government and recommended for approval in 2022, and then it went to the New South Wales Independent Planning Commission, who recommended its approval in March 2023. We have already heard that the minister's own assessor under the section 10 application also recommended that it be put forward for approval. Yet we have the minister coming out and saying that she had accepted the advice of the Wiradjuri Traditional Owners Central West Aboriginal Corporation, which she could not disclose due to its cultural sensitivity, which does not reflect the transparency we were promised by this government. Then, after the initial backlash, including from other Wiradjuri people, about her decision to accept that advice, she then tried to also justify it with her claims that you can't put a tailings dam on the headwaters of the Belubula River. That is despite her own department giving it environmental approval, which would indicate that there were no concerns about the impact on the flows of the Belubula River, and the New South Wales Environment Protection Authority giving it a stamp of approval, indicating that it didn't have any concerns. On what grounds is she blocking this tailings dam? Is it, as she initially claimed and as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act requires, on cultural grounds? Or is it on environmental grounds, which was her second claim, about protecting the flows and the waters of the Belubula River? After considerable backlash and questions, she has also come out to say, 'I also listened to downstream landholders, including the goatkeepers and the beekeepers.' As a farmer myself, I have the utmost respect for the concerns of landholders, but you would have thought that that would have come out in the environmental and planning assessment processes that had been going on for seven years. Has she blocked this tailings dam on cultural grounds? Has she blocked this dam on environmental grounds? Or has she blocked this dam on planning and community grounds? Unless she releases her statement of reasons, we will never know. Is that really good government? As Senator Duniam said, we are the house of review. It is incumbent on us in this place to scrutinise decisions of government. How can we do that when we aren't provided the information? This has other implications. We know that in Australia the timeline to get approval to do anything is stretching out beyond the capacity of many proponents to participate in and fund it. This approval process had gone on for seven years. That is seven years of investment, investigation and preparation—to then be knocked on the head based on claims that no-one can refute because no-one has actually seen them. That is not due process. This brings reputational damage to our nation. Do you think investors are going to be willing to undertake that level of investment? In the case of Regis Resources, it cost almost $200 million to get all the assessment criteria and protocol met. And then it was turned on its head and the minister said, 'Well, they should just find another location for the tailings dam.' Well, let's consider 'another location', because there are several factors here. This freehold property that is now under a cultural heritage protection order has been a freehold property for 200 years, during which time it has been actively farmed. It's had tractors driving over it. It's had clearing exercises on it. It's had animals grazing on it. It's been actively farmed for 200 years. Now, 400 hectares of that freehold property is excluded for use by this declaration. Of the remaining area of this freehold property that is owned by Regis Resources, most of the sites have already been identified for a purpose of the mine. That includes ore body, waste rock emplacement, processing infrastructure and the mine itself. There's the idea that they can go out, survey and get engineering reports for a new site which has not been previously investigated. They did look at other sites during the early stages of the design process. There were four separate areas with a combined potential of 30 options. They were all rigorously assessed, and the company identified that chosen site as being the safest, with the least environmental impacts and the best engineering sustainability. But the minister says, 'Oh, they can go and find another site.' At what cost? And how long will it take to assess another site? Will it be another five to seven years? No company is going to do that. And then there is no guarantee that another section 10 application won't be made over the next site. So it is absolutely farcical for the minister to try and claim that a new site can miraculously be found for the tailings dam and the mine can proceed and go ahead. Even with the minister saying she would help facilitate a fast-tracking, even with the New South Wales state government, to their credit, saying that they would seek to fast-track, it is not a simple exercise to fast-track these applications when you need to go back to the 13 registered Aboriginal participants and double-check with them. You need to go through the environmental impact assessment again. You need to go through the planning commission assessment again and you need to lodge it through the federal processes. We will absolutely oppose this declaration without the full statement and without transparency as to exactly why she has decided to block this tailings dam. And she did know. She has correspondence that said that, should the tailings dam be blocked, the project would not proceed. The Prime Minister had correspondence to that end. Knowing that the process can't proceed, the minister has accepted the advice of the Wiradjuri Traditional Owners Central West Aboriginal Corporation. From my experience dealing with the minister for water, I am very heartened that she has at least listened to someone, because as the minister for water she refuses to meet with stakeholders. I dearly hope she actually did meet with members of the Wiradjuri Traditional Owners Central West Aboriginal Corporation and did not just make this assessment based on her verbal representations. 18:17 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales It is very rare that the Labor government does something good or worthwhile or strong enough for the environment. In fact, time and time again, they do the exact opposite. They refuse to fix broken environmental laws. They refuse to end native forest logging. In the middle of a climate crisis, they are approving coal and gas projects like there's no tomorrow. They are thinking of watering down their already weak proposal for a national EPA. They are killing the environment, and it is death by a thousand cuts. But the declaration to preserve and protect an area which comprises parts of the Belubula River, its headwaters and its springs at Kings Plains near Blayney in my home state of New South Wales as a significant Aboriginal area is that rare occasion. It's a good decision. When they do actually do something to protect the environment, land, water and, most importantly, Aboriginal and cultural heritage, the Greens will support it. We will be opposing this disgraceful disallowance because already, in the more than 200 years of colonisation, too much Aboriginal heritage has been destroyed and desecrated. Too much land and water has already been polluted and plundered. Every single bit of Aboriginal heritage must be protected and preserved. The proposed McPhillamys goldmine site in Kings Plains is in the Central West of New South Wales and threatens the cultural heritage of the Wiradjuri people who are the sovereign owners of that area. Their elders have been fighting rightly to defend their culture and heritage. Wiradjuri elders that I met today have told us that the water from the springs, which are at risk, is sacred. They told us the association of the place with Dreaming stories. They told us of the blue-banded bee, and they told us of their songlines. They have told us about the artefacts that are there and how each piece of evidence scaffolds the other. They told us they had no agenda but to simply protect country and protect their stories, which are written into the landscape. Their stories have been buried by colonisation. These stories must be heard. They must be brought into the limelight. They must persevere for generations to come. After pushing hard, Wiradyuri Traditional Owners Central West Aboriginal Corporation and elders have finally been successful, after years, in getting the government to issue a protection declaration. But now they are, shamefully, being harassed, threatened and slandered, and the coalition, moving this disgraceful disallowance motion today, is feeding right into those attacks. So, shame on you. First Nations people have for millennia protected and cared for land, water and culture, which we know have been destroyed since colonisation. Now the coalition wants to undo one of the few things the Labor government have done on the environment. Well, we're not going to let you do that. We know you are the mouthpieces of the dirty mining lobby and their mega profits, because some of those profits come back into the party coffers. We know you don't care about First Nations heritage and you don't care about the environment. But we do, because we listen to and believe First Nations people when they tell us a site has spiritual importance. When they tell us that, it does—that's it. We respect them when they say, 'We are country, and country is us.' We are with them when Aunty Leanna says: 'It affects your family, your livelihood. It consumes every corner of your world. Everything we do, we do for the love of country. We've got nothing to gain from this. We just want it left the way it is, sitting in country forever.' Thank you, Aunty Leanna. First Nations culture and heritage should sit in country forever. 18:22 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia This is a very serious issue, and I say that those on this side come to this with a deep seriousness, because we have looked at the issues and we have looked at the evidence before us. And, quite frankly, where a government is making a decision on the basis of a secret statement of reasons, something has gone very wrong in this country; something has gone very wrong with the decision-making process. And it's not surprising that you see the Greens and Labor on a unity ticket when it comes to stopping this development—not surprising at all. But all Australians who are listening to this debate must understand that it's simply not acceptable in this country to make decisions based on a secret set of reasons. If the minister is confident in her reasons, then publish the statement. If the minister feels that Australians will support the decision, publish the statement. But the fact is—and quite contrary to what we've heard from some of those opposite in the debate here today—that there is a significant difference of opinion among the Aboriginal representative groups. In fact, the largest Aboriginal representative group—the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council, which is the official representative body in this area—clearly indicated in its submission to the section 10 process that there was an absence of reasonable basis to assert particular Aboriginal cultural significance on the Belubula River. You can't just say that this is a one-sided argument where new information has been revealed secretly to the minister that, therefore, should stop a project dead in its tracks. That is what this has done, make no mistake. When Minister Plibersek says, 'Oh, there are other options,' the company involved, Regis, a company headquartered in my home state of Western Australia, has made it very clear that the site proposed, the site accepted by all the regulators—including the federal regulator, the minister's own department, that had approved this under the EPBC Act—was the location for the tailings dam that made the most sense in terms of the economics of the project. That is important, I say to those opposite: the economics of a project are important. For projects that deliver jobs, that deliver tax revenue and that deliver royalties to state governments, the economics are important. But it didn't just look at the economics of the decision; it looked at the environment. It looked at the Aboriginal heritage aspects of the decision. It got feedback from the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council. It went through a state process. It went through a federal process. Seven years, $193 million spent, future jobs in a regional community—all that can be tossed aside by this minister, who will not even reveal her decision-making process. The statement of reasons remains a secret. This is not acceptable in this country. It is not acceptable that secret decisions are made that don't just affect a single company—in this case, it's a goldmining company based out of my home state of Western Australia—but affect every superannuation holder in Australia who happens to have shares in that company. The decision affects the local community in terms of future development. It affects the ability of companies to make decisions based on having a timely process in which they can understand the rules. If it's derailed at the last moment by a secret decision, where the minister can't even be clear in her public pronouncements about what the basis of that decision was—was it actually Aboriginal cultural heritage? Was it about environmental concerns? Was it about it being the headwaters of a river? The minister has been extraordinarily unclear. The story has been changing on an almost daily basis, and the statement of reasons remains secret. This might be the way the Labor Party governs, but it cannot be the way Australia is governed. Coming from a resource rich state in Western Australia, the ability for project proponents to undertake assessments and turn the shovel on projects in a timely way is absolutely vital. We've heard across the board how these timelines are stretching out to the point of ludicrousness. In this case, you have a seven-year project timeline. I've talked to many companies in Western Australia where the project timelines have stretched out 10 years, 12 years, 15 years— Senator Cox 296215 With more to come if they don't fix it! Senator BROCKMAN 30484 With more to come—I'll take that interjection from the Greens. You can also see the EDO's fingerprints all over this; that is, the Environmental Defenders Office, funded by those opposite, which has been— An honourable senator interjecting— Senator BROCKMAN 30484 It's an insult! They've got a track record. We had a Federal Court judge severely criticise the lawyer from the EDO in the Barossa case for coaching witnesses on Aboriginal heritage matters. You know this, and you have had a Federal Court justice reveal that an expert witness in that case lied under oath to the Indigenous opponents of that particular project. It's not like this is a brand-new, unique issue. We've seen this before. Those opposite may deny it, but I think the EDO's fingerprints are all over this. They have looked for an avenue to try to block this project, and we will see in the fullness of time what the truth of this— Senator Cox 296215 Will we? Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Well, I hope we will. You say, 'Will we?' but it's up to the minister and the government to reveal the statement of reasons as to what the basis for this decision actually was. Until we see that statement of reasons, quite frankly, this looks arbitrary. It looks capricious and it looks as though it's a Labor-Greens decision to block an extraordinary project for the future of Australia—for jobs, revenue for the state government and revenue for the federal government. It's vital for the future of this great country that we deal with these issues. We saw in my home state of Western Australia the absolute debacle that was the Aboriginal cultural heritage legislation. The handling of that by the state Labor government caused absolute chaos and confusion for months, to the point where they had to repeal their own act. Guess what happened when they did that? The Labor Party, as the previous speaker said, had promised standalone Aboriginal cultural heritage legislation. Where has it disappeared to? It has disappeared because they know that the chaos and confusion that was caused by the Western Australian state act will be replicated federally if they pull it out of the bottom drawer. They're too frightened to reveal what they actually believe, and that's why this decision is also being kept secret. 18:32 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I will rise to contribute to this debate and associate myself with the comments made by my fellow Greens colleagues. Sitting here listening to the level of debate on this issue, you'd think this mob had totally forgotten what happened at Juukan Gorge. You'd think they'd absolutely forgotten. They don't care about it. We have a history in this country of pretending to listen while totally ignoring the will, the rights, the interests and the views of Indigenous communities and then, when the government is called to account and the companies in charge do the wrong thing, they all wring their hands and say, 'Oh! Sorry, sorry, sorry! We won't do it again.' Here we have the coalition, led by the National Party in NSW, whipping up frenzy because we need some proper protections for an area that is clearly culturally significant to the local Indigenous population, the traditional owners in that area. Let's point out that the minister hasn't said that this gold mine can't happen. This tailings dam that was proposed to be right smack-bang in the middle of a culturally significant waterway shouldn't happen, so find somewhere else for it. The absolute outrage and hysteria that come from the coalition, fed by the Murdoch press, are ludicrous. It's absolutely ludicrous. Honestly! You'd think these people were in Trump's America. They've got no original ideas. They pull out every trope they can find. When it means beating up on some local Aboriginal people, they do it, and they get their local Murdoch rag to pile on, too. This has nothing to do with the integrity of law in this country, with protecting the environment from this side or with proper process. This is about hysteria, race-baiting, dog whistling and their anti-environment agenda. That's all it is. They've got nothing else going for them, this mob—nothing. There have been six rounds of consultation in relation to this issue. The minister has made a decision based on listening to that advice, hearing from the experts and acknowledging that there is intangible cultural significance held in these sites, in this particular area. And this mob, so blinded by their own ignorance, want to say, 'Oh, it's all secret.' It's not secret just because you don't understand it. That doesn't make it secret, mate. Seriously! How about a little bit of intelligence coming from that side over there! I mean, I understand that the coalition in New South Wales are in total disarray. They can't even get their bloody applications for a local council in on time. It is like the Hunger Games in the New South Wales coalition right now, and the National Party are chomping at the bit. They need some red meat for the base. And this is what they choose—to beat up on the local Aboriginal people in this area, their deeply held views and the cultural significance of this area and this site. What a disgrace! Come in here and have a proper discussion about how we have proposals for gold mines without wrecking the environment and trashing cultural heritage. You can do it, actually. It's been done in other places. You can do it. But you're too lazy. You don't actually care about this particular proposal. All you want is the flogging and the witch-hunt. All you're interested in is the race-baiting. This is just one example of what is to come from a Dutton government. It'll be issue after issue after issue. None of these ideas are original. They're the same old debates and the same old tropes. Peter Dutton thinks he's Australia's Trump, and he's proud of it. Barnaby Joyce is sitting there laughing and carrying on, clapping and cheering. He thinks he's bloody JD Vance! You're not, mate. Honestly! The level of ignorance from the coalition on this issue is gobsmacking but not surprising. You've learnt nothing from Juukan Gorge. You've learnt nothing from the years of trashing cultural heritage left, right and centre in this country. Indigenous communities deserve to have their voices heard, listened to and given some damn respect, not hand-wringing afterwards. It happens every single time traditional owners stand up for their place, their country, which has important cultural significance to them, and try to protect their local environment. They get torn down, used, humiliated and attacked. If it's not coming from the Leader of the Opposition or the National Party, it's coming directly from the bozos at the Murdoch press. It's all they do. It's the only trick in the book. Then, after it all happens—after the project goes ahead and the sacred sites are ruined—years later comes the apology: 'Oh, sorry. We wish we'd known.' Open your ears! Open your eyes! Learn a thing or two! This disallowance motion is a disgrace. It should be voted down and it will be, because most people in this chamber can see it for what it is. 18:41 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales I rise to speak in support of this disallowance motion because what's at issue here are the local Indigenous community and whether their voices have been heard and an important project that would be of immense benefit to the community. The last-minute intervention in August by the Minister for the Environment and Water, under section 10 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act, goes against the advice of the very people she's purporting to protect—that is, the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council, the recognised representative body of the local Wiradjuri people. They consider the claims of cultural heritage and songlines to be baseless and they are the organisation that should are been consulted and listened to by the minister. What this means is that the Blayney goldmine, a project worth about a billion dollars in the New South Wales Central West, will not be able to go ahead, meaning there are no jobs for the region. Regis, the company concerned, disputes the minister's suggestion that there are alternative sites for the tailings dam, saying it would take another five to 10 years to find a viable site, which is simply not commercially viable. And it's a terrible decision for investors and for future resource projects. If you're a commercial entity, why would you explore, why would you develop plans and why would you bother consulting with the local Indigenous community and stakeholders if you were to find at the end of it all, a minute to midnight, that the minister could overturn your decision with one of these section 10 determinations? Incidentally, this one is very scant on the reasons that the intervention was issued. I want to read to the chamber some of what the local Aboriginal land council, the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council, have said about this decision. They've described the claims on which the minister made her determination as 'baseless', saying: 'You have made baseless claims now the accepted truth.' They go on to say they are respectfully requesting a review of the section 10 evidence through proper consultation, and they demand to be consulted and listened to. They dispute that the claims which formed the basis of the section 10 application for cultural heritage had any basis whatsoever. The Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council were consulted extensively throughout this process and they made clear that, although in the past they had been opposed to the project, they had come to support it. If you look at the New South Wales government's Independent Planning Commission report on this project, you see that they provided conditional approval of the project in March 2023. That was after a three-member commission panel had taken over 1,000 public submissions, held a public hearing and consulted closely with local stakeholders, including the local Aboriginal landholding group. The commission's findings, as announced in March 2023, are: "The Commission finds that on balance, the Project is in the public interest" and that the "application is consistent with the Objects of the Environmental Planning & Assessment Act 1979" … The Commission noted the strategic benefits of the gold mine in "produc[ing] a significant mineral resource to meet the growing demand for raw metals", finding that "the positive impacts resulting from the Project—including employment, training, investment and additional economic activity—will outweigh the negative impacts". The Commission acknowledged concerns raised by stakeholders about social and amenity impacts including visual, air quality, noise and vibration impacts, and impacts on water resources, Aboriginal cultural heritage … The Commission found that these impacts could be effectively avoided, minimised or offset through the strict conditions of consent imposed by the Commission. The New South Wales planning panel, under their own environmental protection act, has approved this project, and the local landholders and the Aboriginal land council, the body which is the recognised representative body of the local Wiradjuri people, consider the project to be worthwhile and valid and do not object to it; yet the minister, acting on the advice, seemingly, of another group—a dissident group or an alternative group; however you prefer to phrase it—has prioritised their views and their statement of evidence over that of the legally constituted and legitimate authority here. This is a terrible decision on any respect. It will not only have an implication for that local community in Orange, not only for the local Orange Aboriginal land council, but it will have a chilling effect on resource projects across the country. Despite the best efforts of resource companies and extraction companies to consult with local stakeholders, to get local Indigenous groups on board, to protect cultural heritage, to preserve cultural heritage, to re-engineer their projects and plans for the site depending on the input of these groups, they might well find that, having gone through quite an exhaustive process over many years, having done the right thing, having spoken to the correct legally constituted groups, having developed environmental protection and mitigation plans and strategies to make sure local cultural heritage is preserved, at one minute to midnight, when they're in their final capital raise for this project, the environment minister is contacted by another group that purports to represent the area or purports to have identified site of cultural significance and, without testing those claims, without interrogating those claims, but simply accepting them at face value, the minister might issue a section 10 determination, which will undoubtedly frustrate that project, just as it frustrated the Blayney goldmine. The consequential effect is that it will have a chilling effect on investment in Australia, and it will raise the legitimate concerns of sovereign risk in Australia. What investors value in Australia is predictability of decision-making, certainty of decision-making and a well-understood and well-documented process. They respect our environmental laws. We are free to write them as we wish, and we as the parliament are free to change the laws as we wish. They have a legitimate expectation that, once those laws and frameworks are put in place and the requisite consultation is undertaken, they can depend upon decisions being taken in a predictable manner. That has not happened in this instance, and it has been manifestly clear in the way the minister has handled this. The minister has failed to provide a statement of reasons and she has been contradicted by her own leader, the Prime Minister, and by the New South Wales Premier, both of whom say they would like to see the project proceed. The minister has hidden from scrutiny, refused to disclose reasons and seemingly refused to discuss the issue despite entreaties with the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council, who have described the claims on which she bases this determination as baseless. She's hiding from scrutiny on this issue because I think she knows the decision that has been made is a terrible one with consequences that go beyond her particular portfolio and to the heart of Australia's resource industries. In the absence of a more compelling and detailed statement of reasons from the minister, I don't think the Senate can have any choice but to support this disallowance motion and seek for the minister or her representative in this chamber to provide a detailed and compelling statements of reasons as to why she didn't listen to the local Indigenous landholding group and why she decided, on the basis of another group, to disregard the work that had been done, disregard the decision of the New South Wales independent planning panel, disregard the views of the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council and disregard the views of any number of local stakeholders and prevent this project. In the absence of that compelling reason, we should be supporting this disallowance motion. 18:50 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I want to associate myself not only with the contributions made by my Greens colleagues, led by Senator Cox, but with the comments made by all of my colleagues. I think we should get a couple of things clear. First of all, who speaks for country? I've actually been there—it's a beautiful part of my state—on country with the TOs, the Wiradjuri mob, and I've seen their care for the country. I've actually walked to the top of Wahluu with them, otherwise known as Mount Panorama, and from the top of Wahluu you can look across and see over to the Belubula River. You can see around that whole stretch of this beautiful country. It has been called Mount Panorama for the last 200 years because when you're on the top of it you can see and feel the connections with country all around. That's one of the reasons why Wahluu is sacred, and, as Senator Cox made clear, it's one of the three brothers from the Dreaming story. It's a really special place. I had the privilege to go to Wahluu and work with Wiradjuri traditional owners in their first struggle under this same legislation to protect their country. It was, at the time, to protect Wahluu, the southern side of which is a sacred women's place. The local council there, headed by some Nat, had decided they wanted to ignore the sacred women's place and build a go-kart track over it because they thought a go-kart track was more important than that extraordinary cultural place. Did I mention that, when you're there, you can feel that it's a sacred place? You can see those connections around that country. It's a remarkable place. I rarely give the coalition credit, but former coalition minister Ley had those representations from those same traditional owners—the same traditional owners that are now calling for the protection of this beautiful country on the Belubula River. When she got the representations under section 10, which were viciously opposed by the local council, who just wanted to build their go-kart track, Minister Ley listened to these same traditional owners and, to her credit, protected the site. She understood the cultural connection. She listened to the traditional owners. She accepted their cultural authority—the very same people, the same traditional owners, who have pressed this section 10 application. It's the same country; you can literally see the river from Wahluu. You can see that beautiful stretch of magical countryside from Wahluu. I gave Minister Ley the credit at the time, but I'll repeat it. She listened to the TOs and she protected that country. It was the right thing to do. She actually had to stare down some pretty ugly Nats in New South Wales, not least the then, I think, Minister for Local Government, Paule Toole—he then became at some point the Nat leader. She had to stare him down to do the right thing, to protect the country. She did, and I give her credit. Now we have Minister Plibersek, who has had representations from the same traditional owners. Indeed, their section 10 application to protect this beautiful stretch of land on the Belubula River went in, I think, in October 2020, which was about a year before Minister Ley protected Wahluu, which was in 2021. A year before Minister Ley did the right thing and protected Wahluu, these same traditional owners put in their section 10 application to protect this beautiful stretch of Belubula River, the countryside around it and the dreaming stories that are there. Minister Plibersek has inherited a process that started under Minister Ley, because Minister Ley started the consultation, as she should have. She did the right thing as a minister. Between the two ministers, Minister Ley and Minister Plibersek, we've now had six rounds of consultation on this section 10 application since October 2020. The local traditional owners don't have external support. They don't have a corporate law firm—a bunch of highly paid lawyers—and cultural consultants and environmental consultants. They've just got their knowledge, strength and stories. Each time, they've engaged in those rounds of consultation. Meanwhile, the WA based mining company has paid high-end lawyers to come in and bombard them. Those opposite talk about a process that's caught someone on the hop. You couldn't jump over the amount of paperwork that the TOs have had to deal with and confront to defend their country and stories. Six rounds of consultation—did I mention that?—and the coalition say that this somehow got hijacked by the minister in the last few months. That's a total falsity from the coalition. There have been six rounds of consultation, which started under Minister Ley. The same traditional owners she listened to and respected, for whom she did the right thing and protected Wahluu, are saying: 'Listen to us again. Hear our cultural authority. We want to protect this beautiful part of the site because of the dreaming story about the three brothers and the creation story about the blue banded bee.' These aren't secrets. This isn't secret knowledge. This is knowledge they've shared with their community. It's knowledge they shared with us in a briefing earlier today. Senator Cox read that onto the record today. I won't repeat it. It's information they'd share with the coalition if they wanted to listen, but they don't want to listen. They only want to listen to the WA based goldmining company, which obviously wants to make some money out of this patch of land. It is an extraordinary place. It's called Belubula because in Wiradjuri 'belubula' means 'two rivers'. It's where the two rivers meet. There are 30 natural springs in this place. Of course natural springs in a part of my beautiful home state that so often can be pretty dry—this beautiful patch of country just to the west of Bathurst—are pretty special places. That's why landowners there and anyone who looks will find artefact after artefact on this little stretch of river. It's because it's always got water and always has had water. It's a special part of my home state. It's a special part of the country. They've made their position clear not since March but since October 2020, and it's knowledge that is thousands of years old. The coalition don't want to hear it. I get that they don't want to hear it. They don't care. They just want to approve a goldmine. I get that. They see gold and money. They don't see beautiful country and they don't want to hear the TOs. And then they say, 'Oh, but the land council has gone from opposition to neutral.' The only authority that they want to listen to is the land council. I wish someone in the coalition understood what land councils are in my home state of New South Wales. Land councils in New South Wales are established not under First Nations cultural authority but under the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Rights Act. Under the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Rights Act, their purpose is as follows. I will read from the New South Wales government's Aboriginal Land Rights Act website: The purpose of the ALRA is: To provide land rights for Aboriginal persons in New South Wales To provide for representative Aboriginal Land Councils in New South Wales To vest land in those Councils To provide ownership and management of land and other assets for those Councils To provide the allocation of funds to and by those Councils To provide for the provision of community benefit schemes by or on behalf of those Councils It's a New South Wales act which establishes statutory authorities to manage that land claim process and to provide some community benefit to all the Aboriginal people in the area from the land that is transferred to them by the New South Wales government, and sometimes by councils. It's a statutory process designed to manage that land rights process. It does not provide for cultural authority. Sometimes those people elected on to land councils do also have cultural authority. They sometimes are traditional owners, but it's by happenstance and not by design. If you want to find the traditional owners for a part of my beautiful home state of New South Wales, sometimes they will be on the land council, but most often they're not because the land council's job is not to speak with cultural authority. It's not a statutory job. It was never established as a statutory cultural authority, and there's a reason for that—because the New South Wales parliament shouldn't nominate who has cultural authority and shouldn't nominate who are the traditional owners. That's a matter for First Nations mob, to give that cultural authority, to identify the elders. And so when the coalition comes in here and says, 'The land council has gone from negative to neutral and that's the end of it,' it shows base ignorance about what land councils are in New South Wales—deep, base ignorance. They're not the cultural authority. They're not the traditional owners. Sometimes those elected do have that authority, and then they bring that authority to the work that they do. A land council is elected from all of the First Nations peoples that live in the geographical region of the land council. But to come in here and misrepresent the role of land councils as though they are the final arbiter of cultural authority shows base ignorance by the coalition. But you wouldn't expect more from them, would you? You wouldn't expect more from them, because this is convenient for them. They can point to the land council and say, 'Well, the land council has said something, so we can ignore all these traditional owners'—even the ones, the very same ones, former Minister Ley quite rightly listened to and accepted the cultural authority of. This Labor government has done the right thing. They've done the right thing here. Minister Plibersek has followed the process that was established by Minister Ley and, after six rounds of consultation, has accepted the cultural authority of the Wiradjuri elders and the traditional owners and has protected this beautiful part of the state from a tailings dam. It's not a determination about the whole gold mine, but it is a determination about the tailings dam in this beautiful little patch of New South Wales. We're giving credit where credit's due, and we'll back it in on this motion. 19:03 Senator NAMPIJINPA PRICE 263528 Northern Territory By making this declaration under section 10 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act and effectively stopping this mining project, Minister Plibersek has done what no member who is truly working for all Australians should do. The declaration must be disallowed by this chamber, and that is why I rise to speak today. Minister Plibersek's declaration is reflective of the antidevelopment approach of this Albanese government. This project was estimated to have provided around 870 full-time jobs to the region. The Greens might suggest that this is about protecting 'a nice bit of our country', but they disregard the fact that 870 full-time jobs, especially in a cost-of-living crisis, for the people of the region, including Indigenous people, is what the minister has effectively shut down, as well as millions of dollars in royalties and even more to the Australian economy broadly. Taxes and rates in future years have absolutely been trashed, simply with the stroke of a pen. And why? Because of the objections of a select group of around 17 people who were not members of the local Aboriginal land council. If they were traditional owners, why, then, wouldn't they be part of the local Aboriginal land council which deals directly with land instead of simply being a registered charity? It is, in fact, the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council who have authority to speak about Indigenous cultural heritage in the area of this project, despite suggestions by others in this chamber. The Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council did not oppose this project and believed any impacts on heritage items would have been manageable. But the views of the land council were disregarded in favour of a smaller group of opponents. Why was this small group chosen by Minister Plibersek? Because they were convenient. They were an easy group of people to use for the purposes of shutting down this project. This declaration by Minister Plibersek is a prime example of Indigenous people and cultural heritage and connection to land being weaponised. The Greens love weaponising Indigenous people in this way in this country, because they're completely and utterly anti-development. 'Anti-development' means anti improving the lives of Indigenous Australians. We know the EDO, which no doubt are good friends of the Greens, had their hands all over this case. They helped to get legal representation for those that opposed the mining project. As we know from past experience, like in the case of the Barossa gas project, the EDO are more than happy to use Indigenous people to achieve their own ends and to block projects that don't align with their ideology. Make no mistake: this is about aligning with their ideology, not about improving the lives of Indigenous Australians or Australians in general. Labor is all too happy to go along with this green ideology at the expense of economic development. You see, Anthony Albanese claims to be all about economic independence—or at least he claims to be about this since his speech at the Garma festival this year. But don't be fooled by his comments, because his actions speak louder than his words. His Labor government refuses to defund the EDO—who we know exploit Indigenous people—even though, as this case in Blayney demonstrates, the EDO actively work against economic development on Indigenous land. If Anthony Albanese was serious when he made those comments at Garma, he would defund the EDO and would step in when his ministers make decisions like this which have the opposite effect of what he claims. But he won't defund the EDO, and he won't step in when his ministers do things like this, because he doesn't genuinely care about the economic independence of Indigenous Australians. In fact, I would strongly suggest that his comments at Garma were simply a way for him to spruik his renewables-only energy policy. You see, this is an example of Indigenous Australians agreeing to the development of their land and maximising all the potential that it has to offer but the Albanese government blatantly stopping them from doing so. Too regularly, we are seeing the desire of traditional owners to become economically independent on their land being stymied in the name of activist ideology. The problem with our current system is that it allows a government that is anti development, like this Albanese government, to swoop in at the last second and stop these projects in the name of cultural heritage protection. We are left with a system that disincentivises investors from coming anywhere near us. Why would investors want anything to do with a location where a project could pass the approval of the state-level independent planning commission, pass the approval of the environment minister's own department and have the consent of the Aboriginal organisation who has the authority to speak on matters of cultural heritage, only to be sent back to the drawing board, staring down the barrel of another five to 10 years, with tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars down the drain? How the Prime Minister can possibly claim to encourage economic development on Indigenous land when he allows a system like this to operate makes absolutely no sense—no sense whatsoever. Some of the evidence that was initially included in the application, such as camp ovens and scar trees, were found, upon survey by an expert engaged by the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council, to be inauthentic—inauthenticity. That is why we have these organisations—to determine who is making things up and who is legitimate. There are also suggestions by the former chair of the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council that some of the evidence was in fact added over time—that, when the ovens were found to be inauthentic, suddenly songlines about the blue-banded bee appeared. Then we have the minister's own explanation of her decision. While the declaration was made under section 10 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act, Minister Plibersek is now saying that her decision was also related to objections raised by sheep farmers and beekeepers who were concerned about the project affecting the quality of water they used. The minister is so obviously getting desperate to justify the declaration she has made, she's now scrambling to bolster her case and save face before the Australian public. You've got the Greens who will defend those who make inauthentic claims in this place, because it suits their anti-development Green obsession, and this is who the minister would prefer to listen to. She finds herself in this position because the pressure is quite rightly mounting on her to ensure that she provides a true response, a reason that we can all agree with, only we can't—not when those who are representative of the traditional owners, the Orange Local Aboriginal Land Council and the former NSWALC chair are stating otherwise. They want a way out of disadvantage. They want jobs. They want opportunity. But it's falling on deaf ears with this government. The minister knows that Australians can see right through her culturally sensitive explanations to the heart of her ideological pursuit. The reality is that this declaration must be disallowed, because the evidence that it was all just an ideological ploy is too strong to ignore. I for one will not let Indigenous Australians be taken advantage of. I will not let them be used as weapons to further the agenda of this Albanese government. If this declaration is allowed to remain in place, then that is exactly what we will be left with. As the shadow minister for Indigenous Australians, I won't stand for it. The coalition will not stand for it. Anyone who truly cares about advancing the rights and interests of Indigenous Australians should not either. It is now time; the failures of Closing the Gap have come about because Indigenous Australians are more dependent on welfare than any other group of Australians in this country. The way out of this is opportunity, employment and economic development. This Albanese government is ensuring that economic development will never eventuate under their leadership. That is utterly shameful. They're in partnership with the Greens, who prefer to see Indigenous Australians as spiritual beings hovering above the earth and to romanticise our culture just as if they lived it themselves. They don't want to see Indigenous Australians become anything more than the noble savage that they view Indigenous Australians as—the museum piece to be ogled at and not Australian citizens, with the same rights, responsibilities and opportunities to make the most of what this wonderful country has to offer. 19:18 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The government will be opposing this motion. When Juukan Gorge was destroyed, we said as a nation—Labor, Liberal, Nationals and the crossbench—that we shouldn't allow the destruction of Aboriginal cultural heritage in this way ever again. When we have an issue like this, where thousands of years of cultural heritage is at risk, it's our responsibility to protect it. What we see today is proof that Peter Dutton would plunge Australia back into Scott Morrison-style chaos. Just like Scott Morrison, Peter Dutton is showing us he's prepared to ignore the law, cut corners and play favourites. Clearly, the Liberals and Nationals want a system where getting projects approved depends more on whether they like you than on whether you comply with the law. That is no way to run a government. It'll be robodebt, sports rorts and car park rorts all over again if Mr Dutton and his coalition team have their way. It's a dangerous way to operate. It's a recipe for uncertainty that will scare off investment and kill jobs. There won't be a renewable energy project that's safe, for example. The opposition have promised to cut approval times in half, and now we know how—by ignoring the law, cutting corners and playing favourites. Peter Dutton must immediately explain whether there are other projects he'll approve or axe without knowing the details or applying the law. That is a frightening prospect for all Australians. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296331 The question is that the disallowance motion moved by Senator Duniam be agreed to. A division is required. Given that it's past 6.30, the division will be held over until tomorrow. COMMITTEES 91 COMMITTEES Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee 91 Reference 91 19:20 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia I rise to speak on this motion that has been moved by both Senator McKenzie and myself. It's very simple motion. One might even say it should be a non-controversial motion, when you look at what we are asking the Senate to do, and that is to establish a Senate inquiry by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee into—wait for it!—the nature, extent and impacts of misconduct in procurement processes involving publicly funded infrastructure and housing projects. Now, as I said, one would think this was a very simple motion. Who in this place, whether you're a member of the government, a member of the crossbench or a member of the Australian Greens, would actually vote no to such a motion? There is currently a cost-of-living crisis in Australia and Australians are doing it tough, yet what do we know? What we know is this: the cost of publicly funded infrastructure in this country, including roads, including hospitals, including the flow-on effect on housing, and including schools, is around 30 per cent higher because of the actions of the CFMEU. And it's not just the actions of the CFMEU. Quite frankly, it is the actions of those big companies who do deals with the CFMEU, knowing full well that the deals they are doing are driving up costs and delaying projects. These deals are enabled by large construction companies that allow these practices to persist. Why? Because, as we know—this has been proven time and time again—these firms benefit from inflated costs and productivity delays. All the while, mum-and-dad Australians are the people who ultimately suffer the consequences and pay the price. As I said, given the nature of the inquiry, which basically is to work out why publicly funded infrastructure in this country is costing the Australian taxpayer more and not being delivered on time—why it's potentially not being delivered at all—I would have thought it would go through with a resounding 'yes' from all members of the Australian Senate. But, as we know at this point in time, whilst the motion we are putting up is endorsed by the Australian public, who I would have thought are saying, 'Hey, if I am actually paying more for my public infrastructure I would like to know why,' the fact of the matter is that his motion for a Senate inquiry is not likely to get up, because of the vested interests in this place. And we'll talk about those vested interests shortly. The position of the coalition—the Liberal and National parties—is very clear. Our proposal to establish this inquiry comes at a critical time. Again, I would have thought that our public spend on infrastructure—on housing, in particular, given the inability of Australians currently to get into housing—must deliver value for money. If I was a member of the public I would be demanding from government that they spend my money appropriately. Yet what does the body of evidence, now formulated over many years, show? It shows that public infrastructure projects are often delayed and that they run over budget. But we also know—and, again, there's been royal commission after royal commission into this—that they are subject to corrupt practices that inflate costs and cripple productivity. So true is this that it has become a cliche of any government project. It is almost now accepted that a government project, in particular where the CFMEU is involved, is one that will be delayed, will run over budget and will be subject to corrupt practices that inflate costs and cripple productivity. What a sad state of affairs, that we now live in a country where it is extremely rare for a public infrastructure project to be completed on budget and on time. That's why Senator McKenzie and I are putting forward this inquiry. All we want to do is ensure that Australian taxpayers—it's their money; publicly funded infrastructure equals Australian taxpayers; they're the ones paying for it—are getting the best value for every dollar spent on these public infrastructure and housing projects. It is a fact—as I said, it's been established many times—that the impacts of misconduct in the building and construction sector have a flow-on impact to the cost Australians pay for their roads, their schools and their public infrastructure, including hospitals and housing. Bullying, coercion and other intimidation tactics on building sites, particularly those controlled by the CFMEU, are driving up costs and delaying the delivery of essential infrastructure and housing. It's not a hypothetical issue. As we know, it is a real and present problem affecting every Australian who relies on the timely and cost-effective completion of public projects. I would have thought that this inquiry provides an opportunity for all stakeholders—those who want to come along and say, 'By the way, no, no, no, we're actually doing okay in Australia', or those involved in the delivery of infrastructure and housing—to come along and justify their position or, alternatively, share their horror stories. And I know it's the 'alternatively' that Mr Albanese and his government are worried about. The alternative is that they come along and share their stories of the bullying, the intimidation, the coercion and the abuse. But also they might be able to share with us what they think are the potential solutions. The CFMEU probably aren't going to like those potential solutions. So the construction industry, business owners, subcontractors and of course employees all have a story to tell. Again, all this inquiry will do is ensure that their voices are heard. But, as I said, the inquiry is not going to be limited to just the disgraceful actions of the CFMEU. This inquiry will shine a light on the entire process, from the moment a project begins until the moment it ends. The behaviours we have seen year in year out from the CFMEU—and, as I said, the body of evidence is in; it's been in for several years now—are driving up costs and delaying projects. But this is the key point here: they are enabled by large construction companies that allow these practices to persist. I've stood in this place and said that before, back in 2016, and, guess what? The Australian Labor Party were in opposition. They fought us every single step of the way to try and curb these practices. It is a fact that these large construction companies benefit, as I said, from inflated costs and productivity delays, and the only people who end up suffering are the Australian people. They suffer the consequences. Last month, Minister Watt denied that the CFMEU's behaviour has an impact on construction costs. I would have thought that if that were the case he would have welcomed the inquiry so he could prove those on the coalition side to be wrong. This is what Minister Watt said: 'I've had a bit of a look at this, Patricia, and I cannot find any evidence whatsoever to support that.' Really? Seriously? So many sayings are going through my mind—ostrich with its head in the sand or living under a rock. Go and talk to any of the smaller builders, any of the subbies. Go and talk to Australians who are having their infrastructure projects delayed. They will tell you Minister Watt has a blatant denial of reality, but Minister Watt's comments also show and tell you all you need to know about Labor's unwillingness to confront the truth. The body of evidence is in. The evidence shows that CFMEU construction projects cost the Australian taxpayer around 30 per cent more than they should. In Queensland, where Labor's cosy relationship with the CFMEU is particularly evident, the cost of building apartments on CFMEU controlled sites—that's right, apartments which people want to get into—is 33 per cent higher than on non-union sites. A 2024 economic analysis by the Queensland Economic Advocacy Solutions found that CFMEU controlled apartment buildings take 50 per cent longer to build. Seriously, you could not script this if you tried. The cost of a two-bedroom apartment, for example, can be inflated by an extra $287,199, pushing the total build cost from $869,687 to $1,156,886. This is not just an isolated finding. A report from Ernst & Young estimated that Labor's abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission would lead to an additional $34.5 billion decline in construction output by 2030, with a $47.5 billion reduction in economic activity as higher costs and lower activity act as a handbrake on the rest of the economy. Statistics from the Australian Securities and Investment Commission show that from the past financial year to 16 June—wow!—there were 2,832 construction industry insolvencies. That is up by 28 per cent from the 2023 financial year, when there were 2,013 construction insolvencies. There were 1,200 construction insolvencies in the 2022 financial year, the last year—lo and behold!—the Australian Building and Construction Commission was in operation. This is the economy that Mr Albanese and his government preside over. These are the consequences, laid bare, of their destructive industrial relations changes. The CFMEU's conduct has far-reaching implications, and it's not just affecting large infrastructure projects. Australian home buyers and taxpayers are the ones who are ultimately paying the price for the CFMEU's bullying, their thuggery, their intimidation and their coercion. The chief executive of the Recruitment, Consulting and Staffing Association told the ABC in July that the CFMEU has created a serious increase in costs through a lack of competition. Quantity surveyors from Rider Levett Bucknall found that the CFMEU's wage deal in New South Wales would increase labour costs by up to 19 per cent in its first year alone. Similarly, Queensland builders and developers report that productivity on CFMEU controlled projects averages three days a week due to a sweetheart deal between Queensland Labor and the union. Seriously? The federal budget in May revealed just how much this is now costing Australians. The Albanese government paid out an extra $10.1 billion to cover cost blowouts on state and territory infrastructure projects. Of this, $5 billion went to Victorian Labor, and not a single extra kilometre of road was built with that money. Yet as we stand here today, those on the other side, the Albanese Labor Government, sit there rolling their eyes. They remain absolutely unwilling to take serious action. All this inquiry will do is allow us to dig deeper into the role that tier 1 construction firms play in fostering a culture of collusion, intimidation and corruption. All this will do is establish that Australians are paying too much for their public infrastructure, and it may actually put some solutions on the table. But let's wait and see. I also move the amended motion standing in my name: That the motion be amended as follows: To move— That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 28 November 2024: 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) the adequacy of Commonwealth procurement contracts in ensuring the security of payments to small and medium subcontractors and opportunities to strengthen these arrangements; (c) any practices or arrangements that discriminate, or have the effect of discriminating, against certain persons, classes of employees or subcontractors; (d) connections between the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union, declining productivity and the escalating costs of infrastructure in Australia, including housing; (e) the impact of misconduct on construction businesses, suppliers and skills shortages; (f) the causes and effect of cost and delivery pressures on the Australian Government's infrastructure investment program; (g) Commonwealth oversight of state and territory procurement and contracting arrangements for infrastructure projects with a federal contribution; (h) examples of best practice infrastructure procurement processes around the world; (i) improving the involvement of Indigenous businesses, small and medium business suppliers, subcontractors and independent contractors on infrastructure projects; (j) the need for anti-racketeering laws in Australia; and (k) any related matters. 19:36 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Last week's Courier Mail is reporting: 'New tent cities have been set up near some of Brisbane's busiest intersections as Queensland emerges as the epicentre of the housing crisis. The latest tent city to hit Brisbane is at E.E. McCormick Place, where tents can be seen sitting on the edge of a major arterial road, with clothes hanging on lines and camp showers draping off trees.' The chief executive of Queensland Council of Social Services—QCOSS—Aimee McVeigh, said the housing crisis was not being properly addressed, going on to say: 'It's incredibly heartbreaking but unfortunately pretty predictable that we're continuing to see people, including families with children, who don't have a safe place to call home.' I've visited large tent cities in South Brisbane on the Brisbane River banks, in Mackay and in Townsville, and I've seen smaller tent cities in far too many provincial centres to list. Speaking with those residents, I was horrified to find just how many were families with children. The really sad part is that mum and dad may both have jobs. Yet, without a home for the children, one parent has to give up working to look after their children, because a tent is no place for a child. There are children living in tents. Losing that income guarantees that family will remain homeless. Thank you, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. The truth is the housing and rent crisis is out of control. In August 2020, the national average rent was $437 a week. It's now $627. That's an increase of 40 per cent over just a few years. The national rental vacancy is at just one per cent, which is far below the three per cent rate that is considered a healthy market. In 1987, the average house cost 2.8 times the average income. Today a house is 9.7 times the average income. Additionally, under this government, real wages in Australia have gone backwards six per cent. Not only are houses more expensive; working Australians are further away from being able to afford them. Many people under 30 have given up hope of ever owning a home. What a failure of governance under Labor! Surely the prime directive of a government is to leave this beautiful country in a better state than you found it in. The reverse is happening; it's worse. Over the past two decades, under the Liberal and Labor 'uniparty', wealth inequality in Australia has increased dramatically and substantially. According to the University of New South Wales, the wealth of the top 20 per cent of people increased 82 per cent, and the wealth of the bottom 20 per cent only increased 20 per cent. That, though, does not stop the university grabbing just as much of that wealth for themselves as they can. The university lobby group, Universities Australia, recently sent my office a press release stating they could prove that 702,000 foreign students didn't put strain on the housing market. Actually, they didn't say 702,000; the release rather dishonestly spoke of the 200,000 new students who arrived this year rather than the total number of foreign students, which is 702,000, all needing a bed and a roof. To achieve this feat of denial, Universities Australia use a simple statistical trick. They use the vacancy rate as an indicator instead of rental price. Like any supply-and-demand industry, rental prices will rise until demand matches supply. This means vacancy rates should be constant across different areas, because the balancing factor is not vacancy rates; it's rental price. Rentals are higher near a university, as landlords price into their rents the ability to have three or four students per bedroom. And, knowing how those rates are being paid with so many tenants, local councils hike up rates to exploit overcrowding. The national vacancy rate across Australia has fallen from 2.42 per cent in 2021 to 1.09 per cent in January 2024 because of the housing catastrophe. Why? In part because foreign students all need a bed, and more so because two million new arrivals all need a bed. Universities couldn't care less about everyday Australians sleeping in tents, in public parks and under bridges. Universities are motivated to grab the money foreign students pay towards obscene multimillion-dollar university salaries. University fees are on average eight times what they were when the Hawke Labor government reintroduced tertiary fees in 1989. I'm pleased to see racketeering mentioned in this motion. So many Australian industries are being controlled for the benefit of well-connected and mostly foreign wealth funds, acting against the financial interests of everyday Australians. Racketeering could be a separate inquiry, so entrenched has the practice become. When it comes to ignoring working families, Labor has form. It's clear. The reason I'm raising this in a housing speech is quite simple: university affordability is no better than it was before HECS, except now children of everyday Australians are left with a debt so high that they can't ever afford their own home. So many young people contact my office—Australians who have done everything society has asked of them. They have studied hard, worked hard, stayed out of trouble and got a university degree, and now have a good job, only to find they were lied to. Real wages in Australia are back to 2010 levels, while houses are twice as expensive as they were in 2010. HECS debt comes off a person's ability to repay a loan, which means its reduces their borrowing power below the price of an entry level home. They can't borrow. Meanwhile, rents are so high that they have no ability to even save a deposit. Society is lying to our young Australians. This is not on the Labor Party alone; these problems date back to the Hawke Labor government and were made far worse under the Howard Liberal government—the uniparty at work! The message I have for recent graduates is one of hope. One Nation's housing policy looks to the future, offering commonsense solutions to help more Australians purchase their own home while at the same time reducing rent. Let's have an overview of our housing policy. One Nation's housing policy includes lowering immigration to sustainable levels to reduce housing demand; in fact, I will go further and say, with 2.3 million people on residence visas, we need to send some home. We would ban foreign ownership of residential property to increase housing supply; allow a portion of a person's superannuation to be invested in home purchase; ditch Labor's housing future fund and invest those funds into creating a new people's mortgage scheme, offering a five per cent deposit and a five per cent interest rate; allow people with a HECS debt to roll their debt into a people's mortgage account, improving their ability to obtain and service a loan—this is common sense and humane; and implement a five-year moratorium on charging GST on the materials used in new home construction, which will make new homes more affordable, taking $1.4 billion off the sale price of new homes over the next four years. Here are some more details. Non-bank financial institutions stand ready right now to take on the mortgage market and administer our people's home loans. They're ready. Indeed, some are in the market now in company with aggregators. It's One Nation policy to create a people's bank to provide Australia's obscenely profitable banking cartel with real competition. We don't have four major banks; we have one major bank with four different logos, with the same controlling interest—BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and First State. Efficiency in banking, including in the housing market, will not come from more regulation; it will come from more competition, driving real accountability. That's exactly what the original Commonwealth Bank did when it was formed in 1911. The cost of building a house now is a massive problem. One of the reasons costs keep going up is Australian construction codes. Construction codes are meant to make sure our houses aren't made of straw and won't blow down if the big bad wolf, or a cyclone, huffs and puffs. Unfortunately, Australia's construction codes have gone woke; they're no longer just about safe houses. The National Construction Code was amended in 2022 to require all new buildings to be NDIS compliant—every single building to be NDIS compliant. Alan Kohler reports that global construction consultant Rider Levett Bucknall estimates that this adds up to $49,500 to the cost of a dwelling. Why should a young family have to shell out an extra $50,000 on features they'll never need in order to buy their family home? Some of the requirements border on ridiculous. There must be a stepless entry to the front door, so the days of steps are over—even a handful up to your front porch. You'd have to pay for a ramp or potentially face having your home deemed illegal. Remember, this applies to every new building. All new homes must be built with heavy-duty, reinforced walls and a toilet. These are ostensibly so grab rails can be installed, even though they may never be installed. Where did you want to put the toilet? You didn't think you could just put it where you wanted and where it's convenient, did you? Are you considering skipping a toilet on the ground floor and only having one upstairs to save on plumbing? Think again. The construction codes say no. You're forced to have one on the ground floor whether it's cost effective for you or not and whether you need it or not. The codes now dictate where the toilet must be placed. It must be against a wall, with huge spaces left around it. As the price of land continues to go up, many houses simply don't have the floor space to accommodate these new requirements without sacrificing others. Young people are paying for this, even though they don't need it. No doubt these criteria are helpful for people with a disability, yet there's no reason to make them mandatory in every new house for people without a disability. Many in government claim that, when it comes to housing, the problem is supply. When these changes to the construction codes alone are costing an extra $50,000 a house, there's no hope of boosting supply, because Australians can't afford to build. Construction codes are getting so long and complex that we practically need to be lawyers to decipher them. That's no slight on our tradies. Most are far smarter and more useful than lawyers anyway. Our tradies should be using their hands on power tools and paintbrushes, not having to turn over pages and pages of regulations telling them how to swing a hammer. The same applies to our farmers, who are buried in paperwork. Unions like the CFMEU endorse these complex additions because it means more work for them. Meanwhile, quotes to build a new house leave Australians gobsmacked. The people who can afford these expensive houses are millionaire foreign buyers. There's no doubt that foreigners are buying houses here, and that comes at the expense of an Australian who can't get into a house. Where are the Labor government's union mates when it comes to the issue of foreign buyers? They're completely silent. The government calls it foreign investment. Wrong, it's not investment. This is foreign ownership. Worst of all, Australians can't believe what the government tells us about how many foreigners are buying houses. The Foreign Investment Review Board says foreigners buy less than one per cent of houses, yet the New South Wales state government charges a foreign purchase tax, a surcharge, and records that the number is more than double that. Surveys say it's much higher. When you ask real estate agents who they are selling to, as the NAB property survey does, they say the number of foreign buyers is 10 per cent. What about shelf companies, trusts with beneficial interests or so-called dark money in foreign retail purchases? Are foreign buyers of housing sneaking through the cracks? I've been trying to get this question answered since November with a series of technical questions to the Australian Taxation Office. They run a data-matching program which matches the 2.4 million names of every seller and purchaser of every house in the country against ATO records. Theres's a simple question about those records: how many of those 2.4 million names are Australian citizens, and how many aren't—how many are foreign? Trying to get the ATO to answer that question is like trying to get blood out of a stone, yet we're still selling houses en masse to foreigners. To be frank, whatever the answer, one house a foreigner buys is one too many, especially in the housing crisis. We're in the middle of a housing crisis, a catastrophe, when there should be zero foreign ownership of Australian housing. It's in Australia's interest to make it zero foreign housing, just like Canada and New Zealand have recently done, yet where are the Labor government and unions like the CFMEU? They encourage more immigration and more foreign ownership and push the price of houses higher, as do the Greens, and then want a rent ceiling. When Labor and the union-backed super funds aren't encouraging foreigners to snatch homes away from Australians, they're making sure renters will have multinational corporations as landlords—BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street. The concept is known as 'build to rent'. It's about letting huge corporations like BlackRock and Vanguard build housing estates and unit blocks so that people will be stuck renting from them forever. The government touts this as a solution to the housing crisis. Creating forever renters who are paying corporate company landlords is not a fix; it's serfdom. A real solution is One Nation's policies to get more Australians owning their own home. The Albanese Labor government is responding to a problem of their own making. Housing approvals are falling as red and green tape slow down the approval process and as building codes put developers off. Housing approvals are the lowest they've been for many years. Construction is falling as costs rise both from an increase in raw materials and from an increase in interest rates—and from an increase in the number of bureaucrats that you've appointed instead of tradies. Sales are falling in line with falling real wages and increasing home prices. A labour shortage is correctly blamed, yet we had 2.3 million new arrivals, and only a few thousand of those were builders. As I said, it is a problem of the government's own making. The only response the government has is to throw taxpayers' money at the problem. Without blocks of land, without builders, without tradies, without building materials and without buyers, money can't achieve anything. One Nation's housing policy will get young Australians into their own homes—even those with a HECS debt that is preventing them saving for their own home and those working families living under bridges, in tents, in caravan parks, in showgrounds and in city parks. It's time for new, commonsense ideas. If people care about Australians, then it's time for One Nation. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T The question before us is that the motion moved by Senator Cash be agreed to. A division having been called, we will defer that division until tomorrow morning. The debate is adjourned accordingly. BILLS 97 BILLS Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023 97

Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023

Second Reading 97 19:54 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I wanted to make a contribution on this important legislation, the Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (Costs Protection) Bill 2023. It's a privilege to speak on a really important piece of law reform that builds on a body of work undertaken by our government to implement the recommendations of the Respect@Work report, a crucial report when it comes to making our workplaces safer and protecting women at work. This bill marks a significant shift in how we protect and encourage workers who stand up for their rights. Sexual harassment is not inevitable. It is not acceptable. It is preventable. Today, with this bill, we take one further step in making that a reality here in Australia. The Australian Human Rights Commission found that one in three Australian workers have experienced workplace sexual harassment in the last five years. That is a devastating statistic for our country. Yet, as we all know, the Jenkins report sat on a shelf, gathering dust, under the previous government. This is an important area of law reform. I was very pleased to chair the inquiry into this piece of legislation. I thank my colleagues who participated in that inquiry and all of the submitters and the witnesses that came forward for this and previous iterations of legislation dealing with this topic. It's not easy to come forward and talk about sexual harassment. Women are brave when they do. What this legislation does is protect those survivors of sexual harassment. It seeks to make sure that there is another stepping stone towards justice for these women. I'm very proud of my background before coming to this parliament, working for a lawyer representing workers, particularly those who had suffered sexual harassment in the workplace. I want to make it clear that we're going to hear throughout this debate many scenarios from those opposite about what may play out. But we know the reality of what women go through when they raise an issue of sexual harassment, how unsafe it makes them at work and how difficult it is for them to seek justice. I have seen this with my own eyes. I have walked women through the steps. I have sat down with them and talked about seeking justice and what their prospects might be. This bill seeks to make sure that the next time a woman in this country suffers sexual harassment at work, where someone like me has the role of talking them through the steps that they need to take to protect themselves, to have their rights upheld and to seek justice, that conversation doesn't end in 'this may be too difficult for you to undertake'—because that's where we are at the moment. For all the scenarios that we hear put forward by those opposite—and we heard some in the contribution from Senator Cash—none of them are the reality that women in workplaces in Australia are enduring. None of the points the opposition put forward to criticise this bill are cemented in the reality of what women are facing in workplaces and then what they face when they go to the courts and they go through the court process to seek justice. It is an incredibly difficult time for them. I will have a chance to talk further on this bill, I understand, but I wanted to first of all reiterate that this is about alleviating the risk of adverse costs for applicants in federal unlawful discrimination proceedings. We know from the evidence that was put forward that that is integral to making sure that more people, particularly women, come forward in the first place. We don't want women to think twice about raising a complaint and seeking justice, because of the cost that might be imposed later on through the court process. That is something that this bill seeks to rectify. It is unfinished work that makes our workplaces safer. I'm very pleased that our government is finishing the work of Kate Jenkins and the respect at work bill. I'm thinking tonight about all of the women who have come forward to raise issues of sexual harassment. This bill is for them. I'm going to continue. The bill proposes adopting an equal access model for unlawful discrimination. The bill would amend the Australian Human Rights Commission Act to ensure that applicants and respondents would bear their own costs in federal unlawful discrimination court proceedings. In those cases—I will talk about this in more depth at another opportunity, hopefully—we've seen time and time again that there are situations where allowing the courts to award costs against an applicant occurs in circumstances— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT I0T Thank you, Senator Green. You will be in continuation when the debate resumes. Debate adjourned. ADJOURNMENT 98 ADJOURNMENT Tasmanian Government 98 20:00 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania In life there are two certainties: death and taxes. But I think there may be a third: an incompetent Tasmanian state Liberal government which continues its shambolic run in office. Parliament isn't even sitting, but this state Liberal government is in shambles. It's chaotic and it's lurching from one crisis to the next. Since we sat in this place, we've seen the Jacqui Lambie Network, who had three state members elected at the recent state election, have two of those members leave. They either left or they were pushed, but at the end of the day we have two new Independent members and only one Jacqui Lambie Network person still sitting in the House of Assembly. This is at a time when it is so crucial to have a strong government and a strong opposition and crossbench. The Liberal government has been running the state finances into the ground. When those on the other side come into this chamber and critique this government, it's really interesting to note that the Liberals who represent our state as senators in this place are very quiet on the fact that the Liberal government's budget deficit is now $1.5 billion. There is a record net debt of $3.5 billion. Let's remember that there's been so much debate about building a stadium for the AFL. I support a Tasmanian team, but this has been going on for so long. It has divided the state, particularly between the south, the north and the north-west coast, but what we haven't seen is anything from the state Liberal government to actually deliver any infrastructure. There have been no further updates on the cost and on when the stadium is going to be built. Another divisive infrastructure project was the northern prison. What happened was that, over two election cycles, they divided the north in relation to where a prison was going to be. They can't even deliver that. They've finally listened to the people of northern Tasmania and have decided against it. Then there are the two new Spirits, which are so important to tourism in my home state of Tasmania and also to moving cargo between the big island and the centre of the universe, Tasmania. So what have they done? They've spent $80 million extra to keep the company that is building those Spirits in business. But what is even more extraordinary is that there are no new berthing facilities in Devonport as yet for those Spirits, so the questions are: Where are those Spirits going to dock? When are the new port facilities going to be available? And the big question is: when, if ever, will the stadium at Macquarie Point be built? We can also go to the Royal Hobart Hospital redevelopment, which for year after year has been on the plans of this government that has obviously been in power for too long. What are they going to do? They have reduced the redevelopment. They have doctors and staff at the Royal Hobart Hospital really concerned about that. There is a really simple thing that they could have done. It has been years in the making. It is at least three years since I started agitating about it. This incompetent government can't even deliver a container deposit scheme for Tasmania. And we know we made a commitment—and so did the opposition—at the last federal election to build a northern hospice in Launceston, a standalone facility. The state government is holding up that project. Nothing has happened. Finally, they've accepted the best site for that hospice, but it's just stalled because they can't move their own health department out to make way for the redevelopment. Why is Mr Rockliff continuing on this rocky road and not delivering for Tasmanians? (Time expired) Freedom of Religion 98 20:05 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia We often speak about human rights in this place, and for very good reason. Human rights are central to the dignity of every human person. Any deprivation of these rights is equivalent to dehumanising a person, and there are very few crimes worse than this. The widespread dignity and respect afforded to every person throughout the world is the greatest achievement thus far of the human rights advocacy that we have witnessed over many decades. Australia has one of the best reputations in the world for defending these rights, and that is something that we all can be proud of. This Senate, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and other aspects of this parliament are essential vehicles for the protection of human rights within our own borders. As I said before, we should be proud of our record, but we also must never be complacent. Few human rights are more fundamental than the right to religious freedom. The right to choose a religion or, indeed, the right to choose none permits the individual to freely decide their outlook on life. So the information that came to light in the most recent United States Department of State report on the status of religious freedom in the world is especially concerning. It revealed that the number of nations with extreme suppression of religious freedom is increasing. Nations such as Myanmar, Afghanistan, China, Iran, North Korea and 11 other states have been designated as countries of particular concern regarding the limiting of religious freedom—16 nations, up from 12 in the previous report, reflecting a macro trend of reduced religious freedom in problematic jurisdictions. I've spoken frequently in this chamber about the humanitarian crisis in Myanmar, and I highlight that one of the key elements of that crisis is the deprivation of religious freedom. It's been reported that the military junta there has been weaponised by a form of militant Buddhism to divide the nation, targeting citizens of other faiths and attempting to promote a form of religious nationalism that has devastated Christian, Muslim and other minority communities across Myanmar. Another example in the state department report is the aftermath of the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan. The return of the extremist Islamic regime there has severely curtailed the rights of women and effectively outlawed any open religious practice outside the state's interpretation of Islam. Afghani women have suffered a tragic step back in their freedoms, including losing their access to education and work options—and now even the requirement being instituted that they are always accompanied by a man. Similarly, there were the widely reported incidents that occurred after the tragic death of Mahsa Amini in Iran nearly two years ago. She was arrested and tortured for wearing what was described as an improper hijab. The response to the public outcry included further police brutality and arrests of Sunni Muslims, Christians and other individuals who did not conform to the Iranian government's religious policies. Of course, there remains the ongoing repression in Tibet, with His Holiness the Dalai Lama still unable to return to his spiritual and ancestral homeland. As I've said previously today, I met with a delegation of Tibetan parliamentarians who have recently reinvigorated their advocacy in our country to draw attention to Chinese Communist Party oppression and reiterated the grave concern for those of the Buddhist faith that the process of reincarnation of the Dalai Lama is now in jeopardy, given the Chinese government's restrictions on religious expression in Tibet. This amounts to an existential crisis for a global religion of 520 million people. We cannot allow these human rights breaches to continue unnoticed and without a response from our own country. The regimes will not stop without external pressure. Wherever possible and appropriate, Australia must continue to play its part to bring its strong and respected voice to bring greater religious freedom and tolerance to the whole world, creating a world where such abuses are confined to the history books. Women's Health 99 20:09 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales Last week, Senator Ruston, Sussan Ley, who is the deputy opposition leader, Melissa McIntosh, who is the member for Lindsay, and I, with the help of Western Sydney Executive Women, held a women's health round table and community discussion in Penrith. One of the big issues that came up, and one that I'm familiar with from my work with the Senate's inquiry into it, was around menopause and perimenopause. This is a life event that women will go through in their lifetime, and for me it remains bewildering that it is still somewhat taboo. We heard that apparently it is a subject that falls into the category of 'tricky conversations'. It really shouldn't be, because not talking about something has never actually solved anything. When it comes to what women are asking for in this space, it isn't anything revolutionary or any type of impossible feat. We heard that women want flexible arrangements around work so that they can manage their symptoms and have easier access to modern medications, which for many women can be life changing. Currently, shortages in these medications is a problem that we really need to address. Another key topic of discussion was around endometriosis. Endo is something that we are increasingly learning more about, yet for decades women who suffered with the symptoms were routinely dismissed. Many were told that it was all in their head or that pain and heavy periods were just a part of being a woman. Well, it's not a part of being a woman that anyone should have to deal with, and being in excruciating pain for a number of days every month isn't acceptable. Women want and frankly deserve access to up-to-date health services on the issues that affect them. They don't want to be told that their symptoms are made up or not as bad as they think they are. Endometriosis is a big issue in the women's health space, with one in nine females in Australia developing it at some time in their lives. It's something that deserves broader attention. We also had the opportunity to discuss the importance of IVF and accessibility to IVF. Families are important, and we want to encourage an environment where, if people want to start a family, they can and where, if they need help, that help is available. IVF offers a choice of family making to people who may otherwise not be able to. Women's health is really important, and last week's round table in Western Sydney gave us some insights as to how we as policymakers should approach it and what best practice does and does not look like. I would like to thank my colleagues and the health professionals and women of Western Sydney for their time and participation. Thank you. Senate adjourned at 20 : 12