2024-09-11 2 1 0 Senate 0 1

Wednesday, 11 September 2024

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

DOCUMENTS 1 DOCUMENTS Tabling 1 COMMITTEES 1 COMMITTEES Meeting 1 09:01 The PRESIDENT 112096 If there is no objection, the meetings are authorised. BILLS 1 BILLS Ending Native Forest Logging Bill 2023 1

Ending Native Forest Logging Bill 2023

Second Reading 1 09:01 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania This bill, the Ending Native Forest Logging Bill 2023, seeks to put an end to the outdated practice of destroying biodiversity by the industrial logging of our native forests, which also, of course, contributes massively to the breakdown of the planet's climate that is happening as we speak here today. This bill seeks to put an end to the practice of logging public forests in Australia by repealing the Regional Forest Agreements Act 2002, closing a massive loophole in our environment laws. How do we find ourselves here today in 2024 still debating whether industrial native forest logging, a mendicant and massive loss-making industry that only survives because of the rivers of gold that flow into it from Commonwealth and state coffers, should continue? How do we find ourselves in the middle of the twin crises of climate breakdown and ecological and biodiversity collapse debating whether industrial native forest logging should be allowed to continue to massively contribute to both of those travesties? How do we find ourselves here today having to defend magnificent, carbon-rich, biodiverse old growth forests? How do we find ourselves here today having to debate whether trees that were already ancient when Europeans arrived to colonise this country over 200 years ago should be clear felled and fed into the woodchip machines? How do we find ourselves here today debating whether we should keep logging the swift parrot into extinction—that beautiful little bird? How do we find ourselves here today having to debate whether the Leadbeater's possum habitat should continue to be logged or whether masked owl habitat should continue to be destroyed? I'll tell you how we find ourselves here today, colleagues. It's because the establishment parties in this country—those parties that are becoming harder and harder to tell apart—still support all of those practices: the destruction of nature, the breakdown of our climate and the destruction of the Aboriginal cultural heritage that exists in the very lands and forests that are being logged. They still support the ongoing public subsidies to a mendicant industry for base political purposes and because they are captured by the logging corporations in the same way that they are captured by the big fossil fuel, supermarket and banking corporations—and the list goes on. The agents of corporate profiteering in this place continue to refuse to take action to defend our forests, protect our climate and look after the Australian people and, in fact, people right around the world. RFAs had a stated threefold purpose. That purported purpose was to protect biodiversity, secure employment and provide resource security, but RFAs have comprehensively failed to deliver on all three of those purported purposes. Firstly, on resource security—an epic fail. They sought to provide resource security by logging in guaranteed volumes of sawlogs and woodchips, but markets have moved on. People now want ethically sourced wood. They want their wood to be from plantations or from recycled timbers and, at the very least, they want their timbers certified by acceptable certification schemes. What they don't want are timbers sourced from destroying native forests. We are in the early stages of a climate catastrophe, and we continue to fell at an industrial scale. We continue to devastate our carbon-rich native forests for low-value products that very quickly release their carbon back into the atmosphere—all made possible by government subsidies. In terms of employment, again, this is a mendicant industry. In my home state of Tasmania there are more newsagents than there are people who work in the native forest logging industry. This industry can only survive because of taxpayer largesse delivered and facilitated by the establishment parties in this place. In Tasmania, the Liberal state government is trying to open up 40,000 hectares of high conservation value native forests that were actually protected under the Tasmanian forest agreement, an agreement that was ripped up by that very same Liberal government. In Tasmania, we currently see truckloads of unprocessed native forest timber being transported to mainland Australia, again with subsidies from the taxpayer, via the Freight Equalisation Scheme—yet another government subsidy for an industry that is financially unviable. But the greatest failure of RFAs is their failure and inability to protect biodiversity. RFAs enable a carve-out from our environment laws. Let's be very clear about that. If a forest is being logged under an RFA, it is not protected by the already very weak environment laws that exist in this country. Labor made a promise to the Australian people in the lead-up to the latest election. That promise was that they would fix our broken environment laws. What have they done? They have broken that promise. Never trust Labor on the environment. They've broken that promise, and not only that; you've got the Prime Minister floating the prospect of a dirty deal with the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, to further weaken our already broken environment laws which even in their current form do not exist to protect our environment but to facilitate the destruction of nature. It is absolutely unacceptable for Labor to break a solemn commitment they gave to the Australian people to fix our broken environment laws. Worse than that, they've started engaging in a backsliding way with the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, to facilitate further weakening of our environment laws for the benefit of climate and nature destroying corporations. That is what is going on at the moment. There is a pathway to passing stronger environment laws through this parliament if Labor would get on board and engage in a good-faith way with the Greens and the crossbench. There is a pathway to fixing our broken environment laws so that they actually do the job that most people think they exist to do, and that is to protect nature and our climate. The pathway is for Labor to engage in good faith with the Australian Greens and the crossbench in this place and to actually sit down and work through a proposal that will strengthen environment laws, protect nature and protect us from contributing to the breakdown of the climate. That is what Labor needs to do. Of course, the reason we know that our environment laws need to be improved is an independent review of the EPBC Act led by Professor Graeme Samuel. I do note that the Samuel review recommended repealing the RFA exemptions—that is, bringing logging back within the ambit of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Of course, if it was back within the ambit, at least consideration would need to be given to the fact that, for example, swift parrot habitat in Tasmania is being destroyed—absolutely flattened—and that beautiful little parrot is being logged into extinction. But at the moment, because of the carve-out for RFAs, those matters aren't even considered under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. What we Australian Greens want to see is an end to native forest logging in Australia. It is an outdated practice, it should be condemned to the last century, and it should end. It should end to protect the cultural heritage that exists over all of this country. We still have significant unfinished business in terms of the treaty or treaties with First Nations people and making sure their cultural heritage is adequately protected and respected in this country. Native forest logging should end, because it is a massive contributor to the climate crisis. Native forest logging should end because it is destroying biodiversity in the middle of a biodiversity crisis. Native forest logging should end because it is a crime against nature. What a travesty it is that environmentalists here in Australia are currently being arrested, prosecuted and in some cases jailed for defending our forests. Meanwhile, the people who should be prosecuted—the people who are facilitating the logging of these forests by the ongoing public subsidies into a loss-making industry and by the political protection that the industry enjoys—are not being prosecuted. They're going scot-free and making an absolute motza from the destruction of nature and the destruction of our forests. Native forest logging should end because it is condemning multiple species to a slide into extinction. Native forest logging should end because it is a mendicant industry that cannot survive without massive public subsidies. Native forest logging should end because it's a carbon bomb. What happens after the utter swathe of destruction is cut through beautiful, magnificent forests is that helicopters fly over them and drop napalm-like substances into the forest and it goes up in smoke and flames—a massive carbon belch into the atmosphere. People are dying around the world because of climate change at the moment. The United Nations is warning that the planet is losing its capacity to sustain human life, and yet somehow the establishment parties in this place still think it's okay to publicly subsidise the destruction of our native forest, the destruction of nature and the breakdown of our climate in the year 2024, when the science is settled. We know what we're doing. No-one in here can claim that you don't know what you're doing. You all know exactly what you're doing. You're behaving in a psychopathic way, where you are prioritising profit over the potential future survival of these species. That's what you're doing. These are beautiful forests—our magnificent forests. There are the amazing, complex, beautiful creatures that live in them—the complex web of life that is the ecosystem of these forests, much of which is unseen because it is giant fungal networks underground. There are giant populations of things like earthworms and beetles right through to beautiful, precious birds like the swift parrot and the masked owl. This complex, awesome web of life is being destroyed because the Labor and Liberal parties are captured by profit. They are captured by the big forestry corporations, just like they're captured by the big fossil fuel corporations. 09:16 Senator URQUHART 231199 Tasmania The Australian government does not support the repeal of the RFA Act. The government has committed to supporting the ongoing operation of RFAs while also strengthening environmental protections. This will be achieved by applying new national environmental standards to RFAs. The Australian government is committed to providing a framework that allows sustainable native forestry to occur. The government is committed to continuing to work with stakeholders towards applying new national environment standards to regional forest agreements. This will support the ongoing operation of RFAs whilst strengthening environmental protections. Our forest product industries are vital to our regional communities. They directly employ 51,000 people, and tens of thousands more jobs are indirectly supported by this sector, which contributes nearly $24 billion to the national economy each year. The benefits of a competitive, sustainable and renewable forestry industry in our regional communities should not be underestimated. It delivers positive economic, social and environmental outcomes. In addition to employment and income throughout the supply chain, it also underpins the social networks and the fabric of many of our regional towns and communities. Australia's native forest management is sustainable and does not lead to deforestation. Our native forests are regenerated after harvesting. Repealing the RFA Act and terminating RFAs will not end native forestry, as these are state government decisions. Rather, terminating RFAs will mean forest operations will be subject to EPBC Act assessments, potentially at the coupe level. This may undermine the landscape-scale approach taken to forestry approvals under RFAs. Repealing the RFA Act will result in industry uncertainty that could lead to job losses and mill closures in regional areas. This, in turn, could compromise the future of many of our regional towns and constrain our ability to prevent and respond to bushfire effects through the reduction of the skilled workforce and machinery required for quick responses to fires and fire mitigation operations. Repealing the RFA Act will lead to increased administrative costs for forestry operators and for governments, and that will result in backlogs and possible delays in forestry approvals and in assessing applications for wood exports. The Australian government is expanding Australia's plantation forest estate, but plantation wood is not able to replace the high-quality wood sourced from native forests. Because of the choice of species and site and short rotations, most Australian hardwood plantations do not develop the same size, strength and appearance properties as wood sourced from native forests. It would place further pressure on domestic supply chains for products that are able to be sourced only from native forests and create an increased dependence on substitutes—imports—for native hardwoods from places where forest management standards may not be as high and where wood production may be associated with deforestation and illegal logging. These are some of the many reasons the Australian government does not support the repeal of the RFA Act. 09:20 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania It is a pleasure to rise and speak in defence of a very proud and sustainable industry in our country, one that has been the political whipping boy for many a decade, sadly, and, frankly, for no reason other than arguments based on emotion in pursuit of votes in inner-city suburbs where falsehoods are peddled at the expense of science and livelihoods in communities where people are doing the best they can to earn an honest living. These are the people who are in the firing line. These are the people who work in an industry that, as I say—based on science, based on fact—is doing the right thing and should not be targeted in the way that it is. The net effect, as Senator Urquhart rightly points out, of what the Greens propose to do with the Ending Native Forest Logging Bill 2023 is worse for our environment than they claim. They think that ending native forest logging in this country, repealing the RFA Act and ensuring that every coupe that is ever harvested in a native forest in a sustainable and science-based way is assessed by the EPBC Act is somehow going to protect the environment. But we saw in Victoria that when a certain retail chain in Australia decided not to stock Victorian native timbers as a result of a court case, a legal question before the courts that had not yet been decided upon, they of course didn't lose demand for the product. They had to continue to stock products that were equivalent to the native forest hardwoods. The only difference was that they weren't coming from Victoria; they were coming from somewhere else, in many cases from overseas. This is the problem with this argument. When you look around this chamber and the houses we live in and you look at the beautiful staircases, benchtops, coffee tables, window frames and the like, they don't come out of plantation forests, as Senator Urquhart has said. They come out of sustainably managed, science-based management approaches to these coupes—native forests, because of their strength and appearance characteristics. They're not coming out of Australian forests, as we go around the countryside shutting them down based on emotion and not science. They come out of forests overseas, where jurisdictions managing these forests don't care about the environmental outcomes. If we're supposed to be global leaders when it comes to looking after our planet as a developed nation, should we not be guiding others to support science-based best practice management of our resources, including forestry? Should we not be ensuring that we lead the way? And we do lead the way. But the net effect of this bill before us now is that we stop doing what we do to world's best standard here because we don't care what happens over the horizon, what happens in the Congo basin, where they rip trees out of the ground, never to be replanted. Industries in that part of the world of course have the smell of modern slavery attached to them—but hey, we're okay with that, because it's not our forests that are being harvested; it doesn't matter what happens outside our backyard! This is the net effect of emotion driven, divisive Greens politics, which is what this bill is all about. That is the worst part about it. We can feel good because we haven't cut down our forests, because they look terrible when they're cut down. This inflammatory language around what happens in our forests as a result of sustainable science-based native forest management makes people think that it is a bad thing. I have sympathy for those who over time have fallen for these silly arguments that are not based on science. Bad decisions have been made time after time. Senator McKim, in his contribution, talked about deals. He talked about dirty deals being done. I gather that's with reference to a bill that's coming before the Senate soon enough. I'll tell you a thing or two about deals. I'm a Tasmanian, and I remember some deals that have been done over time in my home state of Tasmania. They were deals that have been very bad for our environment, very bad for our economy and very bad for our state as a whole. These are deals that are often done, sadly, between the Greens and the Labor Party. I know there are people here who lament those decisions and others who, terribly, celebrate them. The point is: these are the deals that are done based on emotion, based on a political whim and based on the pursuit of votes in inner-city areas, not in the regions, where the people who know how to manage the land are doing the best they can to earn an honest living. That is the point I make. As I say, the challenge laid down every time we have this debate in this place and in other parliaments around Australia is: tell us where they do it better and tell us where they cut down trees and use them for productive purposes. Trees, of course, are a great carbon sink, especially when harvested sustainably. There is carbon locked up in all of the timber in this chamber, would you believe? It's never going to escape, unless we burn the place down—and there may be some, sadly, who would like to do that. The point is that every time you harvest timber the carbon that has been sequestered by that tree is stored in that felled tree in perpetuity. You plant another tree; it continues to absorb carbon. That is the point of our industry, the forestry industry, being the ultimate renewable and the best 'carbon sequesterer' of all primary industries. Claims are being made about it being destructive when it comes to the carbon challenge that this world faces. On that, I think it is important for us to focus on the fact that Australia contributes, I think, 1.1 per cent of global emissions. So shutting down the forestry industry, which only, in their arguments, contributes to a portion of that global 1.1 per cent, is not going to turn the dial on what places like the Congo basin do when it comes to ripping trees out of the ground, burning the life out of the ground behind them and never replacing them with a single stick anywhere, at any point in time. That is deforestation. We don't participate in the act of deforestation here, contrary to the claims that are being made. That is bad for the environment, that is bad for climate change—not the Australian approach to this—and that's why these facts are so critically important. If we were contributing to 70 per cent of global emissions then, sure, maybe I'd listen to what Senator McKim has to say. But the reality is it's 1.1 per cent of global emissions, a small portion of that relating to forestry, yet suddenly we now need to shut down the industry and push it off over the horizon to countries where it will be far worse for carbon emissions, climate change and the environment and far worse when it comes to the economy—in fact, bad all round. I want to go back to the point around custodians of the land. Foresters are excellent custodians of our land. They know a thing or two about forest management. They don't just run around the countryside and our forests wielding chainsaws, not caring about what they cut down and what they leave. They actually do care about having a sustainable industry, where forests produce the timber they need to have a sustainable industry into the future. They are not in any way reckless or careless about it. They are governed by, at a state level—for example, in the state of Tasmania—some of the most rigid rules around the management of forests, through the Forest Practices Authority. They have to get a forest practices plan before they go into a coupe. It takes into account every bit of cultural heritage, every area of environmental sensitivity and any presence of a threatened species, like the wedge-tailed eagle or similar—a swift parrot habitat might also be identified. Those things are taken into account, and foresters in Tasmania, like they do in other parts of the country, observe those rules. That is why they know how best to manage our forests. I want to contrast that with something. I was taken down to some very deep dark parts of the Huon Valley in recent times to visit a coupe near the Arve River. This swathe of forest is now under World Heritage wilderness protection. It is protected under the highest level of protection that could ever be afforded a forest on our planet, and we respect that. It is a testament to our native forestry industry doing its best based on science to manage our forests that these forests, harvested once if not twice over modern times, are now protected as part of a World Heritage wilderness area. They're not virgin, pristine rainforests that have never been touched by man. They are former production forests. In fact, mining operations exist in there. There are timber tramways and a range of human objects and interactions that exist in these areas which are now World Heritage. All or a good portion of it has been logged and regenerated by these evil foresters the Greens talk about! There is one patch, however, that you can see from Google Earth hasn't been managed in the same way, right in the middle of this beautiful swathe of forest in the south-west of Tasmania. You can see from Google Earth that it's a gravel patch. You might have thought it was a former quarry. In fact, no; this was the same as everything else in that part of Tasmania. It was a beautiful forest that had been managed sustainably for productive purposes over more than 100 years. There's an environmental group in Tasmania—Environment Tasmania—that were given a grant by the former Labor government and the then Minister for the Environment, Minister Tony Burke, to go and do what they thought was best for the environment. That gravel pit, part of a World Heritage wilderness area that stands out on Google Earth for all to see as a testament to how inner-city environmentalists would approach forest management, shows you that their denial of forest science doesn't work. Foresters fell the trees. They do a regeneration burn so that the seeds of those particular species can germinate and grow into what now has become a World Heritage wilderness area. This environmental group refused to do that. When they let this coupe sit there for a number of years with this grant of taxpayers' money, the rains came, as they do in south-western Tasmania, and washed away what saplings there were and the topsoil with them. Because they refused to follow the science—science based on the traditional techniques of Indigenous Australians—all that remains today is a gravel pit. This is the environmentalists' answer for forest management in this country. They say, 'We've got to ban native forestry, because it's bad for the environment, but we will lock up swathes of land managed by native forest loggers for World Heritage purposes.' Those are in contrast with the patch of land that environmentalists manage, which is nothing more than a gravel pit. It does rather point to the fact that everything you heard before from the proponents of this bill is not based on fact. It is not based on science. It is pure ideology and will have bad outcomes not only for our environment, as demonstrated by what I've just said, but for the global environment. We should be global leaders when it comes to that. Of course, shutting down an industry has economic effects. I have before me the packaging of copy paper that we have available to us in this House. Would you believe we don't actually produce copy paper in this country anymore—which is a crime! There are many workers who have worked in mills over many years, proudly using Australian-sourced material to make Australian copy paper. We don't do that here. This package is produced in Indonesia. Would the Greens say that Indonesia does forestry and downstream processing better than here in Australia? Do they look after their workers over there better than we do? No, they don't. Offshoring forestry and downstream processing is the by-product of supporting bills like this. They don't care. They really don't care where we get our paper and timber from or what happens to the environment over the horizon, as long as their political games are played to the best advantage possible. That's the problem. This is the same party whose leader famously spoke back in 1981 in opposition to renewable energy. Dams in Tasmania produce 100 per cent green energy which is now the envy of the nation as we transition out of coal and gas. Bob Brown, former senator and head of the Bob Brown Foundation said that coal-fired power was the best option. He doesn't believe that anymore, but it does rather prove the point around the arguments that Mr Brown and others in the green movement use. They deploy at a point in time something they think is part of the zeitgeist—popular. They tap into an emotive stream in the community to get a political outcome. That political outcome, can I tell you, Acting Deputy President Sterle, is immensely destructive. It's bad for the environment, as we've just demonstrated clearly. It's bad for the economy. It's bad for climate change. There is no common sense, there is no human decency and there is no scientific basis to what they're proposing here. I implore all senators to vote against this disastrous bill. 09:35 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland And what do the Greens do? After finally showing their true colours as the party of Hamas; as the party of left-wing union thuggery, donations and bribes; as the party of communism; and as the party of environmental destruction in the name of net zero energy, they have a problem. Their traditional base of decent Australians concerned about the natural environment is turning away from the watermelon Greens. So here's the Greens' answer: resurrect a bill which was already defeated because it's a stupid bill, and use this to pretend the Greens still care about our precious natural environment. The intention of this bill is in the name: ending native forest logging. Regional forest agreements will be made subservient to environmental regulations which will tie logging down in the courts and bring logging to an end—end logging. All those workers, many of them fine union members, will be out of a job. It is logging that produces timber for, amongst other things, the very seats the Greens are sitting in today, right now, which were made from logged native timber—Western Australian jarrah and Tasmanian myrtle. Putting aside their hypocrisy, it's clear the Greens think their supporters can be gullibly convinced by a superficial virtue-signalling stunt. After all, who would oppose protecting native forests? Actually, the Greens oppose protecting native forests. Greens' energy policies are blasting the tops off mountains in old-growth forests to erect 300-metre-high wind turbines. They're clear-felling thousands of kilometres of forest for access roads and the power transmission lines to get the power hundreds of kilometres back to the city—thousands of kilometres, in fact, back to the city. Thousands of hectares of native forest are being permanently destroyed. Blasting has released arsenic previously locked in sandstone into our waterways and aquifers. In the case of the Atherton Tableland in pristine North Queensland, aquifers contaminated with arsenic will eventually come to the surface in the middle of the Great Barrier Reef, through underground basins. Unlike forest taken for logging, forest damage from net zero energy is not regrown. The access roads are required for maintenance for the life of the turbine. The transmission lines are permanent. Unlike coalmines that are remediated at the end of the mine, there's no remediation bond on industrial wind, solar and transmission lines, so these things will be a rusting blight on the landscape for a hundred years, for the community to pay for, for taxpayers to pay to rehabilitate and for farmers to rehabilitate. The Greens are environmental vandals. I tell you who does support protecting native forests: One Nation. We would end the environmental destruction from net zero energy measures and would restrict solar panels to built-up areas where the energy is needed. We would end any new wind turbine subsidies and instead promote vertical wind technology. One Nation will prevent logging in old-growth forests. Regional forest agreements are an accord between the federal, state and local governments to supervise the timber industry. This means the Greens believe they know better than the state governments—all six of them—who have been managing their forests for 200 years. Aboriginals have been managing Australia's forests for tens of thousands of years, including through the use of burning off. Each state government consults with Aboriginal communities in the development of regional forest agreements. Aboriginal voices only matter, though, to the Greens when they can be exploited to advance Greens technology and lock Aboriginals into victimhood and dependency. Generations of ongoing development of forestry agreements, planning out supply and demand, protecting sensitive habitats and protecting old-growth forests—all that great work involving communities, industry and government is torn up and thrown away because the Greens think they know better. They are playing God, playing tsar. What an ego—and to what benefit? The Greens are proclaiming their love of housing and promising to build more houses than anyone else. The question arises: out of what are they going to build those houses? The Greens want to shut down the Australian forestry industry, the conventional steel industry, the gas industry, the diesel industry and the cement industry. The Greens are proposing to build houses without timber, steel or concrete. Well, the last time I looked, pixie dust was not a building material. Does the CFMEU know they're hopping into bed with a political party that would remove from the market all the materials tradies need to build a new home and build new apartment towers while also removing diesel for tradies' generators and utes, which they now propose to tax out of existence? I don't want to confuse the feelings coming from my left with facts, yet that's what I do. I deal in facts. At last mapping, there were 131½ million hectares of native forest in Australia, which is 17 per cent of Australia's land area, and there were 1.8 million hectares of commercial plantations, including pines and eucalypts. This is where most logging occurs, yet it's not enough to sustain Australia's demand for timber. There are 30 million hectares of land, most of that privately owned, which can be logged under the careful management of regional forest agreements. Last year, two per cent of those 30 million hectares were logged, meaning Australia is logging 600,000 hectares out of the 133 million hectares available, less than one half of one per cent of our native forests. What happens when a forest is logged? Is it clear-felled, never to grow anything again? Of course not. Forestry is about renewal. That's the whole point of regional forestry agreements. The logging industry is allowed to go in and take the productive timber, remove the stunted and useless timber and then leave that forest to regenerate for 10 years or so before returning to repeat the cycle. Habitat is not destroyed; it's enhanced. Forests are not destroyed; they're enhanced. Rather than helping our forests, this Greens bill will harm them. Logging removes the fuel from the forest. It thins the trees and protects native forest from bushfires. There are huge areas of this country that have never fully recovered from the bushfires during the drought because some native forests contain so much fuel they burned like hell. What happened to the wildlife the Greens profess to care so much about? They were incinerated—agonisingly, cruelly incinerated. The damage to native flora and fauna caused in those bushfires resulted directly from restrictions on burn-offs, something sensible forest management would have mediated. They tried to, but the Greens stopped it. This is the problem with communists. They think imperious proclamations are a substitute for good government facts and data. They are wrong. Let's be clear: it has been illegal to log old-growth forests for the entirety of this century. I know there has been some intrusion into old-growth forests. This bill from the Greens won't deal with that problem, though, because the intrusion is mostly coming from the construction of wind turbines, access roads, solar panels and transmission lines, which the Greens adore and love and drive. Illegal logging, logging that damages old-growth forests, must be prosecuted, and One Nation will prosecute offenders. One Nation opposes this bill, because we are the party of the environment and we know the current system is best for the environment. As someone who has personally planted thousands of trees, rehabilitated land and protected coastlines, I know One Nation is now the party of the natural environment. 09:44 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I actually agree with a lot of what Senator Roberts has said. 'Hypocrisy green' is thy middle name. Yet again, we see the Greens trying to absolve their guilt by exporting our problems. What we see time and time again is the Greens trying to shut down industry in Australia and trying to shut down productivity in Australia, but they're not actually doing anything to sort out the demand. There are supply-and-demand scenarios across the board. We shouldn't grow rice in Australia but we can eat rice because it's a healthy food—it's not red meat. So, to lower emissions, we've got to have a vegetarian diet but we can't grow our own rice, so we'll take rice from countries that have lesser environmental records, worse workplace practices and worse chemical usage rather than have a very sustainable rice industry here in Australia. We shouldn't grow cotton in Australia because, apparently, cotton is a very evil crop, despite the fact that it is an annual crop and can be turned off and on depending on the weather conditions for the season. It is sustainable. Australia grows the most water-efficient cotton in the world and it is a natural fibre, but we shouldn't grow it here in Australia because the Greens don't like it. The Greens don't want to see us use our water on growing a cotton crop but they're happy to take cotton from other nations with lesser environmental standards, worse chemical usage standards and worse workplace practices because it makes them feel good. And now, today, we see the Greens, again, trying to absolve their guilt, saying we need to end our native forest logging here in Australia so they can feel good about themselves. But we're not going to stop needing hardwood timber products—so what is the solution? How do we meet the Greens' demands to fix the housing crisis if we can't access hardwood timber for the housing frames? The only solution is that we import the timber. And where do we import it from? Guess what? From countries that do not have the same environmental standards, workplace standards or human rights standards. They want to shut down one of the world's most sustainable logging industries that is highly regulated, is actually good for the environment and contributes to Australia's carbon capture and storage targets so that they can import timber products from countries that see trees ripped out of the ground, with no requirements to replant them, and native habitats in countries overseas absolutely destroyed. But it's okay, because the Greens can sit back within this place with halos on, telling the government they've got to fix everything from housing crises to food shortages but they can't do it with anything we actually grow and produce in this country; they've got to look overseas. Who bears the brunt of these misplaced policies? It is Australian consumers that are already paying for this Labor government's failed economic policies. Can you imagine if, after the next election, we are confronted with a minority Greens-Labor government, and what that will lead to? We will see the demise of some of our last remaining highly productive industries because the Greens won't let us dig anything out of the ground, the Greens won't let us grow anything with irrigated agriculture and the Greens won't let us sustainably harvest our timber products. Let me remind people that in Australia, under our laws, native trees that are harvested must be replanted so that they can be harvested again. It is a renewable product. Trees, as they grow, absorb carbon, and when they are harvested and turned into a timber product that carbon is captured permanently. As Senator Roberts said, across our country there's only about 134 million hectares of native forests. On an annual basis, only 0.06 per cent that area is harvested. That is only six out of every 10,000 trees. This is not an unsustainable industry; this is a highly sustainable industry. And I repeat, demand for these products is not going down. In fact, demand for these products is increasing. We have a growing population. We have migration through the roof, under the Labor government's policies, and we are struggling to house people. And yet the Greens solution is to cease producing one of the fundamental inputs for housing construction. But not on this side of the chamber, not over here. We support our forestry industry, which employs thousands of people—from the loggers to the truckies that transport the logs to the sawmillers who turn the logs into the end-use products and to the retailers that actually onsell the products. We support them. We stand behind our forestry industry because our forestry industry is sustainable. They use science. They incorporate science into their daily procedures. They measure. They leave the remnant trees behind to ensure that there are enough knotholes and habitat for our native flora and fauna. In fact, just this morning I heard a report from Coffs Harbour about Forestry New South Wales. They've actually ceased harvesting timber in an area where an emu nest was found. This is a small, isolated emu species. They suspect there are only 50 left in the wild. Forestry New South Wales found a nest where the father was sitting on eggs with the chicks. They ceased harvesting and activity in the area to let those chicks hatch. And while Saving our Species went and harvested a number of the eggs to incubate, hoping they'd hatch, they also left some with the father. I'm very pleased to report that the father sat on three of those eggs, and two of them successfully hatched. And now that emu and his chicks are wandering through that area of forestry because our native timber loggers and foresters care. They care about our environment. They want to make sure they operate sustainably. They want to make sure that we have healthy native flora and fauna in these areas, and that's why they only take six out of every 10,000 trees. We won't be supporting this bill by any measure. We will be supporting our forestry industry. I urge this chamber to vote against this bill. 09:53 Senator HANSON-YOUNG I0U South Australia I rise to contribute to this debate on this very important piece of legislation, the Ending Native Forest Logging Bill 2023. I associate myself with the comments already made by my Greens colleague Senator Nick McKim. It is 2024. We are facing a biodiversity crisis across the world. The climate is getting worse and worse, there's extreme weather, there's the rising temperature of our oceans and there's the lack of protection of our native animals and plant species. And yet we have laws in this country that allow the continued destruction—the bulldozing, the logging—of our native and ancient forests. It is just appalling that, despite all of the smarts in the world, Australia continues to log our native forests and destroy our ancient woodlands. It's time this ended. If we don't end it now, there won't be much left. We have iconic species like the koala on the brink of the extinction and, rather than protecting their homes, we have laws in this country that allow the loggers to go in and chop down their homes in our native forests. Australians are disgusted that this happens. They have been disgusted for a number of years—decades. Every time the community is asked whether native forest logging should continue, overwhelmingly the majority of Australians say, 'No. Protect what is there, save it for the future and ensure that it's there for the next generation.' It's important to save our forests not just because they are part of our natural history and heritage, because they are the homes of our native species and because they help create the ecosystems that underpin all life; they are crucial in our battle against climate change. They are the lungs of the planet. We need our ancient forests and our native forests there to ensure that we can stop the worst of climate change. Our governments around the country, in states like Tasmania and New South Wales, that continue to allow the logging of native forests in their jurisdictions are doing so at the cost of Australian taxpayers, so, not only is this costing nature, costing climate action and making it harder and harder for us to arrest the dangers of global warming and stop the spiralling, out-of-control extinction of native species like the swift parrot, the greater glider and the koala; it's actually being done at the expense of the economy and at the expense of taxpayer money. It is mind-boggling that any government in 2024 could continue to argue that taxpayers' money should be able to be spent propping up an industry that destroys native forests. It is time that this ended. This bill is timely because we are in the midst of a debate in this place about Australia's failing environmental laws. The government have put forward an environmental protection agency, but they have no laws to protect nature, no laws to protect our native forests from the bulldozers and the chainsaws and no laws to protect koalas from having their homes logged and destroyed, so what will this environmental protection agency do? It has nothing to implement. It has no laws to oversee that actually look after nature and protect our forests, our wildlife and our woodlands. It will be a missed opportunity if we don't do something now. The government want a cop on the beat for our environment, but they've given the cop no laws to implement. We need to fix that, and one of the key things we can do to fix that is pass this bill today. The community is shocked at knowing there's a loophole in Australian law that allows—encourages, funds—the destruction of our native forests rather than protecting them. And in whose hands is the power to stop this? This chamber's—right now, today. This is a challenge to both sides. The Labor Party and the coalition talk a big game on nature, talk a big game on industry, talk a big game on futureproofing, but they've done nothing to futureproof the sustainability of our environment, our land, our clean air and clean water while they continue to allow this destruction of our native forests. While we're debating this issue in the chamber right now, on the other side of the building the environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, is on stage having a nice chitchat with the head of the Minerals Council about how to make laws more friendly for the big mining corporations rather than fixing the laws to save our native forests and protect our koalas. That's the priority of this government. The Greens are in here fighting for our forests, and the environment minister is on the other side of the building having a nice chitchat with the mining lobby. Australians are so disappointed in this government. Your Prime Minister promised to fix Australia's broken environment laws and to do something to make sure stronger laws would be implemented. And you've caved, you've capitulated, you've gone to water because Gina Rinehart wants to keep digging, bulldozing and polluting. You've gone to water because the loggers want to keep the chainsaws going, the bulldozers going and the trees falling. Rather than protecting the environment, the environment minister is hanging out with the Minerals Council. That says everything about the priorities of this government. Well, the Greens will fight for this. We will take this right through to the election and we will make sure every voter knows that if you care about the environment, if you want to stop the climate crisis, if you want to stop the logging and stop the pollution there's only one option, and you've got to vote Greens. The choice is crystal clear. You can't keep voting for this mob or that mob if you want to save the planet. They're not up to it. They're chicken scared. They've got no spine, and they can't be trusted. 10:03 Senator ALLMAN-PAYNE 298839 Queensland I move: That the question now be put. Question agreed to. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 The question is that the bill now be read a second time.    

The Senate divided. [10:07]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Sterle)

 13 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. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 30 NOES Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Bragg, A. J. Cash, M. C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Davey, P. M. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Lambie, J. McAllister, J. R. McCarthy, M. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. (Teller) 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. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 DOCUMENTS 10 DOCUMENTS Cbus Super Fund 10 Order for the Production of Documents 10 10:10 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The Treasurer's office received an FOI request in relation to the documents in question, and, as required under the legislation, they consulted with the party involved—in this case, Cbus. Cbus objected to the release of documents it considered to be business information, an available exemption under the FOI Act. Consistent with this approach, the Treasurer made a claim of public interest immunity in response to a Senate order for production of the same documents on the basis of this third-party objection. The Treasurer did this in good faith to protect business information and to ensure that we can continue to undertake robust and frank stakeholder consultations which are ultimately in the public interest. These protections are in the legislation so that stakeholders can engage in consultation without fear that their business information will be compromised, and the same rules apply to all parties that engage in consultation. We want to continue to have frank and candid consultation processes in the future, and that's why we comply and did comply in this instance with the FOI Act. Senator Bragg, through his political grandstanding, seeks to undermine these important processes, and we have released the relevant documents on— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Is there a point of order, Senator Scarr? Senator Scarr 282997 [inaudible] of Senator Bragg, talking about him seeking to impugn the processes in relation to claiming public interest immunity. He's actually seeking to uphold the processes as they should be applied. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Resume your seat, Senator. There is no point of order. That's a debating point. Minister. Senator GALLAGHER ING Thank you—as Senator Scarr knows. We released the relevant documents on 5 September 2024, in line with the information commissioner's decision, in the usual way. I would say in the time allowed for me that this is just a continuation in another form of the coalition's war against super, particularly Senator Bragg's war against super. He seeks to undermine the superannuation industry and compulsory superannuation requirements in this country. Let's just be honest about what is actually the issue here. We know that, at every opportunity the coalition gets—right back from the John Howard days and all through the days of all the leaders of the coalition—they have sought to undermine compulsory super, the superannuation industry and, in particular, the role of the labour movement in the superannuation industry, which is, again, what Senator Bragg seeks to do with his continued attack, including in a piece in the paper that I read this morning. We know and we saw it yesterday again with an announcement of the amendments that the coalition are going to move in relation to super on PPL. They cannot bear compulsory superannuation. They just cannot bear it. They dress it up, as a Senator Cash just did, saying, 'We prefer choice.' Well, the choice at the moment is that women retire with a lot less super than men. Economic inequality is a problem in this country for women. You call it choice; we call it inequality. That's what Labor seeks to address in everything we do—to ensure that we are upholding equality for women, that we are representing their long-term interests and that we don't support this kind of underhanded, continued attack that undermines super. They are even prepared to do it on paid parental leave. We know that that is a massive issue. Senator Bragg will take any opportunity he gets to undermine the superannuation industry. If he can besmirch industry super at the same time, then that's an added bonus for him. That's what he's seeking to do with this and with the attendance of the minister today. I've explained the process that the Treasurer went through, and I and Labor will continue to argue for the benefits of compulsory super so people are able to retire, with the benefits of their hardworking lives reflected in a dignified retirement because they have superannuation assets. We think that is a good thing. The coalition thinks it's a bad thing. They want to undermine it and tear at it. If they were in government they would seek to do that again and again. They've opposed it from the get-go. Every single change that we seek to bring in to strengthen super they will undermine. If they can undermine the industry that represents working people and their retirement savings, they will do that as well. That is the point of this attendance today. We aren't going to be suckered into your war on super, Senator Bragg. It's something you've done since the moment you got here, and I imagine you will continue until the moment you leave. But, at the same time, Labor will always stand up for super, including industry super. 10:16 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the minister's answer. In those last five minutes of this attendance motion, we heard from Senator Gallagher a slew of insults, a number of personal slights and a real lack of detail that I and the Australian people would have expected from an explanation as to why the Treasurer, Mr Chalmers, told untruths to this Senate when he filed a public interest immunity claim. The most disappointing thing is that the government came into office promising integrity and transparency, but what we've seen has been a series of cover-ups to protect vested interests. This has been a government for vested interests. And the reason that I filed these claims in relation to freedom of information was because I was suspicious that the government for vested interests had inappropriate lobbying from Cbus Super, the superannuation industry and various unions on matters of public policy. I suspected correctly that this was happening. The FOI request of March 2023 came back with a redacted response in September 2023. Then I filed an order for the production of documents in the Senate, which was supported by the crossbench. I want to put on record my thanks to the crossbench for standing for integrity and transparency in relation to these matters when the government has failed to meet the standards that it set at the last election when it promised it would be an organisation that would stand for transparency and integrity. In November 2023, the response to the OPD from Mr Chalmers was that the government would not release these files from Cbus to the Treasurer and that there was a public interest immunity claim from the Treasurer which said that a disclosure of the documents sought would provide an unfair advantage into Cbus's private opinions and business affairs, and this would destroy commercial-in-confidence information. We appealed that to the Information Commissioner in November 2023, and we received the outcome in August 2024 and the documents just last week. It took 18 months to get access to a document, which had been provided by Cbus to the Treasurer, which was inappropriate lobbying that had nothing to do with commercial-in-confidence information. This is an incredible position that we're now in, where the Treasurer of the Commonwealth would make a false claim to the Senate—a lie—that there was commercial-in-confidence information provided by Cbus when there was none. The PII claim was falsely made, and the Information Commissioner itself said: 'I do not accept that the remaining material would cause detriment if it were disclosed. The remaining material does not contain commercial information about the fund.' The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Sorry; just resume your seat. Minister? Senator Gallagher ING I believe Senator Bragg said the Treasurer lied. If so, that should be withdrawn. Senator BRAGG 256063 There Treasurer presented a significant mistruth in relation to this PII claim. The Information Commissioner said there was no commercial information and that it should be released. Thank God for the Information Commissioner, because, without them, we wouldn't have this information in the public domain. Yesterday, Senator Chisholm said that Cbus had objected to the release of these documents and that that's why the government didn't release them. But it's not up to Cbus to run the government. The government should be run by the people who have been elected by the Australian people, and it was for the Treasurer to make the judgement, in accordance with Senator Gallagher, that these matters were not commercial in confidence, and they should have been provided in accordance with the order made by the Senate. There was no commercial-in-confidence information. This information was all about a secret lobbying attempt so that Cbus could exempt itself from disclosing fees to members. They didn't want to show their members that they were incurring stamp duty costs when they were investing in property, because they are so desperate to become the corporate landlords of Australia. They want to own the Australian dream, and the Labor government have sought to help them cover up this secret lobbying with a cloak of commercial in confidence which is not there. That is why it is very important that we get to the bottom of this, and that's why I again thank the crossbench for helping us bring on this motion. As former senator Patrick said in a piece on the weekend: How was it that Mr Bragg, as a private citizen, can get documents under FOI that Senator Bragg could not using the powers of the Senate? Patrick goes on to say: Ultimately, Chalmers' Senate betrayal is a betrayal of the Australian public—who are the real source of the Senate's power and purpose. Now, I think that is, really, the summary here. We are here to do the work of the public. We are here to expose wrongdoing and get to the bottom of things, and we're being obstructed by a government that promised integrity and transparency. This was a false public interest immunity claim. It had nothing to do with commercial-in-confidence information. It was all about secret lobbying which the Treasurer is ashamed of. (Time expired) 10:21 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria I think Minister Gallagher has responded to the matter at hand. I am sick and tired of having to defend industry superannuation against constant attacks from the coalition. Senator Bragg should focus on the fact that Australian women retire with less in their superannuation balances than men, and that is just not fair. The coalition continually use superannuation as a political football for their own means. That is what this is about. Just last night we heard the ridiculous suggestions from the coalition that women and families can make choices that suit them when it comes to draining their superannuation balances. At a time when they are having to look after a new family, they can make a very difficult choice and decide whether or not they take some money out of their superannuation account now, at the expense of a decent retirement later. This is outrageous. How is it a choice for women and families to drain their superannuation accounts, when we know that women over 50— Senator Scarr 282997 A point of order of relevance: I can find no logical connection between the motion which is being discussed here and a general discussion with respect to people taking money out of superannuation. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Senator Scarr, there is no point of order. You know that these debates can be far-reaching. Senator DARMANIN 301128 As I said earlier, I think Senator Gallagher has responded to the question at hand. Industry superannuation continues to be a point of discussion in this chamber. What I am simply talking about is the point that industry superannuation is not a political football. I have worked with hundreds of women who have watched the debate in these houses over the years. What they are interested in is making sure that governments do the right thing to ensure that they have a dignified and decent retirement. Women in particular—I have worked with hundreds of them over many years—are worried about their future. They are worried and they are concerned that our governments should be looking after what should be in their balances at the end rather than pointscoring around what might be determined to be the issue of the day. We know that women over 50 are the largest cohort of people who are becoming homeless, and they are approaching retirement with 25 per cent less superannuation than men. Australian women want our government and the opposition to focus on financial security in retirement for all of us. Unlike those opposite, Labor will always stand for the right of working women to retire with dignity and security while protecting our superannuation that is the envy of the world. On the point around families making this so-called choice to withdraw their superannuation early: I wonder whether the coalition understand what compounding interest is, or, if they do, whether they think that is just a concept that is good for men. When people are given a choice to take out their superannuation when they are younger in their careers, they miss out on the compounding interest benefits that will benefit them in retirement. Women, on average, as I said, have 25 per cent less superannuation than men when they are approaching retirement. I think they want somewhere to live and they also want to have security when they retire. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator DARMANIN 301128 If the coalition really cared about women's economic security— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Senator Darmanin, resume your seat. Senator Ciccone, you have a point of order? Senator Ciccone 281503 I ask that you enforce the standing orders and make sure that senators in this place give every senator the respect they deserve. Senator Darmanin is a new senator, and it is quite disrespectful for some senators across the board to be very disrespectful, heckling and making all sorts of comments towards Senator Darmanin. I think it's important we all uphold the standing orders in this place. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e68 Hear, hear; thank you very much. I agree 100 per cent. Senator DARMANIN 301128 I'll finish with this final point, on a theme that I believe is relevant and is worth mentioning: we have a situation where we know that women are the predominant beneficiaries of some of the reforms this government has brought in around closing the gender pay gap, enabling superannuation payments on paid parental leave to address the issue of women retiring with less in their balances than men, to address the concerns around women becoming homeless and to address women feeling secure after a lifetime of work, for the simple fact that they might be taking career breaks to look after family. I think we should be focusing on those things, not continuing to use superannuation as a political football like those opposite. 10:27 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland Can I say at the outset that I am a member of an industry super fund, AustralianSuper, as are a lot of my colleagues. So this concept that there is some sort of war on superannuation from this side of politics is absolute nonsense. I should say that my super fund, AustralianSuper, lost $1.1 billion in an investment in Pluralsight; I'd like some transparency over that, please! I'm a member of an industry super fund and I believe in super. I think it's an important part of protecting people's retirement. All the nonsense we heard was deflection from three fundamental points. First is the fact that this Senate, the representatives of the Australian people in this Senate, sought these documents from the Treasurer. The representatives representing the majority of the Australian people, on their behalf, sought these documents from the Treasurer, and he refused to provide them—notwithstanding that a majority of this Senate sought those documents. That is wrong as a point of principle. The second point I make is that the Treasurer forced Senator Bragg to go through the Freedom of Information Act process to get these documents. It took 18 months to get these documents which should have been provided when a majority of the Senate passed an order for these documents to be produced. Our Information Commissioner, who assesses these claims with respect to governments of both persuasions refusing to release documents, is overwhelmed because of this culture of secrecy—this culture of refusing to provide transparency not to us but through us to the Australian people. It is wrong is a matter of principle. The government are seeking to defend the indefensible; they can't do it, so they're deflecting and pivoting to all this nonsense about other issues relating to superannuation. This debate is about transparency and it is about open government. That's what it's about. Senator Bragg quoted from, in my view, one of the great warriors for freedom of information in this place, Senator Rex Patrick. I deeply acknowledge him, and probably no senator in this place has done more to promote freedom of information than Senator Rex Patrick during his time here and afterwards. I congratulate him, and I read his article as well. The third point I want to make is to get into the detail. A point of order was taken by Senator Gallagher, which is her right, in relation to my friend's characterisation of the claim which was made by the Treasurer. I'm going to walk you through what the Treasurer said so you can see how gossamer weak it is. I won't use the word Senator Bragg used. I'll say it was a misrepresentation. I'll say it was gilding the lily. I'll say it was an incorrect assertion. I'll say it was a dodgy claim. I won't say what Senator Bragg said, but this is what the Treasurer said in his response to an order from this Senate: Disclosure of the documents sought would provide an unfair insight into CBUS' private opinions and business affairs. That's what he said. It would provide an unfair insight into Cbus's private opinions and business affairs. Let's actually look at the documents. This morning I read all the documents which were disclosed by order of the Information Commissioner 18 months after they should have been disclosed. What do the documents say? This is the earth-shattering stuff which the Treasurer wanted to prevent disclosure of. I'll quote: We propose that stamp duty should be excluded from fee and cost reporting entirely. Please, people listening to this debate, you make a judgement as to whether or not you think this goes to the heart of private business affairs and commercial-in-confidence discussion. This is the paragraph: We propose that stamp duty should be excluded from fee and cost reporting entirely. This would: Ensure consistency between unlisted property investments, listed property investments and other asset classes Be simple to implement Be consistent with other 'excluded transaction and operational costs' which includes borrowing costs and property operating costs That's it. I'll make these observations in relation to that information. First, it is not particular to Cbus. It is not information which relates particularly to Cbus. It is a point of general application across the superannuation industry and the property industry. So there is nothing particularly private and confidential in that regard. That's the first point I would make. (Time expired) 10:33 Senator WALSH 252157 Victoria I too rise to take note of the statement by Minister Gallagher, and I note that the minister explained the Treasurer's approach in her answer and that the government's approach to this particular order has been made in good faith to protect sensitive commercial information. But what is not in good faith is the persistent and constant attacks on our universal superannuation system by those opposite. Our superannuation system in this country is absolutely the envy of the world. It's a system that is a proud Labor legacy and it's one that we will continue to build on, despite the attacks of those opposite on our superannuation system. I've been here for long enough to remember many of the attacks that have been made on our superannuation system by those opposite. I know that Senator Rennick is no longer a member of the coalition; he's left to establish his own political party. But I do remember his time in the coalition, when he told us that Australia's universal superannuation system should just be abolished. It shouldn't exist. I remember a policy that my colleague Senator Bragg had at one point, which was that people on lower incomes should not receive superannuation—that employer contributions should not be made for people on lower incomes. Of course, these are the people who absolutely need their superannuation, and these are the people that we will stand up for to make sure that they do have a dignified retirement through our super system. We're also seeing from those opposite persistent attacks on our superannuation system through the coalition's so-called super-for-housing policy. Now, I've been in a number of hearings with Senator Bragg on this policy— Senator Bragg 256063 Point of order, Acting Deputy President Allman-Payne: this is not relevant to the motion before the Senate. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 That's not a point of order. The scope is broad. Senator Walsh. Senator WALSH 252157 Apparently Senator Bragg doesn't want me to give a view from the hearings that we've been in—to report on the evidence that we've heard—on his super-for-housing policy, which is not a housing policy. It is actually a policy to undermine our universal superannuation system. It's not a housing policy, because every witness who's come to give evidence at our hearings on these matters has said that allowing people to take their superannuation out to pay for a home will do one thing and one thing only, and that is push house prices up. So this is not a housing policy. People who have come to our inquiry have also said that people in the target range for this policy don't even have enough super in their accounts to withdraw to be able to make a home deposit. So this is not a policy to help anyone buy a house. It is a strategy to undermine our universal superannuation system. Senator Bragg keeps pushing it as if it's about housing. It is clearly, according to all the evidence that we're seeing, only a policy for dismantling our universal superannuation system. Senator Darmanin has explained to those opposite, in case they didn't understand, why it is so important that our superannuation system is supported and why it's so important that people retain their superannuation in their accounts throughout their 20s and 30s—despite the efforts of those opposite to dismantle superannuation—and that of course is because of the compound interest that people get by having these savings for their retirement. We're now seeing the first generation of Australians retire with enough savings through the superannuation system to have a dignified retirement and to not have to rely on the age pension—to actually have ambition that is greater than relying on the age pension. We know that those opposite will always attack our universal superannuation system. It's a proud Labor legacy. It's one that we're determined to build on, and we are building on it in this term of government. We are building on it by expanding paid parental leave and also paying superannuation on paid parental leave, a policy that will boost the superannuation savings of women. We believe in our universal superannuation system. Those opposite only believe in tearing it down. 10:38 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania I also take note of the minister's explanation. Just so the Australian people realise the smokescreen that's going on here this morning, which is absolutely disgusting in itself, this is not about super and it's not about housing. This is about being honest with the Australian people and about integrity. It's about integrity and transparency. That is what this is about this morning. This issue is about a minister that was called to the chamber to explain why Senator Bragg was refused access to information he sought using the Senate's OPD powers. This is what this is about. So forget the smokescreen. The sprinklers are finished. The smoke's gone. There is no more smokescreen. That's what this is about. And yet, Mr Bragg—as Mr Bragg, not as Senator Bragg—was granted access to the same information under FOI. This is what this is about, because this should have been made transparent and it wasn't, and good on Senator Bragg for drawing this issue to the Senate's attention. All senators should be worried about what has happened here—all of you. While our primary role is to review and pass laws, it is also our job to hold the government of the day to account on behalf of the people out there. We sit here on behalf of citizens in all states, and it is our duty to make sure the government is performing its job efficiently, effectively, with transparency and with integrity. That's all we ask in the best interests of the people outside this chamber. But we can't do that without access to information. The Labor Party went to the last election—you remember, you voters for the Labor Party—on a promise of greater transparency. Have a good look, Australians. How has that been going for over two years? Has there been greater transparency? I don't think so. That was extremely misleading, and you wonder why those people out there don't trust us in here. Here's the deal. What just happened to Senator Bragg is not new to this Senate, is it? I can remember the same thing happening to former senator Rex Patrick in the last parliament. He would regularly get access to documents under FOI that he couldn't get using the Senate's powers. So this is not just a Labor thing. It's not just a Labor thing, and you haven't done any better with your transparency. The Albanese government is doing exactly the same in the Senate as the Morrison government did in the 46th parliament. That's what is going on here. This is just the major party protection racket at work, and we've had enough of it. I can assure you that when they get elected, all they do is wrap a secrecy cloak around themselves. That's what they do up here, and that's not what we're here for. It's just a continual Groundhog Day. We have the numbers to change the way that things work—for example, to adopt the process used in the New South Wales Legislative Council which involves the use of an independent arbiter when there is a disagreement between the executive and the Legislative Council. This process was actually considered by the Legal and Constitutional Committee in 2013-14, after Senator Cash refused to provide documents to the Senate in response to an OPD. The committee referred the matter to the Procedure Committee, which came to the conclusion based on a submission by then Leader of the Government in the Senate Senator Abetz—of all people—not to adopt the New South Wales practice. He also didn't want to be transparent. He said in his submission: 'An arbitration process can succeed only if it is mutually accepted by all parties and only if it includes making the disputed information available to the arbiter. Absent these two preconditions and it is unenforceable in practice.' There you have it. Even though we have the numbers today to introduce a better system to allow us to perform our constitutional functions properly in here, we won't get a better system until the major parties both agree, and this isn't going to happen because both major parties consider themselves parties of government. Neither of them wants government to be held to account properly. This is what's going on in this place, and you wonder why your votes are getting fewer and people do not trust you. You promised this in the last election. The Labor Party promised to be more transparent, and you have failed miserably. Let's be honest, you have failed miserably. In the meantime, Senator Bragg will just have to put up with the government advancing not proper public interest immunities but dodgy political interest immunities because that's all that's going on in here today. Just so the Australian people realise, we could change this. We could do this today. We could use the New South Wales way, but, no, both the major parties in here don't want to mention that. I wonder if I brought that bill up here, I could get it done just like that. Maybe that's a way to put both in a corner, because, quite frankly, it's all about transparency. 10:43 Senator CASH I0M Western Australia That's exactly what this motion is about; it's actually about transparency. This is a government that, when they were in opposition, loved to lecture the then government on transparency and loved to tell the Australian people that, if they were given the privilege of governing this country, there would be a new level of transparency in Australia. The Australian people, quite frankly, need to understand that there is a whole new level of transparency in this country, but it is now known as 'secrecy'. I don't think that there has been any time in Australia's history where a government has literally run a closed shop when it comes to democracy. Democracy is about robust debate. Democracy is about answering to the Australian people. It does not matter what portfolio you talk about, this is a government that runs a closed shop. In fact, it has been put to me time and time again, both the Australian Senate and the House of Representatives may as well now be shop floors. In other words, you close down debate, you silence people because that's the way the Albanese government runs Australia. Stakeholder after stakeholder after stakeholder across portfolio and portfolio and portfolio, they have to sign, under this government, non-disclosure agreements. Again, the Australian people had better start to understand what is a non-disclosure agreement. It means that if you are going to consult with this government on something that affects you, you either sign a non-disclosure agreement and shut up—in other words, you don't get to breathe a word of it, let alone raise any criticisms—or you don't sign a nondisclosure agreement, and guess what happens to you then? You are blacklisted and you are shown the door. Again, the Australian people had better start to wake up and understand democracy is being eroded by the Albanese government, and today's motion is just another example. Let's put it into context. It's a motion in relation to Cbus. It's a motion in relation to the production of some documents. It's a motion in relation to the failure of the Treasurer of Australia to respond to an order of the Senate. It's a motion that responds to the fact that Senator Bragg, 18 months later, was actually able to get these documents through the freedom of information process—not run by the Albanese government. But let's put it into context, because you've got a protection racket being run here by the Treasurer of Australia and the Albanese government. Cbus chairman is former Labor Treasurer of Australia Wayne Swan—wow! You have to be kidding me! If that doesn't say 'protection racket' under the Albanese government, quite frankly I no longer know what does. Cbus chairman, Wayne Swan, 'paid the CFMEU $1.25 million in the 2022-23 financial year'. Don't take that from me, as it's: … according to disclosures super funds were recently forced to make for the first time. Again, the Australian people need to understand that in the two-and-a-bit years that Mr Albanese has been in government—to say that they have been hoodwinked, to say that they have had the wool pulled over their eyes is an understatement. I've got no problems that the Labor Party and the Greens have the numbers in this place. That's life. But what I do have a problem with is this: the secrecy; the lack of transparency; the lack of accountability; the silencing of stakeholders by making them sign non-disclosure agreements, telling them they cannot breathe a word of criticism against this government and, if they do, they are silenced. Stakeholders make representations on behalf of the Australian people, and this motion is another example of how democracy is being eroded in this country. The Australian people, quite frankly, are being silenced and they don't even know it. 10:48 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland Following on from Senator Cash, this chamber exists for one reason only. It is the house of review. And when it is a house of review it means it holds the government to account. We have a government in this country who are becoming a byword for secrecy, for lack of transparency and for lack of accountability. This is a government who, before the last election, promised to be the most transparent ever, to be the most accountable ever. But actually this government is going to go down as the least transparent government, the least accountable government and the most secretive government ever since Federation in 1901. The motion here, moved by Senator Bragg, is actually not a controversial motion. It's just this Senate setting out its rights in relation to the production of documents. This is what this chamber exists for. This chamber has said, 'We want these documents in the interests of the taxpayers and the people of Australia.' And what did this Labor Party government do? They went: 'No, you cannot have these documents. You cannot have this information.' Senator Bragg, through various means, was able to get those documents and to show the connection between Cbus, the CFMEU and the Labor Party. This is what it comes down to. This government doesn't want you to know what is going on, because there is a massive conflict of interest not just in relation to policy on the housing issue in Australia at the moment but also in terms of how money is laundered through the CFMEU to Cbus, back to the CFMEU and to the Labor Party. Senator Cash mentioned then the $1.25 million of members' money from the Cbus super fund that went to the CFMEU. Then the CFMEU donated $6.2 million to the Labor Party. The Labor Party, by the way, has not returned this money. The Labor Party is quite happy to keep the $6.2 million of CFMEU members' donations. Despite the Labor Party's protestations about how bad the CFMEU suddenly is, they're very happy to take the money. There is conflict of interest. Who is the National President of the Labor Party? It is Wayne Swan, the world's worst treasurer. Who is the current Treasurer? It's Dr Jim Chalmers. He's not a medical doctor, so, if you've got a headache, don't go and see him; you'll get a worse headache, because he'll talk to you! This guy did his PhD on Paul Keating, another contender for the position of 'world's worst treasurer'. We've got the National President of the Labor Party, who is also the head of the Cbus super union, connected up with Jim Chalmers, who, by the way, used to be the chief of staff to Wayne Swan. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 298839 Senator McGrath, resume your seat. I remind you to please refer to people using their correct titles. Senator McGRATH 217241 Sorry. Dr Chalmers is Australia's runner-up for the position of 'world's worst treasurer'. In the middle of this Venn diagram is the CFMEU, with all the tentacles going out to Keating, Wayne Swan or the Labor Party, because we all know what the Labor Party is; we're just talking about the price of them. They will do anything for their masters in the union movement. This comes back to the motion before us today, which includes covering up. The Labor Party position on the documents Senator Bragg requested is a political scandal. It is a disgrace that the Labor Party did not want these documents released. The question I put to everybody is: what else are they hiding? We don't know what they're hiding, but guess what? We'll find out. We'll make lots of orders for the production of documents and find out what other stinking, rotten deals are being done between the Labor Party, Cbus, the CFMEU and their acolytes in the Greens. How the Labor Party is treating the taxpayers of Australia is a disgrace. (Time expired) 10:53 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales I thank my colleague Senator Bragg for bringing this to our attention. I too will speak about the transparency and integrity issues in relation to this. But I want to draw the chamber's attention to the fact that we have a school group upstairs watching this at the moment. It drew me to the website of the Parliamentary Education Office, where it talks about the role of the Senate. I'll read briefly; it will only take a moment. 'In the Senate, the work of the government is scrutinised.' That means 'closely examined'. I think that's something really important for us to think about in relation to Senator Bragg's order for the production of documents. If we can't have an environment where we can seek information in this place so that we can understand and ask questions, then we have a serious problem in our democracy. That is why we are here. I want to go over some interesting facts; they've been spoken about, but I want to run through them. Cbus has some 920,000 members and manages $94 billion that belongs to those members. For 18 months, the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, and Cbus have been trying to keep secret the information that Senator Bragg has been seeking. Former Treasurer Wayne Swan is the chair of Cbus. The disgraced CFMEU owns 21 per cent of Cbus—we're getting some dots to connect—and don't forget that Wayne Swan is also the Labor Party president and was Treasurer Chalmers's former boss and mentor. Together, they have worked very, very hard to keep this information out of the public eye, and we have to ask ourselves why that is the case. But even more importantly, they claimed that it was commercial-in-confidence and that there was an important reason that the Senate couldn't know—because the information was private to Cbus—rather than being transparent with the Australian public and with Cbus's 920,000 members. Why? What didn't they want us and Senator Bragg to know? It was that Cbus wanted special treatment, to not be transparent in their fees and costs disclosures to their 920,000 members or to anyone else who wanted to be a member. What comes next? Wayne Swan has publicly committed $500 million of Cbus funds to co-invest in the HAFF. Should taxpayer funds be put at risk by co-investment with an organisation that is 21 per cent owned by the CFMEU? That's an important question that we need to address here. The last thing that I want to point to is the cost of building in this country during a housing and rental crisis. The CFMEU has made housing more unaffordable by imposing an effective 30 per cent tax on apartment buildings. They are the last people who should be helping this government with housing—or any government, for that matter. The Australian people expect that we will protect their funds and hold this government accountable. That is why we are here. This government promised transparency and integrity, and they have broken that promise. They should be held to account for that. I want to finish by responding to a couple of comments from the other side, particularly as they relate to what women want and the protection of women's superannuation. I acknowledge that the largest growing cohort of homeless in this country is women over 55, and that is shameful. I have this question: why is a woman in her 50s not allowed to access her own money—her own super—to purchase a home to have stability in her housing, but once she reaches retirement age she can spend that super to pay rent to somebody else? Can somebody explain that to me? You can't use your own money to invest in your own home, but, when the time comes, you can pay it out to a corporate or institutional landlord and be beholden to them. That is shameful. 10:59 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Here we are this morning in the house of review, and we hear cloaks of cover-up from the Labor Party when we're trying to do our job. Labor responds, first of all, to Senator Bragg by hiding behind the gender argument. What that's got to do with this is beyond us. Then Senator Walsh cloaks it as an attack from the coalition on super. How is making sure that we have probity on superannuation funds an attack on super? It's protecting superannuation. Senator Bragg is just doing his job, as am I as a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia. We need questions answered. The Labor Party's defence this morning has not focused on Senator Bragg's comments; it has focused on furphies and distractions, which are condemning the Labor Party. I've had the comedy of watching Senator Ayres respond twice in the last two weeks of sittings in this Senate—10 minutes each time of just nonsense, misrepresentations and labels. Labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the incompetent, the stupid, the dishonest and the fearful—no response based on fact. Instead we have distortions and labels. To recall what Senator Bragg talked about, he wanted to know why the Treasurer told the Senate mistruths and false statements. That's it. My question now is: why is the Labor Party trying to dodge and divert from that? We have a document from Cbus to the Treasurer. Cbus objected. Is Cbus running the country? They're claiming commercial in confidence for not giving Senator Bragg the documents, while giving Mr Bragg the documents. What are they hiding by hiding behind commercial in confidence? It's taken 18 months to get documents in this house of review—18 months. He had to use alternative channels as well. Labor's behaviour in response to Senator Bragg is now rising to one of contempt—holding the Senate in contempt. This is the way Cbus treats its members—hiding. This is the way this government treats the people of Australia—hiding. The government is protecting the CFMEU and Cbus. The government is doing more than just protecting it on superannuation. The government is protecting the CFMEU in Australia's biggest wage theft case. The Senate has instructed the workplace relations minister to do an investigation into wage theft involving thousands of miners from Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley, up to a $211,000 claim from one person. It's over a billion dollars in total, we believe, with miners being owed on average up to $41,000 per year of work. The Labor Party are burying it, hiding it, not doing what the Senate is telling them. Then we've got CFMEU directors involved in Coal Mines Insurance, Coal Services and coal long service leave, and they're all protecting each other and protecting the CFMEU. My position on super, just so the Labor Party is clear, is that I believe people should have a choice—to access their money or to have it in a super fund that is also of their choice. My last point is that I proposed a fair way of adjudicating these matters of withholding documents due to commercial in confidence and public indemnity. That has been rejected. That is still available. I also make the point that the Labor Party, as I disclosed last night, has almost a million dollars in donations for the last election from big pharma, and it is hiding, under the cloak of commercial in confidence, the contracts from the people who paid $18 billion for COVID injections. That's what we want. It's hiding tens of thousands of homicides. Confidence in Labor is plummeting. Support for Labor is plummeting. The truth has vanished, and that's the reason you're losing the confidence and support of the Australian people. 11:04 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria There's something really rotten going on here. But I think it's really important, before we begin the discussion about what rotten things are going on, to reflect on the many very good people that work in superannuation and the many very good people that are members of superannuation funds. Indeed, I've had a lot to do with Cbus and other superannuation funds over my time here and before I came to this place, and there is good work being done out there to make sure that Australians have a chance at a better retirement. This is not a discussion about those people. It is not a discussion about the people that work for Cbus either—and there are many good people who do that. But they should know what is going on here because there is this weird, cosy, uncomfortable and inappropriate relationship that is clearly going on between the highest echelons of Cbus and the Labor government. Our concern is that the Labor government is more concerned about what's important to Cbus—and indeed, more importantly, to the unions associated with Cbus, particularly the CFMEU—than it is with what is important and what matters to ordinary Australians that rely on both the government, and its integrity, and organisations that its money is invested in, like industry superannuation, like any superannuation fund, like Cbus, to behave to the highest possible standards—and that's not what's happened here. There are plenty of opportunities that the Treasurer has had to address those issues that are important to ordinary Australians. Inflation is running out of control, economic growth is stagnating in this country and productivity is going backwards, yet he seems to spend an inordinate amount of time in cahoots with his former boss—who is also the chair of Cbus—and making false claims to this chamber in the process. That is uncomfortable, and it should be uncomfortable, and it should be called out by this chamber. Back in March 2023 my colleague Senator Bragg did something pretty basic, something that pretty much all of us have done at some stage; he sent a freedom-of-information request to the Treasurer requesting all communications between Cbus Super—and let's remember that Cbus Super's chair is Wayne Swan, the former Treasurer of the country and the former boss of the current Treasurer. He requested all communications with Cbus since the last federal election. Six months later Senator Bragg finally received those documents, but they were heavily redacted as to make them unintelligible. They included a redacted email sent by Cbus to the Treasurer's office on 24 November 2022, just a few days before the Cbus chair, Wayne Swan, publicly committed half a billion dollars of superannuation members' money for involvement with Labor's proposed Housing Australia Future Fund. That commitment came before any exposure draft legislation on the HAFF had been released by the Treasury. On 17 October 2023 the Senate agreed to an order for the production of documents requiring the Treasurer to release those documents unredacted, but on 6 November the same year the Treasurer, via the minister here, responded to that order by claiming public interest immunity over the documents. In that claim the Treasurer said that the disclosure of certain information relating to Cbus Super would be contrary to the public interest because it would disclose commercial-in-confidence information. In the Treasurer's letter to the Senate, he said that disclosure would provide an unfair insight into Cbus's private opinions and that that would have the potential to damage their commercial affairs. Well, we know that that was not commercial-in-confidence information and that that PII claim was falsely made. PII claims are not made lightly in this place; in fact, we all need to take them very seriously because if we don't take them seriously we debase the work that we all do—not just the current government, not just the current Treasurer, but all of us. This has been made a mockery of by the Information Commissioner. You have been found, on this one, to be not wearing trunks when the tide has gone out, Labor. What is the Treasurer going to do about this? We want him to, via his minister, make an explanation to the Senate as to exactly why he would make a false public interest immunity claim, debase the work of the Senate and debase us all. Question agreed to. BILLS 18 BILLS Future Made in Australia Bill 2024, Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024 18

Future Made in Australia Bill 2024

Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024

First Reading 18 11:10 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 19 11:10 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I table a revised explanatory memorandum related to the bills and move: That these bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— FUTURE MADE IN AUSTRALIA BILL 2024 Today I am proud to introduce the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024. This Bill is a major step in implementing the Albanese Labor Government's Future Made in Australia agenda, to deliver our country's next generation of prosperity. It brings us closer to our vision for a prosperous future for all Australians - And helps us secure Australia's place in a shifting global economic and strategic landscape - On the back of the global transition to net zero. The world is changing and the pace of that change is accelerating as the planet moves to a future powered by cheaper, cleaner energy. As the Prime Minister has said, this change means we are in the middle of the biggest transformation in the global economy since the industrial revolution. At the same time geostrategic competition is growing. The international rules-based order is under constant pressure. Population demographics are shifting. And the risk of major supply shocks is rising. Amidst this churn and change our path to prosperity is clear. Australia has been dealt the most incredible set of cards to make ourselves the primary beneficiaries of the net zero economy. We have a unique combination of geological, meteorological, geographical and geopolitical comparative advantages— And we know it would be an egregious breach of our generational responsibilities as a Government if we didn't play this winning hand. This Bill is all about realising our genuine advantages— And recognising our future growth prospects lie at the intersection of our industrial, resources, skills and energy bases and our attractiveness as an investment destination— So we can grasp the jobs and opportunities of the energy transition. The world is moving on and Australia needs to move with it. Because if we get stuck in the past, this country will be poorer It will be more vulnerable - And we won't make the most of the golden opportunity in front of us. Our Future Made in Australia agenda responds to this. Our goal here is to power the future, not manufacture the past. Our strategy is to engage and invest not retreat and protect. Our emphasis is on attracting private investment, not replacing it. To prosper from change, not just protect ourselves from it. And the Bill I'm introducing today is putting this plan into practice— To help make Australia a renewable energy superpower, and an indispensable part of the global net zero economy. To more closely align our national security and economic security interests. To modernise and strengthen our economy, in a world built on cheaper and cleaner energy. To grab the vast industrial and economic opportunities from the world's shift to net zero. And share the benefits of those opportunities with every Australian. We know that to succeed our plan must be underpinned by discipline and rigour. That's what this legislation is about. This Bill embeds into law the strict criteria and robust processes that will guide our decision-making and set us up for success. To help give investors the clarity and certainty they need to invest and unlock growth in our economy. It's about ensuring public investment is prudent and powerful. Public investment that pulls in substantial private investment and guides it towards Australia's national interest. The legislation is built on three pillars. First, a National Interest Framework, which will help us identify sectors where we have a sustained comparative advantage in the new net zero economy, or an economic resilience and security imperative to invest. Second, a robust sector assessment process to help us better understand and break down barriers to private investment in key areas of the economy. And third, a set of Community Benefit Principles that will ensure public investment and the private investment it generates lead to strong returns and stronger communities. The three pillars will work together to help us build a more diversified and more resilient economy powered by renewable energy. The Framework helps determine our investment direction— The Treasury-led sector assessments will help us identify and address the barriers to attracting the private capital we need— And the principles will make sure the benefits flow to communities, workers and businesses around the country. The National Interest Framework outlines criteria to assess sectors against— To determine where it is in Australia's national interest to unlock private investment at scale. It has an economic security and resilience stream, where domestic sovereign capability is necessary to protect our national security interests or ensure our economy is sufficiently resilient to shocks. And a net zero transformation stream, where industries support global decarbonisation, and there is a reasonable prospect of a sustained comparative advantage. We've already put the Framework into action. It informed our Future Made in Australia investment focus in the Budget— On refining and processing critical minerals, producing renewable hydrogen, exploring production of green metals and low carbon liquid fuels, and supporting targeted manufacturing of clean energy technologies including solar, and value adding in the battery supply chain. This Bill will enshrine the Framework into law. The Framework will be supported by transparent, Treasury-led analysis of the extent that sectors align with the National Interest Framework. The Bill empowers the Government to direct Treasury to undertake independent assessments— And these assessments will be tabled in Parliament to support transparency and rigorous decision-making and help deliver value for money. Public investment will be an important and substantial part of our plan. But it is only a sliver of the private investment needed to transform our economy. The most important role for public investment will be to unlock the vast amount of private sector investment we will need to deploy— An additional $225 billion by 2050 to transition the energy system and realise net zero opportunities in heavy industries, by one estimate. And the Framework and the sector assessments will be instrumental here— Identifying the barriers to private investment and opportunities to address them— Informed by Treasury's expert analysis and evidence-based assessments, on top of their normal policy advice. Helping private investors to make considered investment decisions, confident that they know where the Government stands. The Bill will also outline a series of Community Benefit Principles. Because we know just pumping capital into the transformation won't be enough if we don't pay attention to how we deploy it. The principles will ensure our investments: Promote safe, secure, well-paid jobs with good conditions - Develop skilled, inclusive workforces - Take a collaborative approach to engaging local communities, like First Nations communities and communities directly affected by the transition to net zero - Supporting First Nations communities and traditional owners to participate in, and share in the benefits of, the transition to net zero - Strengthen domestic industrial capabilities and our local supply chains - And demonstrate transparency and compliance with Australia's tax system. They'll be applied on a program-by-program basis, recognising the different contexts and opportunities of these investments— Including through Future Made in Australia Plans, a new tool to support broader community benefits so they are delivered in a way that is a fit-for-purpose and project-specific. These principles will be our lodestar to help ensure our people and our economy are the primary beneficiaries of change. And we will consult on the details of how the principles and plans will be put into practice. Our $22.7 billion Budget investment demonstrates our commitment to this agenda. But it's only a fraction of what we need. Public investment will show us the path to a Future Made in Australia but private capital will pave the way. That's why our Future Made in Australia agenda is an investment strategy and a growth strategy. To provide investors with the clarity, certainty and the cooperation they need. And this Bill embeds the discipline and rigour to make it succeed. The time to act is now. The world is changing with or without Australia. The golden opportunity in front of us will start shrinking if we take any longer. We've already suffered through a decade of delay and denial under those opposite. And if they had their way, we'd have another wasted decade ahead, down a nuclear road to nowhere. We have a chosen a better path. A path to prosperity. A path that is mainstream and middle of the road. A path that reflects the new economic orthodoxy of a churning and changing world. A path backed by evidence and supported by science. A path that will be rigorously interrogated and transparently explained. A path that uplifts all Australians, not just some. A path that leads to a future made right here in Australia. Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. FUTURE MADE IN AUSTRALIA (OMNIBUS AMENDMENTS NO. 1) BILL 2024 Today, I am proud to introduce the Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill. This Bill steps out how we will put the discipline and rigour established under the Future Made in Australia Bill into practice— By expanding the roles of Export Finance Australia and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency so they can make investments consistent with our National Interest Framework. To empower these agencies to help meet our Future Made in Australia goals— To attract and facilitate more private sector investment - And ensure private capital is deployed in the national interest. The Bill contains two Schedules. The first will allow the Government to make investments through Export Finance Australia in a way that's aligned with the National Interest Framework. The changes in the Bill mean Export Finance Australia will be able to support a broader range of domestic transactions aligned with our National Interest Framework. Export Finance Australia can already invest domestically in support of Australia's exports. It's playing a pivotal role in growing Australia's vital critical minerals industry— Overseeing the Government's $840 million investment to build Australia's first combined rare earths mine and refinery in the Northern Territory— And building domestic capabilities like quantum computing that will unlock future industries for Australia. This change will expand that role even more. Projects coming forward for financing will be considered on a case-by-case basis. And not only will these investments need to meet the strict and rigorous criteria established under this Bill— They will also be assessed by Export Finance Australia's expert team of investment analysts— And must meet the high bar expected of Export Finance Australia's independent Board, before they are referred to Government for a decision. The second Schedule will expand the role of the Australian Renewable Energy Agency - And help drive Australia towards our renewable energy superpower goal. ARENA is an extremely highly respected agency and a proud Labor legacy. It has a strong track record of supporting the commercialisation of Australian innovation needed to not only address climate change, but to capitalise on the huge economic and jobs opportunities that tackling climate change represents for our renewable blessed nation. We are building on this record of success and we will allocate $6 billion in statutory funding for ARENA for renewable energy investments over the next 15 years. A big chunk will be used to establish the Future Made in Australia Innovation Fund— To commercialise innovative technologies critical to net zero in areas like green metals, batteries, low carbon liquid fuels and clean technology manufacturing. And funding will also go to establishing the Solar Sunshot and Battery Breakthrough Initiatives, and providing long-term funding certainty for ARENA's ongoing priorities. This 15-year funding will help ARENA invest in lasting, forward-looking opportunities - And we're legislating it, so the funding is above the cut and thrust of the annual Budget cycle. These changes enhance governance at Export Finance Australia and ARENA— Making the Minister for Finance a responsible minister for both agencies, alongside relevant existing ministers. And allowing ARENA to employ its own staff and make it easier to draw in other expertise when needed. To transform our economy and grasp the vast jobs and opportunities of the energy transition, sizeable amounts of public investment will be deployed by both these agencies. And our goal here is for public investment to catalyse private investment that's in the national interest. This Bill works together with theFuture Made in Australia Bill,to set us up to become an indispensable part of the global net zero economy. The Future Made in Australia Bill lays the foundations upon which our entire agenda will be built— Embedding into law the strict criteria and robust processes that will guide our decisions and set us up for success. This Omnibus Bill will allow key government agencies to put their shoulders to the wheel— To help make investments that put our agenda into action, underpinned by the discipline and rigour the first Bill demands. And there will be more legislation and consultation to come - Like for our hydrogen and critical minerals production tax credits— Which will need to be legislated once we've consulted stakeholders and bedded down the implementation details. But everything we do from here— Will be built on top of the solid foundations in the legislative package we are proud to introduce today. A great transformation is underway. Australian energy can power it. Australian resources can build it. Australia's regions can drive it. Australian researchers can shape it. And Australian workers can thrive in it. That's what these Bills are all about. That's the future we can make together, right here in Australia. Full details of the measure are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. 11:10 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria I rise to speak on the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 and the Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024. These bills seek to retrofit some form of a principle based framework to the government's hodgepodge of announcements that it has rolled together in its Future Made in Australia agenda. The coalition will oppose these bills, and we encourage all of those in this chamber to oppose them, because, the more we learn about Labor's Future Made in Australia plan, the more clearly we see that the emperor has no clothes on at all. The more we learn about Labor's Future Made in Australia, the more obvious it is that there is no new paradigm, no new economic orthodoxy, as the Treasurer is so fond of claiming and, indeed, penning 6,000-word essays about. No, there is just the same old Labor with the same old industry policy, picking winners, ideologically driven priorities and wrongheaded subsidies, all at the expense of the taxpayer. It could not be clearer that this does not stack up. It's a plan for pork-barrelling; it's not a plan for building a strong economy. It's a plan that would lead to more government intervention, not more business investment. Worst of all, it's a plan for more inflation at a time when Australian families and businesses are already struggling under the weight of the Labor government's economic mismanagement. Australia has a proud and strong manufacturing history and a proud and strong manufacturing industry, and, while for decades the coalition has been a champion of this vital sector by supporting manufacturing, it requires far more than simply empty slogans to keep it going. It requires effective economic management, a management style that gets back to basics: affordable and reliable energy, flexible workplace practices that work for both the employee and the employer, less regulation and red tape and green tape, and an incentive based tax system that rewards risk and provides an incentive for people's efforts. These are the pillars of a successful economy, pillars that Labor policies are steadily eroding. Let's make it clear: the Future Made in Australia Bill is not about securing our future; it's about securing Labor's political interests. Labor is using this bill as a vehicle for pork-barrelling, handing out taxpayer money to favoured sectors without any proper scrutiny. It's not the way to build a strong and resilient economy. Labor's plan fundamentally misunderstands what it is that drives business investment. It's not more government grants and handouts that Australian businesses need, and it's certainly not what they're crying out for. What they need is less red tape, less green tape, less regulation, lower taxes and a regulatory environment that encourages growth and innovation but doesn't stymie it. Instead, these bills dramatically increase the ability for the government to essentially funnel taxpayer money through the Export Finance Australia organisation and ARENA, transforming them into tools for political gain rather than tools for economic development. The changes to ARENA, in particular, are alarming. ARENA was established as a research and development agency. Previously Labor opposed even expanding the remit of this organisation to cover sensible net zero and related R&D expenditure initiatives, including into carbon capture and storage and blue hydrogen. Labor opposed that. But now, under this bill, ARENA's role is expanded to include deployment, manufacturing and commercialisation—areas that are so far removed from its original purpose. Labor's changes give the minister for climate change the power to boost ARENA's funding without parliamentary oversight, allowing $3.98 billion to be spent with the stroke of a pen—$3.98 billion of taxpayer money, without scrutiny. This is nothing more than a slush fund for the minister for climate change, Mr Bowen, who will now have the power to roll out billions of dollars without any parliamentary oversight. This is the same old industry policy for the same old Labor. Let's see how well they're doing so far. We have $1 billion that has already been shelled out for solar panel manufacturers that even the Treasurer's own hand-picked Productivity Commissioner doesn't believe will economically stack up—$1 billion of your money. There's half a billion dollars to an American quantum computing company, and there are serious questions to answer on the process for the funding that the ANAO may inquire into. An American quantum computing company, for a Future Made in Australia: I ask you, how does that stack up? There is the Solar Sunshot program, which even the Treasury secretary refuses to endorse. I think that's quite extraordinary. And the biggest booster of green hydrogen, Fortescue, are scaling back their ambitions for green hydrogen, not expanding them, despite the promise of tax credits for just existing, for just doing what they were always going to do—tax credits for 'just being'. This is the Labor government's idea of a future made in Australia. Former productivity commissioner Mr Gary Banks described the government's policy as a fool's errand that risks repeating the mistakes of the past by propping up, in his words, 'political favourites'. Let us consider why the Australian manufacturing industry are in this position to begin with. Labor's policy on energy, on industrial relations and on taxation are making Australia a less attractive place to do business. Insolvencies in this country have skyrocketed. Around 19,000 businesses have gone under since Labor took office. That is 19,000, just in the past 2½ years alone. And there is every indication that there is more to come. That's the highest number of insolvencies on record. Productivity is down by 6.3 per cent in the last two years, and businesses are struggling just to keep their doors open. The Future Made in Australia Bill does absolutely nothing to address these challenges. In fact, by throwing money into a flawed system, it's likely to make things worse. Inflation is already, in the words of the RBA governor, both 'home grown' and 'sticky'. Prices have risen by 10 per cent, and for working households the cost of living has surged by over 18 per cent. No wonder Australians feel that they're doing it tough; they are doing it tough. No wonder they feel that they're poorer; they are poorer, under Labor. Personal income taxes are up by 20 per cent. Real wages have collapsed by nine per cent, and household savings are down by 10 per cent. In Australia a typical family with a mortgage of around $750,000 is now $35,000 worse off a year. They have to find $35,000 more a year to pay that mortgage. That's not the sort of money you find down the back of a couch. These are the facts, and they paint a very bleak picture of Labor's economic legacy. Since taking office, Labor has spent an additional $315 billion. That's over $30,000 per household in Australia. And I haven't met a family yet who's feeling $30,000 better off under this government. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer may be trying to pick winners, but the problem is that it's Australian families that will lose under this plan. Australians deserve so much better. They deserve a government that will address cost-of-living issues head on and put their needs first—not the needs of their mates and not the needs of their political favourites. They need a government that will make the tough decisions that are required to secure our nation's economic future. The coalition's plan is very clear. We will get back to basics. First, we will rein in inflationary spending. We will not spend billions of dollars on corporate welfare for green hydrogen and critical minerals. Instead we will prioritise responsible spending that delivers real benefits for Australian families and Australian businesses. Second, we will cut red tape, removing those regulatory roadblocks that are stifling innovation and suffocating our economy. We will make it easier for businesses to grow and to create jobs; we will not make it harder for them. That's what they are asking of us. Third, we will provide lower, simpler and fairer taxes for all Australians. Everyone should be able to keep more of what they earn, and we will ensure that that happens, injecting that sense of aspiration and opportunity back into our economy. We've already announced our plan to increase the instant asset write-off to $30,000, and not only will we increase it but we will make it permanent. It's a genuine productivity-enhancing policy that will benefit small businesses, which—we must all remind ourselves every single day—are the engine room of the Australian economy. Fourth, we will deliver affordable and reliable energy by getting more gas into the system to support manufacturers and provide secure base-load power. That 24/7 power is necessary in order for our manufacturers to be viable. This will support businesses with the power that they need to thrive and will ensure that households are not burdened with the skyrocketing energy bills that we've seen over the last two years. Our plan is not about slogans, and it's not about handouts. It's about real and practical solutions that will restore confidence in our economy and rebuild Australia's competitiveness. It's not about ideology, and it's not about playing favourites and picking winners. It's about getting back to basics and getting our economy back on an even keel so that we can all prosper and thrive. In conclusion, the Future Made in Australia Bill is not the answer to our nation's economic challenges. It is, unfortunately, simply a misguided attempt to paper over the cracks of Labor's economic policies, and it uses taxpayer money to do it. It uses taxpayer money to fund political priorities rather than pulling the levers on those drivers of a strong economy, like energy prices and energy reliability or an industrial relations system that is flexible for employees and for employers, so that it works for all of us and not just for some of us and returns productivity to our economy. It's about reducing red tape, brown tape, green tape and every other kind of tape which this government has wrapped our economy in and which has slowed down business, stifled innovation and made people walk away from their own businesses because it's all too hard. It's about a tax system that gets productivity going and restores that sense of opportunity, so that people know that, if they work hard and take a risk, it will be worth their while. Most importantly, it's about tackling inflation—the ultimate thief in the night that eats away at your income, erodes your savings, reduces your standard of living and, overall, reduces your quality of life. If you cannot tackle inflation, then as a government, you are not doing your first job, which is to raise people's standard of living, not lower it. That's what we've seen in the last two years. Most importantly it's to address the real needs of Australian families and businesses, to improve their quality of life and make sure that they've got more money in their pockets so that they can have the choices and the opportunities that they deserve and that they expect in what should be and can be—and will be, under a coalition government—a prosperous and thriving society. The coalition offers a much better way: a return to sound economic management, to responsible use of taxpayer money and to policies that will secure Australians' future. 11:24 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania The Greens are approaching the Future Made in Australia legislation proposed by Labor—the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 and Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024—very cautiously. I'll explain in a little while why we are doing that and what some of our concerns and, to be fair, our fears are about this legislation. I want to start at a high level. While we are in, as we are, an era when the ecological processes that underpin all life, including human life, on this planet are crumbling around us and collapsing and while the planet's climate is breaking down, the time for more government intervention in the economy is upon us. We have seen what laissez-faire capitalism has delivered us. We have seen what a so-called free market approach has delivered us. It has delivered us calamity and catastrophe. It has delivered us a planet that is becoming unlivable. It has delivered us an extinction crisis. It has delivered, and is delivering, us climate breakdown. That's what this hands-off, leave-it-all-to-the-markets approach has done. That is what privatisation has delivered us. That is what allowing corporations to behave in the psychopathic way that corporations do has delivered us. That is what standing back and allowing rampant corporate profiteering and price gouging is delivering us—an unlivable planet and a massive redistribution of wealth in our society away from people at the bottom and in the middle and up to the oligarchs at the top. The time for more government intervention in the economy is upon us. We have to do this. We have to understand that governments can be lenders of first resort. We have to understand that governments can nationalise companies and sectors that currently are run by the private sector but, not many decades ago, were run by governments in this country. It's ironic that the Australian Labor Party, who obviously are now in government, are the architects of the great privatisation agenda that we've seen in the last 40 or 50 years in this country. Of course, that privatisation agenda and the wholehearted embrace of neoliberalism and corporatism started under Prime Minister Bob Hawke and Treasurer Paul Keating. Privatisation is a Labor agenda. Labor governments rarely saw an asset owned by the public—one that wasn't absolutely nailed down—as anything other than something to be sold and privatised. We support starting to move away from this privatisation agenda that's been in place since Labor brought it in 40-odd years ago. We support moving away from just letting markets rip—letting markets slash and burn, smashing up our society, making our society more unequal, rendering the planet uninhabitable and driving an extinction crisis. We support ending those things and moving back to the scenario where, when there was a social need for something, governments stepped in. Take, for example, housing at the moment. Governments once stepped in and built enough houses so that everyone in Australia could have a safe, affordable and accessible home. That's the way it used to be. Governments would build houses, and they would rent them out at affordable prices so people could have a safe and affordable home. It's a disgrace that, in a country as rich as Australia, we don't have enough homes for people. But that is what neoliberalism has delivered, what privatisation has delivered and what the big corporations who've got their hooks into the establishment parties in this place have delivered. The Greens support governments setting an agenda for the direction of our economy. We need an urgent transition out of fossil fuels and into renewables. Governments should be driving that agenda much more quickly than we currently are. We want governments to put in place frameworks which shape investor decisions about which productive parts of the economy we want money to flow into and which unproductive, undesirable parts of the economy we don't want money to flow into. The problem that the Greens have with the government's Future Made in Australia agenda is that, even though it sounds terrific to make our future in Australia, we're not convinced it will do any of those things that I just outlined. We're not convinced about that at all. The real danger here is that, as it's been presented to this parliament, Labor's Future Made in Australia agenda is actually all about a future of coal, oil and gas well beyond 2050. Labor's Future Gas Strategy is inherently linked to Labor's Future Made in Australia framework. And that is dangerous. It is dangerous for our country, it's dangerous for everyone in the world, it's dangerous for all the species who are being driven to extinction, and it's dangerous for our climate. We have very real concerns that, hidden within this nice, fluffy, warm-sounding framework, a future made in Australia is actually a dangerous future for coal, oil and gas beyond 2050. There are some indicators there. I've read the Chevron submission to the Senate inquiry. I've read the INPEX submission to the Senate inquiry. They love it! And do you know why they love it? It's because they can smell public money to boost their already obscene profits. Remember, folks—about a third of the top-100 biggest corporations in Australia pay zero tax. That means that a nurse, teacher, chippie or plumber that goes to work and pays income tax is paying more tax than giant, multinational corporations that operate in Australia and then offshore their profits and avoid their tax responsibilities. One in three of the 100-biggest corporations in this country pay zero tax at all—absolutely nada. Nothing! I say to every nurse, teacher and carpenter—everyone who does an honest year's work in Australia and pays income tax—thank you for your contribution, but what a shame that so many of the big corporations are paying zero tax. Of course, they turn around and use those profits to pay multimillion-dollar salary and bonus packages to their wealthy CEOs and their senior managers. They also use some of those profits to donate to the establishment political parties in this place. And so the cycle goes on. We have concerns that parliament will pass the bill potentially this or next week. We could be told, 'Now we need to use the Future Made in Australia framework to support the opening up of new gas fields so that we can make petrochemicals or fertilisers to support our economic resilience.' But I'll tell you one thing for nothing, colleagues. The physical reality—not to mention the science and the laws of thermodynamics—is telling us very clearly we need to stop opening new fossil fuel projects. We need to stop it, and we need to stop it now. Where is Labor's response to that? They have a pathetically weak climate agenda that is actually seeing emissions continue to go up. They're going up, colleagues, since Labor came to power. Labor were elected to bring Australia's emissions down. That's what people believed they were going to get from the Labor Party in return for their vote. And what have we seen? It's a Labor Party that has overseen the continued increase of emissions since it came into government. In Australia currently we have the situation where companies like Santos are buying gas in the domestic market and then turning around and exporting it to fulfil international contracts that they overpromised on and now can't deliver on. I want to say very clearly to Santos and other companies in the same boat: that's not our problem. That is not the problem of the Australian taxpayer, not the problem of the Australian people and not the problem of this parliament. We should make it unlawful for companies like Santos to buy gas in the domestic market and ship it overseas just because they got greedy and they overcontracted. That's Santos's problem; they can fix it. Don't start putting the pain onto Australian consumers. Greedy gas corporations are now pushing onto a meek, complicit Labor government that the government has to deal with the consequences of corporate greed and overcontracting and overcommitment. Well, it's not the government's problem. The government shouldn't be bailing big corporations out of that problem. The Future Gas Strategy, which appears inherently linked to Labor's Future Made in Australia agenda, has a great big dream, a great big fantasy, underpinning it—that is, the dream and fantasy of opening up the Beetaloo basin, Scarborough and Browse, of fracking the Kimberley, Perth and Surat basins. That's the dream. That's the fantasy of the Future Gas Strategy which appears embedded in Labor's Future Made in Australia legislation. The failures of the gas export industry should have taught us an important lesson that it appears the Future Made in Australia premise has forgotten: we cannot just let multinational corporations swoop in, mine our resources, extract our resources for nothing or next to nothing, and ship the resources and the profits overseas. But here we are with a complicit, weak Labor government that appears to be contemplating doing exactly that into the future under the fluffy, warm badge of the Future Made in Australia legislation. If we want a Future Made in Australia, let's have a genuine discussion about what that means and what kind of future we want in this country. The Australian Greens support government intervention in our economy to drive public and private funds into productive parts of our economy and out of parts of our economy that are unproductive and deliver negative outcomes to our people and our environment. We support that, and it appears that Labor has accepted, in principle, that it's a good thing. But we have to have an honest discussion about what that looks like in reality—which parts of the economy we want to help, which parts of the economy we want to disadvantage and how we are going frame up a future where we can deliver on the needs of our people and ensure an inhabitable planet where the climate's not breaking down around us and ecological collapse has been averted. Those are the conversations that we need to have, and we have no certainty at all that the Labor Party is ready to have those discussions. We stand ready to enter into a good-faith negotiation with Labor on this legislation, by the way. We cannot keep privatising the profits and socialising the losses. We saw it during COVID, when Qantas and Virgin needed bailing out. What the taxpayer supports should have done was ensure ownership and equity in those companies for the people of Australia; instead, the companies got massive cash grants. Now that they're profitable again, instead of the public getting a financial return on its investment and its bailout, the companies have just pocketed the money and continued to fleece their customers and give multimillion dollar salary and bonus packages to their CEOs. Socialising the losses while privatising the profits is a tried-and-true public policy failure. The people hate it, and rightly so. Privatisation is a tried-and-true public policy failure. The Australian people hate it, and rightly so. Let's start nationalising companies again. Let's start intervening in the market, and, instead of this hands-off, laissez-faire, disaster capitalism framework that we have now, make markets work in the interests of people and the interests of nature and climate. 11:39 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania ():  Well, what a contribution! As usual, the Greens are grandstanding, doing their social media, overhyping their contribution to what is very important legislation. Australia is a lucky country for so many reasons. We are a smart country that can adapt. We are a country that embraces the future—we don't hide from it. We are culturally, geographically and resource rich in every sense. It is our people that are our greatest strength. Our mateship, our unity of purpose and our success as a multicultural country is the envy of the Western world. The Albanese government is always looking to the future. We are a forward-thinking government, like all great Labor governments. We plan for the worst and hope for the best. This legislation is about locking in our future prosperity as a nation. It is about creating opportunity for all to share in the great wealth of our country. This is about this generation and the next. We know that the world is changing ever so quickly. The global economic climate has changed, and we must change with it. The planet is changing from a carbon-intense planet to a cheaper, cleaner energy producer. This is the purpose. This is the biggest change in the world that we have witnessed since before the Industrial Revolution. The global world order is shifting and if we don't shift and adapt, we will be left behind and will not prosper. Australia is an amazing continent in the Pacific and it has been dealt an amazing hand to take every opportunity presented to it, to use our natural abilities as a nation and our natural resources, which are in abundance, to make the most of the global net zero economy. We have a unique combination of geographical and meteorological advantages, and we should be seeing all of these as advantageous and using them to make sure that we provide assets and opportunities for all Australians. That's what a good, fair government would do. It would set up Australia to take advantage of and benefit from these as a nation. The jobs and opportunities of clean energy transition must not be taken for granted. We know those on that side, when they were in government for 10 years, had 22 policies around energy and couldn't even deliver on one—and let's talk a little bit later about their most recent lightbulb moment. On the other hand, the Albanese government want to make sure that we have manufacturing back on our land. We're about creating a future made here in Australia. That's what our agenda is. We're in a unique situation to take advantage of this and to invest in our people. That's what we are doing in our institutions and in this wonderful continent we call Australia. A future made here will power the future and bring the manufacturing base back into our own backyard. We are engaging in investment in our future. The Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 will help make Australia a renewable energy superpower and an indispensable part of the global net zero economy, to more closely align our national and our economic security interests. That's what this bill is going to do. We will modernise and strengthen our economy in a world built on cheaper and cleaner energy. This bill serves every Australian, not just some. It serves not just those in the cities, but those in our regions as well. This bill will also ensure public investment in smart investments. It will ensure public investment that pulls in substantial private investment and guides it towards Australia's national and economic interests, like investing in green hydrogen in my home state of Tasmania, or a windfarm off the coast of Tasmania. We will educate and create the jobs of the future so every Tasmanian has a secure, well-paid job that they can rely on into the future. This bill is about a national interest framework which will help us identify sectors where we have a sustainable, comparative advantage in the net zero economy, or an economy resilient and ready to take that next secure step that we need, which is imperative going forward, and make sure that our investments are around the economy of the future, which will give us security for those people who can invest in these ventures. Secondly, it will give us a robust sector assessment process to help us better understand and break down barriers to private investment in key areas of the economy. Thirdly, there are a set of community benefit principles that will ensure public investment and that the private investment it generates not only leads to strong returns but also leads to a stronger, healthier community. The National Interest Framework outlines criteria to assess sectors against to ensure that we determine where Australia's national interests are so that we can unlock those opportunities to have private investment. Business must drive this investment and energy transition, and it will, because it has already started this process. We acknowledge that. Jim Chalmers and Anthony Albanese have made sure that the Future Made in Australia investment is the focus of our latest budget—on refining and processing critical minerals, producing renewable hydrogen, exploring production of green medals and low-carbon liquid fuels, supporting targeted manufacturing of clean energy technology, including solar, and value-adding in the battery supply chain. This is where Australia's future is heading, and we have to capitalise on it. That's what this bill will deliver. It will deliver a better economy, it will deliver more investment and it will deliver greater outcomes for both regional Australia and our cities. It delivers a smart Australia. An Australia that continues to be reliant on foreign interests to make every single consumable is not the future that we want for Australians. We will make our own solar panels and batteries to power Australian homes and businesses, because there is nothing like Australian know-how and ingenuity. Our attitude is that we can do this and we will. We want people in this chamber to get on board and support this legislation. The bill empowers the government to direct Treasury to undertake independent assessments, and these assessments will be tabled in parliament to supply transparency and rigorous decision-making and help deliver value for money. If we don't invest correctly, we will waste taxpayer money, and that's not what we're about. Public investment will be an important and substantial part of our plan. Public and private investment together is what this bill is going to encourage. Private investment must be attractive to enable us to help transform our economy and our communities. This is a public and private partnership. That's what this plan is all about. The most important role for public investment will be to unlock the vast amount of private sector capital that we'll need to deploy—an additional $225 billion by 2050—to transition the energy system and realise net zero opportunities in heavy industries. The framework and the sector assessments will be instrumental here in identifying the barriers to private investment and the opportunities to address them, informed by Treasury's expert analysis and evidence based assessments on top of their own normal policy advice. Now, we know how important it is to get expert advice when you're talking about energy, unlike those opposite. That's why they couldn't deliver on the 22 energy policies they had when they were in government for 10 years. That's why their latest light-bulb thought about energy will never be delivered—because they haven't got the backing of any experts in that area whatsoever, and the country would never, ever be able to afford it. This bill will also outline a series of community benefit principles, because we know that just pumping capital into transformation won't be enough if we don't pay attention to how we deploy it. Our educational institutions are amongst the best in the world, which is why we have funded them—unlike those opposite, who gutted TAFE and our other institutions. Education and skills are so crucial to empower our economy and to ensure that we have manufacturing back in our backyard, but, also, educating and skilling up our people is investing in them—not like those opposite, with their record. We need to develop skills that are inclusive to ensure we have the workforces to be able to engage with local communities, including our First Nations communities and communities affected by the transition to net zero. We need to ensure our domestic industrial capabilities thrive if this plan is to be effective, so that local supply chains will be bolstered. Our $22.7 billion budget investment demonstrates our commitment to a future made here in Australia. Public investment will show us a path to a future made in Australia, but private capital will pave the way. So it's an exciting time to be in business in Australia. It will need thinkers and entrepreneurial people to invest in Australia first, and then businesses second. The Future Made in Australia agenda is investing in a strategy to make our growth strategy stronger and to provide investors with the clarity, certainty and cooperation that they need from government. I thank our business leaders for working so collaboratively with Treasurer Chalmers, Minister Bowen and Minister Husic, and of course the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, for his vision. He has demonstrated leadership and vision. It is a vision that supports the principles of the labour movement. It supports workers right across the country to make the best quality products right here at home in their backyard. It is time now to act. We wasted 10 years under those opposite in government. The world is changing, and, unlike those opposite, we are ready to accept the challenge of the future. The new age can be a golden age if we make the change now and decide to invest in our people and the Australian spirit. Our country has suffered through a decade of denial and delay under those opposite, and, if they had their way, there would be another wasted decade ahead, going down a nuclear road to a mushroom cloud. Let's not make that same mistake of the past. We must be a bold country that is a smart country—a country that knows our best days are ahead of us, not behind us. We can and we will make the best products right here for domestic and international consumption. I'm backing a future made in Australia. I'm backing the Prime Minister and his leadership. I'm hoping that those in this chamber will back Australians and will back Australia's economy to be stronger in the future and to seize the opportunity to lead, not live in the past. We know that the Leader of the Opposition wants to take us down that nuclear road, when he has not one expert that's come out in support of it. We cannot afford to build it. We know that it's going to be decades in the making. In the meantime, they're not going to deliver any cheaper energy to households. The question is: are you supporting Australians? 11:54 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales I'm grateful for the opportunity to make some comments in relation to the Future Made in Australia legislation. In doing so, I want to reflect on where the country has been over these last few decades and pay credit to the Labor Party for, in the 1980s, helping the country bring down the tariff wall—remove subsidisation of industry. Sometimes these measures were supported by the Liberal Party. Not all the deregulation and other economy related measures that were required to build a robust, modern economy were supported. But in general terms, I think in the long run of history will look back at that period as a period when tough judgements were made by that government, the Hawke government. And I think most reasonable people would say it was a government that did things that others could have done but didn't do when they were given the opportunity. These measures in relation to a Future Made in Australia are winding back the clock 40 years, maybe—maybe more—to a period when the government thought it knew better than the market did, that it could swim against the tide of global capital, that people in Canberra were so smart and so intelligent that they would just run the show from here. That is a very scary position for the country to be in, but it is perhaps not surprising. This has been a regressive parliament. I have been shocked that I've been part of parliament that wound back a tax reform of the last parliament. In this parliament the government reimposed a tax bracket that had been removed by the last parliament. And now we have a government that is seeking to establish a picking-winners approach here in Canberra, where big businesses—it could be foreign or domestic businesses—will be funded by the Commonwealth government. That is an approach that has been discredited. You can go back to the 1970s and look at all the different debates that were had, by Bert Kelly and others. These issues were ventilated for decades before the Hawke government finally put the tariff wall and subsidisation to death—to their eternal credit. Now we are back in around 1975. We've got another Treasurer, another doctor Treasurer—like Jim Cairns—who thinks he can fund the economy as a venture capitalist. It's been a very regressive period. So, I would say that the central charge against this government is that it has been so focused on what is important to its favourite fellow travellers—the unions, the super funds and co—that it has had no time to resolve the major economic challenges of the day. That is why people under 40 are going crazy about housing, why the Australian dream is further and further away the longer the Labor government is in office, and why the inflation problem is getting worse here compared with almost any other jurisdiction we would care to compare ourselves with. And that is the problem: the government has been so focused on the rent seekers and the bloodsuckers that it has had no time to resolve the major challenges of the day. And this bill is a continuation of this problem—that the government is trying to feather the nests of its favourite people. We did an inquiry into this bill through the Economics Legislation Committee. One of the major issues that came up in the inquiry was that the provisions of the bill provide for a form of compulsory unionisation, where grants or payments are made by these funds. In fact, when asked about the so-called community benefit principles, the AMWU said that firms receiving finance grants or equity investment in their firm should be required to have an enterprise agreement with the relevant trade unions registered or enter the relevant multi-employer bargaining stream. This whole business is all about our old mate here saying, 'How can we help the people that are closest to us?' It's not: 'How can we solve problems for the Australian people? How can we solve inflation? How can we help small business? How can we deal with housing?' No; it's: 'How can we give money to our best friends? How can we help the unions?' This is unfortunate. If I were advising the government, I would not have come into this parliament when it started back in the middle of 2022 and abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission. I don't think that was a very good decision. I know that Senator Watt now is having to deal with that mess, and we all wish him well. But I'm not sure it was a great judgement call for the government. Sure, the longer the governments go, the more they perhaps incur integrity issues when they make bad judgements, but this is another bad judgement of trying to entrench their favourite people into this new scheme. The Minerals Council of Australia said that the workplace relations elements of the community benefit principles in section 10, paragraph (3) (a) (i) of the bill are unnecessary and would be economically damaging. The Minerals Council go on to say the principles are not about improving working conditions but are a government-mandated attempt at union control of policy, judgements and workplaces. The other issue here is that this will entrench permanent rent-seeking through the picking of winners. The Productivity Commission itself said that industry policy such as Future Made in Australia can be costly for governments, act as a form of trade protection and distort the allocation of Australia's scarce resources towards activities that Australia is not best-placed to undertake. This takes me back to my central charge that we're going back in time some 40 or 50 years with this approach. The Chair of the Productivity Commission, Danielle Wood, has described the policy as risking 'forever subsidies'. She says that we risk creating a class of businesses that is reliant on government subsidies, and it can be a very effective way of getting them to come back for more. The Productivity Commission is saying what it has always said: this idea of subsidising industry is very dangerous for the economy. I guess they must regret that we are now back in the 1970s and having the same lengthy debates that were won then. The former chair of the Productivity Commission, Gary Banks, has said that the Future Made in Australia is a fool's errand which risks making the mistakes of the past by propping up so-called political favourites. He was described as a flat-earther by the Prime Minister. Apparently, if you're an economist setting out that there are orthodox things that have been determined over many decades, such as the risk of government subsidising industry forever, you're now a flat-earther. I wonder whether there is a point when government thinks, 'Maybe we actually should try and focus on what will be good for the people of Australia rather than just people who are close to us.' That is really the major issue with Future Made in Australia. It's all about entrenching union control over workplaces, as set out in these community benefit principles. We had the ACTU come to the hearings. I was able to ask Ms O'Neil, the President of the ACTU, about these community benefit principles. She gave—I would have to say—an answer which was very unclear. We then asked the AMWU and AWU what their views were, and they gave a very clear answer, saying they thought it was very important that any organisation that wanted to receive these funds, grants or subsidies should have a mandatory unionisation policy. At least they were honest. I went on to congratulate the AWU for being honest, because at least they were saying what this is all about. It's all about entrenching control amongst a small group of people. That is before you even consider the idea of crony capitalism. I would say this is about crony unionisation. The industry minister, Ed Husic, thinks he's going to be a venture capitalist. He will go around and invest in a whole lot of different businesses in Australia and, obviously, abroad. We've seen the billion-dollar bet he's made on PsiQuantum, which is not an Australian company. He will do that. In the process of doing so, he is going to commit our taxpayer funds in circumstances where there must be a union involved. So this is going to be another opportunity to enrich their favourite vested interests. Ultimately, all their chickens will come home to roost, because, after 2½ long years of Labor, the Australian people will be wise to their economic circumstances being much poorer than they were back in May 2022. Regrettably, I've got to say that issues like housing for the under-40s are going to get worse before they get better if this government were to stay in office. I think people generally want their governments to do well, but they will be very sceptical of efforts to give special deals and handouts to a select few union czars, which is what we've seen out of this government. It was only last week that we discovered that the Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, had decided that he would use his position to file a false public interest immunity claim here in the Senate, when the Senate had sought an order for the production of documents to get access to files that were provided by one of his favourite vested interests, the Cbus super fund, which is chaired by his former boss, Mr Wayne Swan, who is also the president of the Labor Party. The story gets better and better, doesn't it? Doctor Chalmers used his position to file a false public interest immunity claim to stop the Senate getting access to the document. We are lucky that as citizens we have access to freedom of information laws, because, under the FOI laws, we can appeal a judgement. We were able to appeal to the Information Commissioner who provided us with the document that Dr Chalmers had sought to cover up. The document was an effort to lobby by the Cbus super fund to get a special deal so that it could cover up its stamp duty costs from members. It wanted to conceal transparent information from members. Why would the Treasurer use his position to conceal this information from the Australian people? The answer is that it is a government for vested interests, and they were embarrassed about this idea of being exposed. It shows it is completely on brand—that when you get out of bed, you think about the 10 things you could do for your best friends today and how you can use your public office to help your best friends, not the Australian people. The consequence of all these funds that Labor have set up will be bad for the Australian people, because the off-balance-sheet items of the reconstruction fund, the housing fund and all the other funds they've set up will all be disastrous legacies for the Australian people. They will also have a very dangerous legacy for the government in the short term, because, ultimately, when you stack up these funds and put all your mates onto their boards and they end up doing dodgy things, it becomes an integrity issue. So it is a very good lesson for future governments of what not to do. You would not come into government and spend all your time and capital establishing these off-balance-sheet items, which then go away and make these judgements, and put your mates onto the boards. It's very dangerous because it will only highlight more and more integrity issues like the one we've been discussing this morning to do with Mr Swan and Mr Chalmers. Ultimately, the parliament may enact a form of this Future Made in Australia bill. If it does, it will entrench a funding source which will be available for rent seekers, and, as the committee process showed, everyone wants to get access to these monies—the chocolate makers, the dog companies, the caravan companies, the desk companies, the lampshade companies, the flag makers and the camera makers. Everyone with a business in Australia applied to this committee to get access to these funds. To be honest with you, I understand this, but that highlights how dangerous this idea is. It will open the door to the rent seekers. You won't be able to drive from Sydney to Canberra anymore because it will be logjammed with people trying to come from Sydney. I imagine the Barton Highway will be clogged up with people coming from Melbourne to put their hand out to get some taxpayer funds. I guess they are acting rationally, but this is a very dangerous idea that people in Canberra will dish out funds to their mates. But I again caution the government. These ideas may be attractive to them as a way of helping them with and paying off their favourite vested interests, but I believe that they only expose the government to more integrity risks, because, ultimately, the funds will be spent poorly or badly or there'll be cover-ups. 12:09 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I'm very, very proud to stand here in the Senate today and speak on the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024. Manufacturing, the making of things, here in Australia is an incredibly important industry for Queensland, particularly for regional Queensland, and I know that we have a really important choice to make in this country and in this chamber. We can choose a future made here in Australia, we can choose a future economy that transitions to net zero, we can choose a future economy that has more local and regional jobs or, as those opposite are choosing, we can vote down this legislation and say no to more manufacturing jobs, no to more local jobs and no to making more things here in Australia. That is the very clear choice that we have. Manufacturing is incredibly important not only to me personally but also to the community that I call home. I'm the daughter of a manufacturing worker and I'm very proud of that legacy. When I hear people like Senator Bragg call manufacturing workers 'rent seekers', it really goes to show the respect that those opposite refuse to give to people who have worked hard their whole lives to make things here in Australia and to make more local jobs for more regional communities. I want to stand here and separate myself from those types of comments because I think that manufacturing workers are wonderful people. They work incredibly hard and they support our regional communities. Manufacturing is incredibly important for Cairns, the community I call home. We have a thriving defence and marine manufacturing industry. Many people would see Cairns and think that it's a tourism town—and, of course, we're very proud of our reef tourism—but under this government we are developing an incredibly strong, industrial base in Cairns. Through the support of the Cairns Marine Precinct we will have more defence manufacturing and more marine manufacturing right there in Cairns. That's what this is all about. It's about supporting regional communities. It's about diversifying those regional communities so they have more local jobs to rely on when we go through things like the COVID pandemic, which meant that our tourism industry had to be put on hold. Our communities throughout regional Queensland rely on manufacturing, whether it's rail manufacturing or sugar manufacturing. These are good jobs, and they're secure jobs because they are on unionised worksites. That's a good thing, because these people are paid good wages. They have good, secure jobs and they support their local community. What this bill does is set in place a plan for this country to make more things here at home. We need to bring manufacturing back home to Australia, and we need to bring manufacturing back home to regional Australia. When we had nine years of a Liberal-National government, we saw manufacturing slide and we became more dependent on economies outside of Australia. When COVID hit, we were one of the lowest for sustainability and self-sufficiency in the OECD. We want to increase that. We want to build back up again, and we want to do that as a renewable energy superpower, because we know that that is what the world is looking for from us. We have the opportunity, the capacity, the skills, the workers and the knowledge. In a regional town like Cairns, we deserve an opportunity to compete with the rest of the world, and that's what this bill does. That's why we're supporting a future made or Australia. It's extraordinary that the LNP voted against this bill in the House. It's extraordinary that the LNP will vote against this bill in the Senate. Shame on them for not supporting manufacturing workers. The Labor Party will always back making more things here in Australia. We support manufacturing and manufacturing workers because we know that they deliver good, secure jobs and that they will continue to do that into the future if given the right supports. It's an incredibly important bill and I look forward to continuing my remarks. Debate interrupted. STATEMENTS BY SENATORS 31 STATEMENTS BY SENATORS ISLAND Clinic 31 12:15 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania I was fortunate enough to recently visit the Wicking Dementia Research and Education Centre, the Wicking centre, which is part of the University of Tasmania. The Wicking centre, founded in 2008, is state of the art and is leading the way in dementia research. Not only are we Tasmanians in a fantastic position to be leading the way in dementia research but we are also very fortunate to have this research centre as part of our own University of Tasmania. The Wicking centre has developed an innovative and comprehensive model. The ISLAND Clinic is nation leading in providing diagnoses for cognitive impairment. The Wicking centre has strong links to organisations such as Dementia Australia for the provision of diagnostic care, as well as the national network of clinics across Australia affiliated with the Australian Dementia Network. The ISLAND Clinic offers an improved person centred model underpinned by an interdisciplinary approach, evidence based best practice and translational research opportunities. These are now happening at the University of Tasmania through the dementia research that's happening at the Wicking centre. The ISLAND Clinic represents a model that, as I said, has international interests. It not only provides a one-stop shop for achieving a diagnosis but will also bring access to the latest clinical 1 trials, therapeutic drugs and new diagnosis technologies to help the health of the Tasmanian community. To access the ISLAND Clinic, a referral is required from your GP services, and then you can attend the clinic. You are bulk-billed and there are no out-of-pocket costs passed on to the patient. The clinic is committed to providing timely assessment and diagnosis of cognitive impairment which may or may not be a dementia diagnosis, and an ongoing management plan will be provided to your GP who made that referral in the first place. Anyone who has an interest in dementia research will know that the sooner you are diagnosed, the better that journey is going to be for you and for your loved ones. The ISLAND Clinic also connects patients with organisations that provide post-diagnostic support such as Dementia Australia. As I mentioned earlier, patients are invited to consent to research related to their issues, helping ISLAND have a better understanding of cognitive issues, as well as dementia. It's so important to have this cohort participating in this very meaningful research, informed by patient experience. That is invaluable for researchers in their work, but also for GPs and the medical fraternity to have a better understanding of dementia and other such issues. Many clinic attendees become part of the broader ISLAND project which stands for Island Study Linking Ageing and Neurodegenerative Diseases. It's a distinctive public health initiative which aims to reduce the number of cases and the impact of cases of dementia. ISLAND involves informing and empowering the Tasmanian community to self-manage known risk factors for dementia, which can be prevented, and to make positive changes to the community's health and wellbeing that will reduce the incidence and impact of dementia over time. Over 14,000 Tasmanians over the age of 50 from across our state have signed up to be part of this program, and the Wicking centre's recent publication has demonstrated the effectiveness of this approach. The Wicking centre is interested in involving Tasmanians as much as possible in this project to help prevent incidences of dementia in the first place and to reduce the impact of dementia once a diagnosis is made. The vision of the ISLAND Clinic is to provide Tasmanians with equitable access to a timely and good standard of assessment, leading to an earlier diagnosis, which increases opportunities to support and manage the condition, enabling comprehensive care and better treatments for dementia in the patient, but also to give added support to their family and carers and to the broader Tasmanian community. The ISLAND Clinic is linked to the National Dementia Action Plan, which is due to be released this year and has the goal of improving the experience of people with dementia and their carers with a focus of diagnosis and post-diagnostic care, the development of a related workforce and support for carers. The ISLAND Clinic is a member of, and a pilot site for, the National Collaborative Dementia Centre project that is being led by Dementia Australia and serves as an example of a clinic model that could be extended nationally and even internationally. The NCDCs are modelled on comprehensive clinic settings for other conditions—for instance, cancer—where people can receive a timely diagnosis but are also supported in post-diagnostic care and service coordination with the added benefits of access to personalised clinical trials and the support and training of the related workforce. Recently, the ISLAND Clinic was approached by the New South Wales and Queensland health sectors to discuss a potential replication of the ISLAND model in those states and to encourage it being rolled out. That is fantastic and a real 'hats off' to all the work that's being done down there in Hobart. The ISLAND Clinic has also been identified as having a potential relationship to the National Dementia Action Plan to improve the state's capacity to enhance dementia care under the long-term plan for health care in Tasmania. What we probably need most in Tasmania around health is a new government, frankly. Tasmania's population, as most people would be aware, is a fast-ageing population. The Tasmanian median age is 42 and the national median is just 38. Our state has the highest rate of dementia in Australia and the highest rate of known risk factors leading to cognitive and memory issues later in life. Tasmania's ageing population does not help reduce these figures. Despite significant risks for dementia, many Tasmanians have only patchy access to services, and diagnosis and care planning remain a challenge. Dementia diagnosis is frequently only made when the disease has advanced and is related to other health conditions, which makes early diagnosis so much more critical. We already know that our healthcare system in Tasmania is stretched to the limit. There is so much pressure on acute hospitals around the state and we don't want to see a continuation of the situation where, on average, someone with dementia will end up in an acute hospital, taking one of those critical beds for 15.9 days, compared to other treatments, where you stay for just 2.7 days. The lack of diagnosis of dementia is associated with the increased risk of hospital admissions as well as increased length of stay. I want to give a big-shout out to those people doing this really important work and research and to Professor James Vickers for his leadership in managing the centre. The collaboration that's taking place with GPs, who have now got a clinic to refer patients to for an earlier diagnosis, is fantastic, but what they need is funding to ensure that this clinic can continue, because the demand for those services is growing. In summary, and in reiterating how crucial the Wicking Centre and ISLAND Clinic are to Tasmania and the nation, I will be calling on my government to help them. Housing 32 12:25 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales The Help to Buy scheme is one of the Labor government's central housing policies, and we have seen this week the new Minister for Housing talk about Help to Buy as one of the centrepieces of their offering going forward. I want to bring the chamber's attention to the fact that on 1 May 2022, during the last election campaign, the Albanese opposition, as it was then, put forward the Help to Buy concept as something that it would take to the election, and, if it won the election, it would seek to legislate Help to Buy. Mr Albanese said at the time: After nine long years in Government, housing affordability has only got worse under the Liberal-National Government. Of course, it's much worse now, but the point here is that the Help to Buy scheme, after 2½ years of this government, has not even been put to a vote here in this parliament. I think it is very curious and unreasonable for the housing minister to be going around the traps, including the AFR summit this week, talking about Help to Buy as some great white hope. This is the only policy that the Labor Party has to help first home buyers. It is very clear that, if we are to arrest the decline in first home ownership amongst millennials and gen Zs, the Commonwealth government needs to tilt the scales in favour of first home buyers. This one policy, which is now 2½ years old and yet to be legislated, is apparently the Labor Party's only idea to help first home buyers. The issue with Help to Buy is that it is a tiny scheme of 10,000 spaces when the country needs to build more like 200,000 houses a year. It is a tiny scheme. It is a pimple on an elephant's bottom, and it is not going to be a serious policy to help Australians get into their first home. It has also been described as a distraction by people like Peter Tulip from the Centre for Independent Studies. The caps are far too low. In recent months, we've seen articles state things like, 'Median-price dwellings are out of reach in every capital city except Melbourne under Labor's Help to Buy scheme,' and that's because Help to Buy, in a place like Sydney, caps out at $950,000, whereas the median house price is $1.4 million. In Brisbane, the cap is $700,000, and the median house price is $920,000. So it is a tiny scheme which has been a distraction and would not be fit for purpose anyway because the caps are so low. It is a cruel position for the government to take that this is the only offering that they have. I wonder why the government hasn't wanted to bring this on for a vote. We've had a committee inquiry into the bill. We have exercised our right in opposition to explain our problems with the bill. We think it's a bad idea. It is, of course, also very expensive. It would cost around $5 billion to put this scheme in place. I note that other parties, like the Greens, have their own reasons for being concerned about this scheme. Maybe the government should bring it on for a vote. If this is their policy to help first home buyers, then they should bring it on for a vote, otherwise we're going to be left with this ridiculous situation where the government are going to approach the upcoming election with the same policy that they launched at the last election campaign, which they haven't bothered to bring on for a vote. I wonder whether, in the Albanese government change of ministry, there has been any thought given to the policies being a problem here. Housing would be the biggest issue for under 40s, but we have a new minister with the same old policies: Help to Buy, housing targets they won't meet, the Housing Australia Future Fund which doesn't build any houses and then, the best policy of all, the policy where they give foreign fund managers a tax cut to build houses as part of their perpetual renting plan. The government have got failures on the supply side and failures on the demand side for first home buyers, and so I wonder whether Ms O'Neil is going to consider whether there is more to doing the job than presenting new marketing. There is no question that the marketing of the Labor Party's housing policy has improved, and that can be measured by how many media interviews have been done and how many slick PowerPoint presentations have been presented to the AFR property summit. But the problem is the policy, so I wonder whether the government will look closely at whether it can find a way to get supply moving or whether it will look at the demand side and look at what can be done to level the playing field for first home buyers. You never hear the government talk about how hard it is to get a loan. You never hear them talking about lending policy, banking policy. These are all things that are within the preserve of the Commonwealth government. It is true that when people in this place have discussions about housing policy, many of those levers do reside with the states and with local government. Whatever approach the government takes on housing, it must be very careful that it is finely calibrated and that it is achievable. So why the government is silent on banking policy and lending policy is curious to me. Why the government is so obsessed with this corporate landlord agenda that it has as the focus of its housing policy is not curious to me. As we've canvassed at length today in the Senate, the government is so worried about protecting the interests of big super funds that it will file false public interest immunity claims with this chamber in order to protect the secret lobbying agenda of the Cbus super fund which had sought an exemption from disclosure rules so that it wouldn't have to present it's fees that it incurs when it pays stamp duty to its members. It is very curious, as we get to the end of this term, what the government's going to do with Help to Buy. I would hope that the government will bring it on for a debate, so we can look at the issues, and for a vote; however, I wonder whether or not the government has another plan to further help the super funds take over the housing stock of Australians. I wonder whether they will pursue their build-to-rent tax exemption—maybe that will come on for a vote? That is another one where we're very happy to argue the case that it is not in the interests of Australians to have their housing stock owned by foreign fund managers. When we had the Treasury department before the Senate committee on economics, they gave a very clear answer that the tax concession for build to rent would only be available to a foreign fund manager. It wouldn't be available to Labor's best friends in the super funds; they would have to use the Housing Australia Future Fund in order to get a leg up into the property market. The build-to-rent tax exemption, if it were legislated, would provide a leg up to BlackRock, Vanguard and a range of other fund managers. If it were legislated then I think we would be having the same debate at a future election that they're having in the US now about what can be done to curb corporate housing. The Australian people don't want to be serfs to a corporate landlord like BlackRock or Cbus. They don't want that. I think that the stats that you can see in places like Jacksonville and Atlanta—up to 25 per cent of the houses are owned by corporations, fund managers—are the future we do not want for Australia. But that is what the government has come up with. I think this is a consequence of the government only looking for policy advice from a few favourite vested interests. As we turn the corner for the last part of this parliament, we have an unlegislated Help to Buy scheme, which apparently is still the key demand-side policy the government have. They have no other ideas. We have an unlegislated tax cut for foreign fund managers, so they can buy corporate housing. We have the Housing Australia Future Fund, which may give access to certain super funds and may pay what has been described by Senator Gallagher as availability payments to major investors like super funds. That is the extent of the achievement after 2½ years. Housing is getting so much worse for younger people, and all the government has done in 2½ years of this parliament is legislate a housing fund, the Housing Australia Future Fund, which builds no houses but provides the avenue for major investors, big super funds, to take over the housing stock of Australia. It is a pretty ugly picture. No wonder Australians are losing confidence in this government, because under-40s, particularly, understand now that this government will never fix the housing crisis. New South Wales: Local Government Elections, Defence Industry, Immigration Detention 34 12:35 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales Across my home state of New South Wales as we speak, local council elections are happening. My party, the Greens, is running some 377 council candidates and 21 mayoral candidates across 61 councils; you can tell we're not the Liberal Party! Amongst those councils, I just want to highlight a couple of councillors running for re-election. In my local patch, councillors Nicki Grieve and Matt Robertson have done extraordinary job for the Greens. I know both of them very closely and consider them friends, and I served on council with Nicki Grieve. They have been doing terrific work on Woollahra council, delivering an urban forest strategy that will see their canopy grow to some 30 per cent of cover and lead to $15 million of investment in new street trees over the next two decades. They are protecting the trees and canopy controls for pretty much all the residential land in the space and putting in place requirements so that there's actual ground for new generations of trees to grow and produce canopy. They've introduced ward meetings to enhance transparency and better communicate between councillors and residents. They've had a focus on improving footpaths, really effectively, and helping people get around. One of the things I love is that they've installed free public whale-watching binoculars on the coastal walk—so anyone can turn up and watch this extraordinary natural spectacle. Well done, councillors Grieve and Robertson. They have embedded a 10 per cent affordable housing target for new developments; we would like to do more, but the state government won't let us. They have made a Paddington urban domain plan, banned alcohol consumption before council meetings—I can't tell you how much residents want that to happen—put in place an EV charging strategy to advance the rollout of EVs across Woollahra and achieved reforms and savings for council's $2.9 million legal expenditure for bringing a bunch of those services in-house. They are great councillors up for re-election. I can't tell you how proud I am to have them on the team. On Waverley council, councillors Ludovico Fabiano and Dominic Wy Kanak have been doing extraordinary work as well: increasing affordable housing contributions in the Waverley LEP and getting houses so that people's kids and people who are doing essential services can live in the area; improving Waverley Park and the kids' playground; improving and protecting that gorgeous heritage rocket ship that so many kids love; ensuring the refurbishment of the Tamarama Surf Life Saving Club; and putting in the Equal Pay for Equal Play prize money requirement for sports clubs, including those having competitions on Bondi Beach. They are constant advocates for residents' concerns and protectors of the amazing Bondi Pavilion. If you've ever seen Ludovico wandering around the streets with his dogs, Blue and Bob, you'll know how popular he is with locals. Great work. I wish them well in the election. Right now, as we speak here, the Albanese government and the Labor government in Victoria are rolling out the red carpet for foreign weapons companies for land forces in Naarm, in Melbourne. For decades, the Liberals and Labor have been signing literally blank cheques for foreign arms dealers to siphon off billions and billions of public funds. The sums are just nuts: $45 billion to the UK's BAE Systems for the scandalous Hunter frigate program, and $365 billion—last time I checked, at least—for the US and UK war industries for these mythical AUKUS submarines. The international arms industry has found a bottomless pit of money from the major parties in this place. There are thousands of young people who see this for what it is—that their future has been sold out and mortgaged to these multinational weapons companies by the major parties. Already there have been reports that riot police shot at protesters with rubber bullets down in Melbourne. Young people protesting for a fairer and more peaceful future are being shot at by their own government. And why are the government doing that? Because they're protecting international arms dealers. Things have escalated so quickly that the Australian Democracy Network has sent an urgent representation to the Victorian Premier. The letter was signed by Amnesty, the Human Rights Law Centre and many others, and they are urgently asking the police and the Victorian government to ban the use of dangerous police weapons in policing protests and to ensure that Victoria Police complies with its obligations under the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities in policing protests. Did I mention that violence against people seeking a peaceful future is being directed by their own government to defend weapons manufacturers? It's not about keeping Australians safe. It's not about defending Australia. This is about putting Australia into the US production line for US wars. That's what is at the heart of it, with AUKUS pillars I and II. Australia, under Labor and the coalition, will keep pumping out weapons to wherever the US wants us to deliver them, whether it's to Israel, Saudi Arabia or other countries who are notorious for human rights abuses. It's not about making us safe. It's about making a small group of international corporations bucketloads—obscene bucketloads—of money. Members of both major parties are getting in on that, and the second they leave parliament they join up as directors or government relations advisers to these overseas weapons companies. Both the ALP and the Liberals will sit in this place and vote to funnel public funds—funds that could be used instead to benefit society, deal with climate change and build houses—to foreign weapons companies who in turn will donate crumbs of it back to the Labor Party and the coalition. They accept this kind of money as political donations. And then, whether it's as a minister or an aggressive backbencher—and there's a long list, a conga line, of Labor and coalition members—they'll use those connections they have with foreign weapons manufacturers, whether it's Thales or Boeing, to get a cushy job when they leave parliament. It's obscene. No wonder people are on the streets, protesting. While we're here, people are still being held in PNG, trapped in PNG, as part of Australia's disastrous offshore detention regime, and they're literally being made homeless by the Albanese government. These are people who came to Australia over a decade ago seeking safety and protection, and, instead of offering them any kind of fair process, the government disappeared them. It paid another country, a much poorer country, a country dependent upon us, to break international law on our behalf—to torture people and then abandon them. It's sick. Now those people in PNG, almost all of whom have been found to be refugees, are being told they can no longer stay in their accommodation due to the Australian government's withdrawal of any financial support for PNG or the people that they've abandoned. Labor gave people false hope earlier this year by opening up a way to provide funding to PNG for the people trapped there. That's especially cruel now. The funding hasn't happened, and they are facing homelessness, in addition to chronic poverty and illness. And it's not just the people who sought asylum all those years ago, the great majority of whom have been found to be refugees, but also their children who are being used as political pawns by Labor. According to recent research, every single refugee held in PNG is suffering from physical health conditions. They can't access medical care, and they're said to have been traumatised by their treatment by this government. Due to family separation, medical trauma and experiences of violence in detention, these people are deeply unwell. Forty per cent of the refugees in PNG suffer chronic suicidal ideation and have a history of suicide attempts. It's all part of a toxic race to the bottom between the major parties on how cruelly they can treat refugees, and it's a race where everyone loses, including our national character. The answer to this is not hard. We're talking about 50 or 60 to 70 people, many of them kids, in PNG. The Albanese government could evacuate them from PNG to get the urgent medical care they need and then, given they're all refugees or the children of refugees, provide a pathway to permanency and protection. That's the least we could do. Energy 35 12:44 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia This afternoon I rise to support the wonderful work being done by the community of Collie towards a just transition—work supported by the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union. Collie is a coal town, as is evident in its name. It's been that way for a hundred years. But now that community is facing an inevitable change, and it's facing that change head-on. Coal is actually a finite resource in the town, and even if you didn't believe that climate change is real, you would see that the state has to make a decision about ending the production of coal fired energy in the state's energy grid. But as politicians have wasted time arguing, people on the ground have deeply begun the task of creating a just transition for their community. That work began as early as back in 2007. If you jump forward to today, we have workers, businesses, community leaders and the state government working together to build a new future for the town. They were here in Canberra yesterday with state ministers Whitby and Michael, respectively the minister for energy and the minister responsible for industry. They were here to talk to the national parliament about how the Labor government's policies around Future Made in Australia intersect with their own plans. I heard directly from delegates from the Griffin coalmine and the Muja Power Station, as well as from companies who want to invest in manufacturing green steel and green magnesium, alongside other green metal industries. They're really supportive as communities, working together with industry, with government and with workers and their unions, hear how these tripartite structures, built from a bottom-up consensus basis, are absolutely critical to getting a just transition right, making sure that no-one is left behind and building the jobs for workers and their children and the future of their town. The future of Collie looks like advanced manufacturing, green metals processing, renewable energy, big batteries and tourism. The kind of just transition we're seeing people work on there is world leading and will have lessons for the rest of the nation, who need to make this transition too. It's a transition that's getting attention from many of our major trading partners. Our Prime Minister visited the town of Collie last week and saw what's going on for himself. He is the first Prime Minister to visit there since Prime Minister Hawke. I'm proud that, as a government, we're standing up for regional workers across the country. We have, of course, legislated for a net zero economic authority which will see that interface between communities, industries, state governments and the Commonwealth really get these transitions moving. And move we must, because if we're to meet our climate targets, we must really dig deep into this work now. In addition, Future Made in Australia and the legislation attached to that are designed to create the necessary investment to make these transitions possible, and our Labor government is bringing people together on a tripartite basis. Business, workers, unions, community and government are working collaboratively to make these changes. I want to be clear to those on the opposition benches who find the idea of tripartism so awful and I want to point out to them that industry representatives are very clear about the role of workers and unions. To quote them, 'We would not get these projects off the ground without the union.' We can get consensus and progress when we have governments, business and communities all working together and collaborating. What we have from the opposition, though, is an expensive nuclear power station. Israel: Attacks, Queensland Election 36 12:49 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland I want to remind the Senate and the country about the atrocities that took place on 7 October, when we saw the largest massacre of Jewish people since the Holocaust. Since then, more than 200 people have been held hostage by the terrorist group Hamas, the latest horror being the six hostages brutally murdered by Hamas in Gaza just last month. The names of those six were Hersh Goldberg-Polin, Alexander Lobanov, Carmel Gat, Almog Sarusi, Eden Yerushalmi and Ori Danilo. May they now rest in peace and may their murderers rest in hell forever and ever. Twice before in this Australian Senate I have read out the names of all hostages being held by Hamas. As of today, a total of 97 hostages remain unaccounted for after being kidnapped by the terrorist group Hamas on 7 October. We need to bring them all home: the grandparents, the mums and dads, the sons and daughters, the friends and neighbours—people just like you and me. These are their names: Alexander Trupanov; Ariel Cunio; Arbel Yahud; David Cunio; Doron Steinbrecher; Naama Levy; Yousef Zyadna; Hamza Zyadna; Elad Katzir; Ohad Ben Ami; Gali and Ziv Berman, twin brothers; Shlomo Mansour; Daniela Gilboa; Matan Angrest; Eli Sharabi; Agam Berger; Edan Alexander; Kaid Farhan Elkadi; Matan Zanguaker; Eitan Horn; Yair Horn; Keith Seigel; Omri Miran; Bipin Joshi; Ilan Weiss; Oded Lifshitz; Omer Neutra; Itzhk Elgarat; Gadi Moses; Nimrod Cohen; Tsachi Idan; Yarden Bibas; Ronen Engel; Karina Ariev; Ofer Kalderon; Omri Miran; Liri Elbag; Omer Shem Tov; Idan Shtivi; Yosef Ohana; Avinatan Or; Guy Gilboa-Dalal; Eitan Mor; Alon Ohel; Maxim Kharkin; Segev Kalfon; Romi Lesham Gonen; Bar Kuperstein; Eliya Cohen; Elkana Bohbot; Rom Braslavski; Omer Wenkert; Evyatar David; Ohad Yahalomi; Tal Shoham; Sagui Dekel-Chen; Watchara Sriuan. These are our people. They should be home with their families, and the war in Gaza will only end when all hostages come home alive to their families. Deputy President, there are 45 days until the Queensland state election, when we can finally show the abysmal Labor government the door in 2024, so I thought I would take the opportunity today to outline 45 reasons, because there are 45 days to go, why Queenslanders should vote out this abysmal Palaszczuk-Miles—oh, and Fentiman—Labor government. In Queensland: No. 1: we have the worst ambulance ramping in Australia. No. 2: we've had $20 billion in budget blowouts. No. 3: we've had the broken promise on police numbers. No. 4: we've had the broken promise on teacher numbers. No. 5: the elective surgery waitlist has doubled. No. 6: car thefts are up 101 per cent. No. 7: we've got more victims of crime than any other state. No. 8: they continue to appoint disgraced CFMEU members to government boards. No. 9: we've had the debacle of the Gabba development—$2.7 billion worth. No. 10: new housing lot approval has declined by 30 per cent, while our population has grown. No. 11: the state housing fund hasn't built a single new home. No. 12: rents are up 66 per cent. No 13. insurance costs are up 80 per cent. No. 14: repeat youth offenders are up 62 per cent. No, 15: 45,000 Queenslanders are waiting on the social housing list. No. 16: they wasted $220 million of taxpayers' money on Wellcamp. No. 17: they spent $170,000 to take two jets to Townsville for a day trip. No. 18: there are nearly 290,000 people waiting to see a specialist. No. 19: they promised no new taxes, but they've introduced seven new taxes. No. 20: SEQ bulk water charges are up 52 per cent. No. 21: they attempted to cover up the $2.4 billion train cost blowout. No. 22: childcare costs are up 35 per cent. No. 23: they spent $300,000 on Jackie Trad's legal fees and attempted to cover it up. No. 24: they cut a billion dollars in infrastructure in cahoots with federal Labor. No. 25: they failed to maintain power plants. No. 26: they actually failed to plan for any new roads. No. 27: maternity services are on bypass, especially in regional Queensland. No. 28: DV order breaches are up 182 per cent. No. 29: we had the Callide Power Station explosion. No. 30: we've had the Griffith University housing bungle. No. 31: Queensland actually is just one giant crime scene. No. 32: we've got a massive cost-of-living crisis. No. 33: Cross River Rail is years late and billions over budget. No. 34: there has been a 105 per cent increase in children in residential care. No. 35: power prices are up by three times the national average. No. 36: they failed to build one new flood levee or dam. No. 37: assaults are up 198 per cent. No. 38: thefts are up 45 per cent. No. 39: robberies are up 123 per cent. No. 40: they claimed that the youth crime crisis was a media beat-up. No. 41: they've actually created a housing crisis in Queensland. No. 42: we've got the Olympics planning debacle, where they've actually done no work in preparation for the Olympics in 2032. No. 43: they spent $2 million on advertising just to employ two tradies. No. 44: paramedics spent 160,000 hours ramped in 2023. No. 45: we have the lowest rate of homeownership in the nation. Labor has been in power for 30 of the last 35 years in Queensland. This list of all the failures and all the damage that state Labor has done to Queensland could go on and on and on. Queensland was once the Sunshine State, but now it is the state where dreams go to die because we have a state Labor government who are more interested in their own re-election and their own power plays to determine who will sit on ministerial leather, rather than in fixing the cost-of-living crisis, the housing crisis, the health crisis or the crime crisis. It is only 45 days until the state election in Queensland. It's 33 days until Queenslanders start voting. I call on all Queenslanders to come together and vote in a David Crisafulli LNP government that will focus on your priorities and focus on fixing up the crisis that is impacting our state because of the do-nothing, know-nothing bunch of lazy so-and-sos who are the Labor Party and who aren't looking after Queenslanders. Banking and Financial Services 38 12:59 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The Australian newspaper reported on 29 August that 'a government owned bank created out of Australia Post is understood to be back on the Labor government's agenda' and that it is 'seen as a response to the closure of numerous bank branches in regional Australia'. I hope this report is well founded, and, if it is, I applaud the government for this welcome development. Years of regulation have failed to force the banks to behave with honesty, decency and compassion. More regulation is not the answer. Big banks will always have better lawyers than the government. The answer is a people's bank offering competition to the big four bank oligopoly—or, more accurately, cartel. As someone who participated in the inquiry into bank closures in regional Australia, I attest that there is a desperate need for a public bank to revolutionise Australia's banking system, the way the original Commonwealth Bank did, which the Fisher Labor government established in 1912. Today the big four cartel controls 80 per cent of the market and dominates banking. They're acting together to remove face-to-face banking, which doesn't stop customers from needing face-to-face services. It just forces customers to travel further. It's not just in the regions; it's as difficult for the elderly in the city to travel to the next suburb for their banking as it is for a regional customer to travel to the next town. We saw numerous instances of the banks' dishonesty when closing branches, and we're seeing it again right now with ANZ's closure of its Katoomba branch. The ANZ treated Katoomba as a regional branch until it promised to not close the regional branches as a condition of its merger with Suncorp Bank. Lo and behold, suddenly ANZ claims Katoomba is not a regional branch so is proceeding to close it. The big four have concentrated close to 70 per cent of their lending into residential and investor mortgages, with more money fuelling the increase in house prices, while neglecting small business lending and regional communities. All four are aggressively pushing customers away from cash and into digital banking and transacting so they can surveil and harvest your data and collect fees on all non-cash transactions. They now gouge Australians out of more than $4 billion per year in transaction fees and surcharges. In short, the big four serve only themselves and use their oligopoly power over a captive market to exploit their customers. There's a dire need for a public bank that can set standards of service and break up the banking cartel. A post office bank is the perfect way to do it, operating under a modified banking code of practice to restore protections to customers that successive Liberal-National governments have removed and guaranteeing cash and banking services, face-to-face banking in a branch, best interests of the customer and protections against politicisation of banking. The Commonwealth Bank originally started in post offices in 1912, from which it provided banking services to all parts of Australia, even remote areas. It raised loans for the government at one-tenth the cost of the private banks. In the panic of 1914, it protected deposits in all the banks. It supported Australia's agricultural production in World War I and funded the emergency purchase of a fleet of ships in the war, which became Australia's first national shipping line. It made development loans to local councils all across Australia for crucial infrastructure, and it made affordable housing loans to returned soldiers. It accomplished all of this in its first decade, before its political enemies reduced its ability to compete with the private banks, until later when another Labor government unleashed it again in World War II. Public and post banks are very successful around the world. The Japan Post Bank is one of the world's biggest banks and was the secret to Japan's postwar economic miracle, funding their government's investments in infrastructure and industries. France's post bank, La Banque Postale, started in 2006 and is already Europe's 18th biggest bank and the biggest lender to local councils in France. Kiwibank started as a post bank in 2002, quickly growing into New Zealand's fifth largest bank and the only bank that can compete with New Zealand's big four banks, which Australia's big four banks own. Its first achievement was injecting competition which stopped all branch closures in New Zealand for seven years. In the global financial crisis, Kiwibank was the only bank to increase lending while the private banks all reduced lending. Listen to this: the Bank of North Dakota, not a postal bank but a brilliant state owned bank, supported North Dakota's public finances and its farmers for more than a century, making a profit in every year of operation. In the 2008 financial crisis, North Dakota was the only United States state to stay out of crisis. I applaud the news that the government is in talks with Australia Post on this solution, and I urge the government to have the vision to create a powerful bank that can once again serve the people of Australia. Health Care 39 13:04 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland We know that Labor made Medicare and it's only a Labor government that will strengthen and protect it. That is exactly what our government is doing right across the country but especially in Queensland. At the heart of our efforts is a simple yet powerful belief that access to quality health care should not be a privilege but a right for every person, no matter where they live or their financial situation. One of the most pressing challenges we face as a nation is the growing need for mental health support. Last week I announced in Mackay a brand-new Medicare mental health centre. This is just one of the ways that our government is tackling mental health in this country. This centre will provide free walk-in mental health support for people in distress as well as ongoing care for those with more complex needs. The Mackay centre is just one of 61 Medicare mental health centres being rolled out across the country, with 19 of those in Queensland, including in Cairns, Townsville and the Torres Strait. This initiative is part of our broader commitment to strengthening Medicare and ensuring that every Australian, regardless of their postcode, has access to the health care that they deserve. It complements our government's Medicare urgent care clinics. Just last week in my hometown of Cairns, I announced that our urgent care clinic had seen over 10,000 patients in just nine months. That's an incredible achievement. This is the Albanese Labor government's promise—delivering care closer to home, where it matters most. Our government is also delivering unprecedented savings on the cost of essential medicines, because we understand that health care comes at a cost, and, during a cost-of-living crisis, this is incredibly important to families. Thanks to our government's cheaper medicines initiatives, Queenslanders have already saved $88 million. These savings are a direct result of the largest cut to the maximum patient co-payment in its 75-year history. Our landmark 60-day prescription reforms have also contributed to these savings. We know how important affordable health care is, especially to those with chronic or ongoing health conditions. By allowing Australians to fill 60-day prescriptions, we're saving them time, reducing the number of visits to the doctor and putting money back into their pockets. Over 10 million prescriptions have already been dispensed under this scheme, helping people with conditions like asthma, anxiety, Parkinson's disease and depression. We're reinvesting every single dollar from this reform into community pharmacies, ensuring even more health services for Australians. In just two years, our government has achieved what the previous government couldn't do in nine, and that's because those opposite have never been committed to Medicare. We've delivered not one but two of the largest increases to the Medicare rebates in 30 years. That's an incredible $900 million this year alone on top of $940 million last year. This means more funding for GPs, more incentives for bulk-billing and more affordable visits to the doctor for every Australian. I'm especially proud of what that means for regional and rural communities. Since tripling the bulk-billing incentive, we've seen over two million additional bulk-billed GP visits across Australia, with regional areas seeing the largest increases. For families with children under 16, pensioners and concession card holders, this makes a huge difference. In May alone, almost a million extra visits were bulk-billed, providing vital relief to households struggling with the cost of living. In rural and regional Australia, the Medicare payments to doctors have increased by as much as 50 per cent, meaning more doctors are able to offer bulk-billing, and more patients can see their GP for free. This is the Albanese government's commitment in action, making health care affordable, accessible and equitable for all Australians. Of course, we know that we could not achieve this without working together with health care workers. I want to pay tribute to those healthcare workers that I stood with in Mackay last week, when we announced this mental health clinic. They do some of the hardest work in our community, working with people suffering acute mental health crisis. In 2012, on this day, the Liberal-National government in Queensland— (Time expired) Water Infrastructure 39 13:09 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I rise today to speak about the lack of water infrastructure being built in this country and the distraction by both state and federal governments away from talking about it. I note that over the last few weeks there's been a lot of discussion around monetary policy in regard to the RBA, around whether the RBA should be independent and around how much independence they have and why certain sections of the RBA Act should be withdrawn. It's a shame that this conversation is happening, because it's distracting from the real potential of what monetary policy can be, which is to fund the construction of infrastructure. In the same way that companies issue new shares to build new mines or to buy another company or to construct a new factory, countries and federal governments who have their own currency should look at issuing infrastructure bonds to build sovereign infrastructure. I want to go through the wasted opportunities out there at the moment. Every time it rains we're letting this beautiful, precious water flow out to the sea. I've got the flows from the Murray-Darling Basin that have been released from the Snowy Hydro project, probably Australia's greatest infrastructure project ever. In 2003 the total flows from the Snowy Hydro project was about 2,000 gigalitres. Last year it was about 1,300 gigalitres. At the same time, buybacks have increased from around 2,000 gigalitres to 3,400 gigalitres. So we are now allowing more and more water to flow out to sea rather than capturing it and using it for irrigation. But that's the Snowy Hydro. There's another place, about 2,000 kilometres up the road from Snowy Hydro, called the Clarence River. It has the potential to deliver twice the energy, twice the power of the existing Snowy Hydro project. And of course there's a number of dams on the Clarence River that would be involved in this. You would be able to build a tunnel—not a very big one—that would push water from the eastern seaboard to the western seaboard. There is often discussion in my home state of Queensland about capturing the water in the north and sending it south. I'd disagree with that proposal. I'm from western Queensland. I know the area where, under this idea, we're going to push water down through the south. But it won't get that far; it will evaporate away. By all means push it out as far as Hughenden, on the black soils there, but you don't need to take it any further. What we can do in this country is push water from east to west, because we have this wonderful thing called the Great Dividing Range. The scientist in me, looking at a mountain range, sees potential energy. The total energy of a system is of course potential energy plus kinetic energy. When all that water is trapped and caught on the high part of the range it can, depending on where you push it, create energy as it falls down to the coastline. Or, if we want to push it inland, it can create energy that way. We're debating monetary policy and whether the RBA should be independent, and we also discuss policy, and we're having this debate about nuclear at the moment. But we're missing a very key component of this energy debate, which is hydro energy. The beauty of hydro energy is that it not only can be used to create energy but also can be used for irrigation. I would strongly urge all state governments, particularly Queensland and New South Wales, to look at utilising the water supplies, the water opportunities that we have in those states—and in other states, I should add; there are some good locations for dams in Western Australia—to increase productivity in this country. I've named the Clarence River. There's also Urannah Dam. There's Nathan Dam. There's the Burdekin Falls Dam. There's Hells Gates Dam. There's the Fitzroy Dam over in WA. They are the potential dam sites from which we can, especially along the eastern seaboard, on the Great Dividing Range, produce hydro energy and actually look at drought proofing, to the extent you can, the inland areas of western New South Wales and parts of Queensland. It's not that long a pipeline that you need in order to push the water from the Clarence into the Darling system out through Copeton Dam and into the Gwydir. And you could get water into the Darling system from there. That is a much smarter idea than trying to bring it from North Queensland. But I urge all governments to be much smarter about how they go about being productive in this country. Road Transport Industry 40 13:14 Senator STERLE e68 Western Australia Last Friday, I had the privilege of chairing a national road transport industry round table here in parliament. Thirty-seven industry leaders from right across the road transport sector came together for the day to talk about the priorities for the next tranche of transport reform. State and territory transport associations were at the table alongside representatives from the big trucking companies, small-to-medium operators, owner-drivers, the bus industry and the Transport Workers' Union. We all agreed that we need to continue to work together to address the challenges facing our industry. We all agreed that we need to continue to work together to improve the lot of our transport operators. Put simply, we have an ageing workforce, and we don't have enough drivers, forklift drivers, receival staff, loaders, tyre fitters, diesel mechanics, admin staff, sales staff and managers—it goes on and on. We need to train and retain these people, especially the ones that we have. A recent survey released by the National Road Transport Association revealed there are 26,049 unfilled truck driver positions in 2024. That's just the drivers. Those numbers are expected to get worse. Colleagues, this is a crisis for our trucking industry, which means it is a crisis for our national economy. If we can't find those additional drivers, train them and develop career paths for them, there will be significant impacts on our supply chains and on our country. Forty-seven per cent of truck drivers working in Australia today are aged 55 years or older, whilst just 5.2 per cent are younger than 25 years. The average age is 49. We face similar challenges filling other roles in the transport industry, as I've said. We all learnt through COVID that the supply chain is the backbone of our economy, but, without enough drivers, the entire system is at risk. This is the challenge we came together to talk about last week. The round table heard from the various state transport associations about their activities and priorities around the recruitment, retention and training of drivers. Large transport operators talked about their individual activities aimed at recruiting and retaining their truck driver workforce. We all agreed that foreign drivers are welcome in this country. However, as an industry, we know there are flawed and discredited state training schemes where—listen to this—drivers can obtain a licence within a few hours, having never driven a truck before. All truck drivers, no matter where they come from, must be trained and licensed to Australian standards. The peak representative bodies that attended all expressed the need for national action and leadership. We kicked off the round table by hearing from Peter Anderson from ARTIO and Michael Kaine from the Transport Workers' Union. Both reminded the group of the importance of working together and of what has already been achieved. When industry and workers come together, we can achieve great things in this nation. Thirty-day payments, secure employment and fair rates of pay, with a specific road transport advisory group advising the Fair Work Commission, are all reforms supported by industry, owner-drivers and transport workers. But, as we all agreed on Friday, there is a lot more to be done. The round table agreed that the next priority must be the development of career pathways for drivers, the finalisation of skills and licensing and the development of a national training agenda and package. Industry desperately needs access to fit-for-purpose training. Many other issues were raised by the group, like the need to recognise transport as an essential service and the need for small and big transport operators to work together to bring young people into the industry and nurture them. The group also repeatedly expressed their frustrations with the divide between Commonwealth and states. If industry leaders can come together and agree on a set of priorities for the road transport sector, I ask: why can't state, territory and Commonwealth transport ministers do the same? Roundtable participants suggested that making transport reform a priority for National Cabinet might be a way of breaking this deadlock. Of course, the bus industry faces similar challenges. However, their operators face the additional challenge of the removal of the incentives for bus operators to take on apprentices and for training new bus drivers. There was a real buzz in the air throughout the day, particularly when the Prime Minister dropped in to say hello and share his views on the importance of the transport industry. Prime Minister, I thank you for that, and so do they. As I mentioned earlier, most of those in the room last week have worked together over many years to develop support for the important reforms contained in the closing-the-loopholes legislation. We have so much more to do, and we will continue to push for greater standards in the road transport industry. Cybersafety 41 13:19 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria The government is going to legislate the banning of children from social media in order to protect them from harm. Is anyone in this place really buying this? If this government was really concerned about children's welfare it would have already banned puberty blockers for kids. If the government was really that motivated to protect kids it would remove radical gender theory from all schools, all classrooms, everywhere, for all age groups. This government expects us to believe that an Instagram account is more dangerous than telling children they've been born in the wrong body and they require a lifetime of medication to suppress and stifle their natural development. This government will attempt to sterilise kids without sanction but won't let them near a Facebook account, though—no, no. Give me a break! This Prime Minister says he is all about protecting children. Really, Prime Minister? Riddle me this: how is it that your own Literary Awards just shortlisted a children's book titled Welcome to Sex that describes in graphic detail the most wicked of sex acts? The author of this book said that she would 'be happy with a mature eight-year-old having a flick through the book'. So eight-year-olds can learn about sex acts that I don't feel comfortable repeating here in this chamber with parliamentary privilege? So this book is acceptable—okay, great—but God forbid your child scrolls through Instagram or TikTok. Are you serious, Prime Minister? How does the government propose to stop children accessing social media except with some kind of digital ID being required to interact online? That seems to be where we're going. And here is the real issue: is the government actually interested in protecting children or potentially more motivated to roll out the digital ID system? Protecting kids from the harms of social media, in my opinion, could be nothing more than a Trojan horse. We have increasingly authoritarian governments throughout the West that are intent on removing freedom of speech and monitoring everything that is said online. I'm sure they're going to protest and say that it's not their agenda, that their only concern is safety et cetera—and the gullible might believe it, just as people believed that masks and vaccines were for their safety, the crackdown on mis and disinformation was for their safety and the removal of their guns was for their safety. Garbage! It's about government power; that's what it's about. Promising to protect the citizenry from all manner of harms, the government convinces us to give them more and more power until, eventually, none of us are safe from the most dangerous entity in the entirety of human history—the state. I don't doubt that children need protecting, but the people best placed to protect children are their parents. We don't need a nanny state dictating how old your child must be before he or she can watch a funny video on Instagram or communicate with their grandparents on Messenger. We don't need Prime Minister Albanese or his eSafety Commissioner policing our interactions online. Once we give the government power, the only thing that it wants is more power—and it never ends. Both Labor and the coalition have promised to ban children from social media. They'll tell us about protecting kids, like I said before, but it's really about corporate and government surveillance into every corner of our digital lives. Social media is of course not a safe space for kids; I agree. But the answer is not to strip away everyone's freedoms under the pretence of protection. Once we lose freedoms, they're gone for good. Like I said, the best people to protect children are those children's parents, not the government. And the greatest form of governance in the world is the nuclear family. Delegating family responsibilities to the state never ends harm; it only serves to perpetuate harm. We must resist government overreach. Tasmania: Education 42 13:24 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Whenever a government, any government, wants to avoid expert advice, they commission their own inquiry. That's exactly what the Tasmanian Liberal government did when there were calls for a rigorous independent inquiry based on the work of independent economist Saul Eslake and Tasmanian workforce demographer Dr Lisa Denny. Tasmanian kids aren't smarter or stupider than other kids around the nation, but we are the nation's high school dropout capital. That's what we are in Tasmania. We are also the bottom of the class when it comes to reading and numeracy skills. This is even more shocking when you find out the Tasmanian government spends more per student than any other state, yet we are failing our kids miserably in Tasmania. Just over half of all students get their year 12 equivalent, which is the lowest figure of any state in this nation. It is absolutely shameful. Tassie is also the poorest state. According to independent experts, including Dr Lisa Denny and Saul Eslake, if we fixed our education system, we wouldn't be as broke as we are today. The experts are clear, especially where literacy is concerned. Tasmanian teachers still teach whole learning. Basically, the idea is to show a child the whole word and move quickly to the meaning. Seriously! You might want to get the word under control to start with. The problem is that most experts say we should be teaching kids phonics—that is, learning the letter sounds. Let's go back to the good old days. The government is trying to change this, but, unfortunately, the education union doesn't like it. God knows why, because the older teachers have been doing it that way for their whole careers, and this way is failing us. We need to go to the phonics. We need to try something different. We can't keep going over the same stuff in Tasmania year in, year out—it keeps failing and every year it gets worse for our kids—and not change the system. This is nuts. Dr Denny and Mr Eslake also point to the college system we have in Tasmania. Oh my goodness, I could sit here and spend hours on this, the absolute cluster which has been rolled out by the Tasmanian Liberal government. What a mess! This may work well in the ACT where, let's face it, people have more money. If you are one of those Tassie kids who lives outside an urban centre and who wants to finish year 11 and 12, you often must travel some distance to a college. The Tasmanian government also tried to fix this, but they went only halfway. What's new? As usual, instead of making tough decisions, they tried to keep everyone happy. They didn't want to lose any votes. You actually gain votes when you do 100 per cent instead of 50 per cent. The Liberal government has extended more high schools to year 12 but has stopped short of abolishing colleges. Dr Denny said that the extension process has been incredibly poorly implemented and compromised by colleges striking deals with high schools to provide some year 11 and 12 students. In an attempt to head off a sweeping parliamentary inquiry into educational failings, the Liberal minority state government recently announced its own review. That's it—they're going to review their own failure. So the Liberal Party that failed in the first place is now going to reveal its own failings. This keeps getting better! They've got a whole new police on the beat in state parliament. No doubt, that review will say the government has the situation in hand. That's how it works. But these are our kids. They are our Tasmanian kids. Besides having a roof over their heads and food in their bellies, their education matters more than anything. If we want to have a thriving economy—as Saul Eslake has reportedly said not just in his most recent report but for years—we need to get our education system working properly for all of our kids. We need to have kids that are ready for jobs—jobs that they need now and that we need in the future. That is what all Tasmanians deserve. I don't even have time to go into our TAFEs. Oh my goodness, what a joke! I saw TAFE Australia the other day and TAFE are still in a mess. They are telling me that, even under this government, they are worse. What was worrying was when I asked them which TAFEs were working well and which TAFEs needed to have their facilities fixed up, they didn't have the answers. So if those TAFEs around Australia don't know what each one of their TAFEs is doing, what they are educating and what needs to be done construction-wise there, how can the government possibly say that they have this under control? They are just rolling out extra positions and saying they're doing something with our TAFEs. Rubbish! Water 43 13:29 Senator DAVEY 281697 New South Wales I rise to speak with a bit of a wake-up call for stakeholders, river managers and state governments. On 28 June this year, water ministers met to discuss the release of the Productivity Commission's inquiry report on national water reform and to talk about replacing the National Water Initiative with a new national water agreement. It's not such a bad concept after nearly two decades of the National Water Initiative. A renewal is timely. However, I made the point at the time that never before have so many Labor water ministers had so little to say on important water reform, with the meeting running for less than an hour. At the moment there are draft principles for the new National Water Agreement doing the rounds, drafted by the bureaucracies with very little input from stakeholders, and I'm wondering how much input there was from state governments. This draft principles paper contains over 300 principles, with an immense lack of detail around how they would be implemented and what it would actually mean to implement them. Governments absolutely need to go back to the drawing board to work with stakeholders to look at what the consequences of adopting these high-level, feel-good principles would actually be if put into practice. We've got to get beyond the theory. We've got to get beyond the 'vibe' and we must start to concentrate on what it means in practice. Can it be done, can it be done affordably and can it be done without negative social and economic impacts across our communities? Smith, Mr Ian 43 13:32 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia Today I stand here to honour the memory of a very dear friend of mine and a wonderful South Australian, Ian Smith, who passed away in July this year. In doing so, my thoughts are with Ian's wife, Sue; his daughter, Maddie; and the many family and friends who loved him and miss him. Ian was an absolute giant of the labour movement in South Australia, with his work over many years not just changing lives but saving lives when it came to transport reform. He joined the Transport Workers Union 30 years ago, and in making that decision he changed the course of history, although he never would have thought it at the time. Ian went on to become a lead delegate at TNT and then a TWU official before being elected branch assistant secretary and then branch secretary, until he stepped down earlier this year because of his health. Ian refused to settle for injustice, and he fought against it relentlessly, and so many lives are the better for his actions and his work. Often, he took up these fights when he was in an extraordinary amount of pain, but this work was so important to Ian, and he knew that he had such a powerful role as an advocate to change people's lives for the better. He believed that transport workers deserved better, and he dedicated his entire career to making that so. I was so proud to work with him on the closing loopholes legislation, which has set up the architecture for a complete reform of the gig economy—something Ian fought so hard for. He campaigned for those laws, for those protections and for the election of a Labor government to enact them. I am so proud to have fought with him in that reform work. It is just one way in which Ian Smith's life and his work changed our world for the better and changed the industry to be safer. His legacy is vast. It lives on in the work that we carry forward. Ian, I will miss you so much. Middle East 43 13:34 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales 'We were all asleep and then suddenly everything was turned upside down. The colour of the sky changed. The sky was filled with screams, crying and the sound of ambulances.' That was how an eyewitness described Israel's latest massacre in Gaza, committed yesterday. There have been just too many. We can't bear to look, but we should never look away. Families were sheltering in tents in what was supposed to be a safe zone, and they were burnt alive, buried in the sand. The bombing was so severe it left a deep crater at al-Mawasi, and melted bodies. At least 19 people were slaughtered, and the death toll is expected to climb. That is on top of the 41,000 Palestinians already slaughtered. And, while Israel is slaughtering families day after day, burning them alive in tents, down in Melbourne major weapons companies, including the Israeli firm Elbit Systems, are gathering for an arms expo. My solidarity is with the thousands protesting in Melbourne today to say no to the business of war and to say no to Australia being complicit in genocide, because that is where this Labor government has, shamefully, positioned this country. Labor tries to distract and deflect, but there is no deflection. So long as we have defence contracts with Israeli weapons companies, the Labor government is complicit in genocide. So long as we refuse to impose sanctions on Israel, this Labor government is complicit in genocide. There are no excuses for inaction. The UK has suspended some arms sales to Israel. Canada today is halting more arms sales to Israel. What will it take for the Labor government to take action against the apartheid State of Israel? Your hollow words and pointless phone calls are nothing but a smokescreen, and everyone can see through it. Do something! Take action! Agriculture Industry 44 13:36 Senator McGRATH 217241 Queensland My parents were farmers. My grandparents were farmers. My great-grandparents were farmers. If you go to my office, you will see an old milk can and you'll see some old K-knives up on the wall. So yesterday, standing alongside Peter Dutton and David Littleproud, I was proud to be able to look those farmers in the eye and tell them that we supported them—a simple message but a truthful one—because, under this Albanese Labor government, our farmers and our regional communities are having their lives destroyed and their way of life destroyed, and the explanation from Labor and the Greens is just radio silence. It's disgusting, it's disgraceful and it's wrong. Yesterday, farmers who spent thousands of dollars to get here to Canberra, especially those from WA, to have a conversation about the very essence of their existence received absolutely nothing from our Prime Minister. He was a no-show, and it's not a surprise because this government has been a no-show when it comes to our rural, regional and remote communities. No Labor MP and no Greens MP went out the front of this building to talk to those farmers. They all hid inside here and stayed in their offices—these politicians who think that food comes from a fridge, from a cupboard or from a restaurant that they eat in; these politicians who do not understand that, if we do not have farmers, then we will not have food to feed our people and, as importantly, we will not be able to export our food to help feed the region. Our farmers want some common sense, and they'll only get that under a coalition government. Wages 44 13:38 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Young people in the workforce have many advantages. It builds skills, responsibility and confidence and it introduces these fine young people to managing their own finances. That's why it's so important that our young workers are well remunerated for the contribution that they make to their workplace. The Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, also known as the SDA union, recently launched its Adult Age Adult Wage campaign with the aim of ending junior rates in the retail, fast-food and pharmacy awards for workers aged 18 and over. The SDA also seeks to raise the wages of junior workers under 18. Turning 18 does not mean that you ought to be penalised, but it does mean that you are legally considered an adult and that you are able to be and should be paid an adult wage. Workers deserve to be paid for the work that they perform, regardless of the year that they were born. Workers deserve to receive the payment that every other worker in the workplace is entitled to. Young workers don't deserve to receive less income than their co-workers over 21, despite performing the same job. That was the main message that young SDA representatives gave senators and MPs during their recent visit to Parliament House, and I'd like to thank those dedicated workers for sharing their stories with us. It's also worth noting that these workers don't receive superannuation on every dollar that they earn when they are under the age of 18. The costs of owning a car and paying bills or rent aren't reduced for people who are under the age of 18, and neither should be their pay. Some of Australia's major companies already pay adult rates at 18 and it's time that this became the norm across the retail, fast food and pharmacy sectors. Australian Society 44 13:40 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland It was 28 years ago yesterday that I made my first speech in this building as the member for Oxley. It was eight years ago today that I made my first speech in the Senate. It would be an understatement to say these speeches caused a bit of a stir. For daring to say things that needed to be said, I was hounded by the media and the political class of this country and called all sorts of ridiculous names. I called out immigration, political Islam, multiculturalism, equality for all Australians, the Aboriginal industry and abolishing ATSIC. ATSIC was abolished. However, the Aboriginal industry still fails to deliver real outcomes, while wallowing in corruption, nepotism and victimhood. Different cultures represented by various immigrants to this country are in conflict, not just with each other but with Australian values. We're seeing that in Melbourne today, where more than a thousand police officers are facing down a large number of violent thugs echoing the antisemitic propaganda of the Islamic terrorist group Hamas. Record immigration under Labor is, without any doubt, the main driver of Australia's housing crisis. Australians are facing homelessness and mortgage stress while hordes of new arrivals and foreign students take up available housing and rentals. Leaders, politicians and commentators in Australian and across the Western world are now saying the same thing: multiculturalism is a failure and high immigration is harmful. In 2016 I was the first to oppose the Voice. Again, this proved to be in step with the majority of Australians. How did COVID work out for the millions of Australians who lost their jobs, and lives, and who now face a range of vaccine-related health problems? I want people not to put this shit into their bodies. I have been called far right, but, in fact— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 Senator Hanson! Senator HANSON BK6 you have to admit that I have been right so far. Wake up, Australia! The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 I will just give a reminder, Senator Hanson, not to use unparliamentary language during your speeches. Senator Ayres on a point of order. Senator Ayres 16913 That profanity should be withdrawn. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 296215 I will take that up with the President. International Students 45 13:42 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I am calling on the Australian Bureau of Statistics and Treasury to stop misrepresenting the export value of international students. Foreign students pay $13 billion in tuition fees and are largely responsible for the $8.6 billion in remittances out of Australia, a net gain of $4.4 billion to Australia in terms of actual cross-border exchange, yet for some perverse reason the ABS report all expenditure incurred by students living in Australia as an export to derive a figure of $48 billion. This figure is patently false and masks the fact that foreign remittances sent from Australia have been rapidly increasing, from $3 billion in 2021 to $8.6 billion in 2024. It's bad enough that, in a housing crisis, universities are allowed to import so many students, knowing it'll make it harder for Australians to find housing, but to pretend that universities are punching above their weight economically when they aren't is just deceptive. As a former accountant, if I was to engage in this type of misleading reporting, I would get sacked or sent to jail. It is time the ABS, Treasury, the media, the sector themselves and policymakers in both major parties acknowledged this inconvenient truth. Labor Government 45 13:43 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia Today I rise to address an oft-forgotten segment of our society. I speak of generation Z, who will be playing a substantial role in the next election, and generation alpha, who will start to come of age during the election after. It is for this reason that I will now render the remainder of my statement using language they're familiar with. To the sigmas of Australia, I say that this goofy ahh government have been capping, not just now but for a long time. A few of you may remember when they said, 'There'll be no fanum tax under the government I lead.' They're capaholics. They're also yapaholics. They yap non-stop about how their cost-of-living measures are changing lives for all Australians. Just put the fries in the bag, lil bro. They tell us that they're locked in on improving the housing situation in this country. They must have brain rot from watching too much Kai Cenat and forgot about their plans to ban social media for kids under 14. If that becomes law, you can 'forgor skull emoji' all about watching Duke Dennis or catching a dub with the bros on Fort. Chat, is this Prime Minister serious? Even though he's the Prime Minister of Australia, sometimes it feels like he's the CEO of Ohio. I would be taking an L if I did not mention the opps who want to cut WA's gyatts and services tax. The decision voters will be making in a few months time will be between a mid government, a dog water opposition or a crossbench that will mog both of them. Though some of you cannot yet vote, I hope that, when you do, it will be in a more goated Australia for a government with more aura. Skibidi! Watson, Mr Paul Franklin 45 13:45 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania That was a very skibidi speech, Senator Payman. Around the world, for far too long, environmentalists have been persecuted, assaulted and, in some cases, tragically, murdered just for defending nature. In recent times we've seen governments of both political stripes in this country and around the world enact draconian anti-protest legislation and arrest and jail people who are defending nature and demanding climate action. One recent example is the arrest of Captain Paul Watson in Greenland about six weeks ago at the request of the government of Japan. That request is nothing more than a politically motivated attempt to punish Captain Watson for his decades-long defence of whales, his decades-long defence of ocean ecosystems and his defiance of illegal whaling, in particular by Japan in the Southern Ocean. If extradited, Captain Watson faces up to 15 years in a Japanese prison. That is simply unacceptable. The Danish government should immediately drop proceedings against Captain Watson, refuse to extradite him to Japan and free him immediately. The Australian government should use all diplomatic influence and channels it has at its disposal to try and deliver that outcome. Every member of this parliament has received a request from the Captain Paul Watson Foundation to sign a letter to the Danish Prime Minister calling for Captain Watson's release. All Greens members have done that, and I encourage everyone to do that. Captain Paul Watson is an environmental hero. He should be celebrated not persecuted, and his actions should be applauded rather than having landed him in prison. Free Paul Watson now! National Farmers Federation: Protests 46 13:47 Senator BABET 300706 Victoria Yesterday on the lawns out the front of this place, our nation's farmers assembled to show the government that they have had enough. Many drove their trucks for thousands of kilometres to be here. The war on farmers conducted not just here but in Western nations around the world is complete and utter madness. The government is changing the rules on water. The government has destroyed the live sheep export trade. The government has hamstrung farmers with ridiculous climate policies and red tape. The government is covering prime agricultural land with solar panels, wind turbines and transmission lines. If our inner-city elites will not listen to the men and women who work our land, perhaps they'll pay attention to the economics of the thing—cripple our farmers and watch the cost of food go through the roof. Overnight your full-cream latte will turn into a soy latte because it'll be the only thing available. And you can forget about your steak; we'll all be living the World Economic Forum's dream of owning nothing and being happy while munching on bugs. It needs to be noted that it was the coalition under Scott Morrison that committed us to the net zero madness in the first place. The attack on our farmers is an attack on humanity itself, and whatever you might think about carbon emissions, we are a carbon-based life form, which means that this war on carbon is actually a war on humanity. How can it not be a war on humanity? We absolutely must end this net zero insanity. Obviously I stand with our farmers, but, more importantly, I stand with everyone who values life. Everyone who thinks the same way that I do needs to not only support our farmers but support change and support the UAP. Cybersafety 46 13:49 Senator ANTIC 269375 South Australia Prime Minister Albanese says his government will impose a ban on younger teenagers and children using social media, but it's not going to happen for a while. It may be even as long as two years. I wonder why that is. It's because this government's draconian digital ID system is needed for it to work. Without digital ID, this proposal can't work. Make no mistake—Labor's proposal has little to do with the very important task of protecting our kids online and everything to do with government control over our online activity. I warned for a very long time about the rise of the surveillance state, where governments and corporations monitor everything we do online, and now it's all coming true right before our eyes. Soon you won't even be able to use the internet without a digital ID, and it gets worse. Big tech companies tell us that, to make it work, they're going to need a 'collection of new personal data such as facial imagery or government-issued ID'. It's not going to stop at kids on social media; it's going to be used for everything in your digital life: facial scans, fingerprints and who knows what other data will soon be needed just to simply exist online. You can kiss your privacy goodbye, and you can kiss goodbye your freedom of speech. We all want our kids to be safe online, but safety is always the first excuse. The safety of our children can't be used as a Trojan Horse for the real objectives: control over the narrative and profits for the corporate media sector. Now these Labor governments—who, by the way, are the same Labor governments who do nothing about the sexually explicit books in our kids' libraries or about the life-altering puberty-blocking drugs being fed to them across the nation—tell us that they're the ones who are worried about the safety of our children online. Give me a break. Housing 46 13:51 Senator TYRRELL 300639 Tasmania I know what it's like to be on the waitlist for public housing. I was a single mum and a carer for my nephew, and I had a very tight budget. I know the value of having somewhere safe to live that is yours, whether that be social housing, somewhere you're renting or a place you have a mortgage on. Not all of us have that. For all of us to have that, we need more homes. This is something I fought hard for when negotiating for Tasmania to have a minimum guarantee of 1,200 homes as part of the Housing Australia Future Fund negotiations. We really need those homes in Tassie, and I know it's the same in your electorates as well. I recently attended the Civil Contractors Federation Tasmania Earth Awards dinner in Hobart. It was great to meet the members, but what I was really interested in was how these civil construction projects were going to help us get more people into homes. I clapped as Tasmanian civil construction operators, contractors, trainees and apprentices won awards for projects, management, innovation, training, environmental management and safety, but I really wanted to hear more about the medium- and high-density projects that will house the Tasmanians who need somewhere to live. We know house prices won't shift until housing supply is addressed. We know rents will stay high while there isn't enough housing stock to rent. The simple fact is that we don't have enough houses for Tasmanians. We don't have enough houses for people across this country. The solution to a lack of houses to buy and rent is to build more houses, and that's what the HAFF is supposed to do. We've already voted to build these homes, so let's make them happen. Congratulations to all the award winners at the Civil Contractors Federation Tasmanian Earth Awards. We need more of the housing projects you're putting your hearts and souls into for the future. AUKUS 47 13:53 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania In five days time the AUKUS agreement will be three years old, but, in the last 36 months, all we've really got from AUKUS is the cancellation of other needed defence programs so that Australian taxpayers can cover the massive $368 billion price tag. This huge, all-eggs-in-one-basket program comes at a huge opportunity cost to the rest of the Australian Defence Force. Putting the cost to one side, we're supposed to get three US Virginia class submarines sometime in the mid-2030s, but we'll get them only if the US can increase its submarine build rate from 1.4 to 2.3 boats a year. We're gifting $4.7 billion of your money, Australians, to try and increase the build rate, but expert commentators are predicting the US won't hit its target of 2.3 boats a year, so they won't hand over any of the Virginia class submarines to Australia. Good one on that! The geniuses in Defence haven't negotiated any refund of your money if they don't come through on their commitment. How much of a dud is this deal? Then we'll apparently build five UK designed AUKUS submarines. That's the plan, despite the fact the UK are reliably late and overbudgeted on all their shipbuilding programs and they can't put any of their current Astute class submarines to sea. It's hardly an inspiring choice of partner, is it? This is it—this is the mess you've left us in. We've also written them a $4 billion cheque, Australians, to help them get their act together, again with no refund option for you taxpayers out there. AUKUS is eye-wateringly expensive. It won't give useful capability anytime soon. It bleeds money from other defence programs, leaving our defence industry without work, undermining our sovereignty and harming national security. Sadly, this bad idea seems to be all but unstoppable. Paris Paralympic Games 47 13:55 Senator RUSTON 243273 South Australia Eighteen gold, 17 silver and 28 bronze medals: after competing for 11 days, Australia's Paralympic team has made Australia extremely proud of them, finishing in the top ten in the world. There's no doubt that watching our Paralympians compete on the world stage and watching them share their stories has empowered our nation, particularly many young Australians, to participate. It's empowering big dreams and empowering us to pursue our dreams no matter what adversity gets thrown in our way. Importantly, it provides encouragement to all Australians, particularly young Australians, to get out there and participate in sport. Australia has been behind our team every step or wheel of the way, because we've witnessed a demonstration of human spirit, of strength, of talent, of teamwork and, most particularly, of resilience. What a fantastic way to finish off the games with gold medallists Lauren Parker and James Turner carrying the flag at the closing ceremony. It was a privilege this morning to join the family, friends and supporters of our para-athletes in welcoming them home to Australian soil. But, above all, there was a deep appreciation for the fact that these athletes are competing at the top of their field and they have overcome significant adversity to be there. There is no doubt that our athletes left our shores as athletes and have returned as national heroes. So I think it's fair to say that every single Australian, our entire country, thanks and congratulates our Paralympic team for how they have represented our nation on the world stage and for the empowerment and encouragement they have provided every Australian who has watched on from home. Australian Services Union 48 13:57 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria Yesterday I had the pleasure of meeting with Ella, Jo and Sheila, who work in housing and homelessness, financial counselling and family and domestic violence from my home state of Victoria. They travelled to Parliament House with over 20 of their colleagues from around the country to advocate for the ASU's campaign to ensure that their incredibly skilled work is respected and equal. Ella, Jo, Sheila and thousands of their colleagues are part of the community and disability sectors, which have been historically undervalued, woman dominated and award reliant. They are also trailblazers in campaigning for equal pay. These workers are continuing their leadership for women workers by pursuing a campaign in their workplaces, in the parliament and in the Fair Work Commission to have their work recognised as skilled, respected and equal, which seeks to fix the classification structure in their award to stop employers being able to systematically undervalue their work. The campaign also seeks to close the longstanding loophole that allows disability support allows workers to be underpaid. Sheila told me that, despite her many years in the family violence sector, instead of her pay rate increasing with her years of experience, skill and expertise, she is paid less now than she was when she began. To add insult to injury, the work she has been doing over this time has become increasingly more complex. The ASU, ably led by National Secretary Emiline Gaske, is supporting these workers. This support has included commissioning research that found a whopping 67 per cent of workers just like Sheila are underclassified. They want this fixed and our support in doing so. To those amazing workers who have travelled to Canberra and all of their colleagues in vital community services supporting vulnerable Australians everywhere, thank you for raising your voices in advocating for your sector so you can keep supporting the millions of Australians who need your expertise every day. Labor Government 48 13:59 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I'm very pleased to talk today about all the great things the Labor government is doing to make sure that you can keep more of what you earn and earn more of what you deserve—blah, blah, blah! It is very, very important that we ensure that we keep— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Perhaps we will have you in continuation, Senator Green. Debate interrupted. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE 48 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Economy 48 14:00 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallaher. Minister, despite both your own and the Treasurer's attempts to blame the shocking national accounts figures on interest rates, independent analysis from the RBA and market economists has revealed those claims to be false. ABS data shows that inflation wiped out 4.4 percentage points of household income gains last financial year compared to higher interest rates, eroding 1.3 per cent, and increased taxes, reducing real income by a further 1.1 per cent. That's according to analysis by former RBA economist Jonathan Kearns, who said, 'The erosion by inflation is greater than that of interest rates.' Minister, will you correct the record for the Treasurer and acknowledge that inflation and higher taxes are eroding household incomes by three times as much as interest rates? 14:01 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Sharma for the question. I think the Treasurer and I have both made very clear the fact that we inherited an inflation number with a six in front of it when we came to government, and that has moderated in welcome ways to have a three in front of it now. I'm sure Senator Sharma would have been most concerned about the escalating inflation challenge that we inherited and that we have actually responded to through our economic plan. Our economic plan is around moderating inflation, ensuring that we can provide some cost-of-living relief to households without adding to the inflation challenge and ensuring that we're getting the budget in much better shape. The Reserve Bank has made it clear that the two surpluses that we are delivering—one that we've already delivered and one soon to be finalised—are actually helping with the inflation challenge in the economy. I don't think there is anything surprising in the sense that we have outlined that price pressures across the world, inflation, global uncertainty and interest rates are being reflected in the national accounts. You can choose to selectively single out one element of what we've said, but we have said price pressures, global uncertainty and interest rates are being reflected in the national accounts. And, if it wasn't for our economic plan, whilst all of those opposite called to cut spending and slash and burn at budget time, we would have seen a much different set of results and that would have seen our economy in recession. The only people in the country that seem to want a recession are those opposite. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sharma, first supplementary? 14:03 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales Minister, to use your own words from Monday, the national accounts showed that growth across the Australian economy is slow, weak and soft, and it is no secret that growth is weak because interest rates have been lifted. Minister, while you seek to blame interest rates, what role has the 6.3 per cent collapse in productivity under Labor had in the economy? 14:03 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory It shouldn't actually be a surprise to me that the opposition come in here and raise all these concerns about inflation, when it's currently got a three in front of it and, when they were in charge, it had a six in front of it. On productivity, the fact is that we saw the worst productivity outcomes in more than four decades under their government. The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Birmingham, I've called you. Senator GALLAGHER ING As I said on Monday, I would look forward to support from the opposition for things like digital ID, for things like Jobs and Skills Australia and for other measures, like the Future Made in Australia, or like all of the effort that we are putting in. That's like our housing programs, skills, training and the Universities Accord, all targeted to a long-term growth plan for this country and all things that those opposite have either shown no interest in or opposed. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Sharma, second supplementary? 14:04 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales Minister, when the ABS released monthly economic data in August, you proudly claimed the figures were evidence that 'our economic plan is working'. With the latest national accounts figures showing that productivity has plummeted, disposable income has crashed and the economy is in an entrenched household recession, will you repeat the claim that your economic plan is working? 14:05 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Our economic plan is supporting economic growth in the Australian economy. Senator Birmingham H6X Not much! Senator GALLAGHER ING 'Not much.' So there's an acknowledgement there, by Senator Birmingham, that our economic plan is supporting economic growth. If you were in charge, with your $315 billion worth of cuts, we would be in a recession. And while it might be politically convenient for you to lobby for that and to argue for it, it would be a disaster for millions and millions of families around this country. We would prefer our plan, which is about avoiding recession rather cleaning up afterwards, which is something that you seem to be advocating for. In policies outlined by the federal opposition, policies that you have put forward, there is $315 billion of cuts to budget spending. There has been an acknowledgement today by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate that our plan is supporting growth in the economy. Cybersafety 49 14:06 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Minister Wong. Families in Western Australia have welcomed news that the Albanese government will create a new minimum age for access to social media as many parents are increasingly worried about the potential harm social media can cause to children's mental health and wellbeing. Can the minister share the Albanese government's approach to keeping Australians, and particularly children, safe? 14:06 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia My thanks to Senator Ghosh for the question. I know those of us on this side, Senator Ghosh amongst them, have an ongoing interest in this area. We know it's important to the people of Western Australia, it's important to people across this country and it's important to people throughout our communities. I hope all of us in this place can agree that the safety and mental health of our children is paramount. We all know that parents are looking for real solutions to their concerns about harmful online environments and addictive behaviour on social media. We all know that from our experience, and from the conversations that we have in our communities, with parents and grandparents and young people alike. That is why the Prime Minister has announced that the Albanese government will be creating a new minimum age for access to social media. We will bring legislation forward before the end of the year, and I look forward to those opposite supporting it. Of course, this is not the only thing we are doing or that we have done. We have quadrupled funding for the eSafety Commissioner. We have fast-tracked the review of the Online Safety Act, which will report next month. We have funded digital literacy programs for every school with the Alannah & Madeline Foundation. We have supported the eSafety Commissioner to develop new mandatory industry codes to protect children from online pornography. Senator Henderson ZN4 That's such a small amount of money. Senator WONG 00AOU You may scoff at this. You may scoff at this, Senator Henderson, but I think ensuring we have legislation to protect children from online pornography is a good thing. We have passed legislation to ban the creation and distribution of deepfake pornography. And we are holding big tech to account because platforms and online services have a responsibility for the safety of their users. We have amended the government's basic online safety expectations to reflect the expectations the community has of these platforms. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ghosh, first supplementary? 14:08 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia Thank you, Minister. South Australia has released a report by the former Chief Justice of Australia the Hon. Robert French AC outlining a legislative vehicle to ban children under the age of 14 from accessing social media. Why is it important that we work with the states and territories to build on South Australia's approach with national laws on a minimum age to access social media? 14:09 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator Ghosh, given his professional history, understands the importance of getting the law right in this area. He also understands this is a challenging area to regulate. That is why governments across the Commonwealth have come together on this important issue of protecting children—and it is important that we all work together. We do support appropriate age limits for social media. We have said we will legislate to enforce this, and that legislation will be informed by the report to which Senator Ghosh referred by the former Chief Justice Robert French, as well as by engagement with the National Cabinet and engagement with the eSafety Commissioner. We thank South Australia, including Premier Malinauskas, for its work and we acknowledge the contribution of Premier Minns, too, but ultimately the issue needs national leadership, because otherwise we will see Australia with different laws in each state and territory. That will not keep children online safe and we want to ensure we have an effective solution. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ghosh, second supplementary? 14:10 Senator GHOSH 257613 Western Australia The Albanese government clearly takes this important issue seriously. Can the minister please explain how these laws are focused on protecting children from harm? 14:10 Senator WONG 00AOU South Australia Senator Ghosh, you're right: the focus of this is how we protect children from harm. These are serious matters. They demand serious reforms, and the reforms the Prime Minister has announced are groundbreaking. We are proceeding down this path because we want to help parents protect their children. We want to help parents protect their children from threats in the online environment. For too long Australians have had to navigate these complex and concerning issues alone. I would make the point that for nine long years those opposite failed to keep up with the technological changes in the digital world with regulation and protection in this parliament and by government. Now they've decided it's urgent. What I would say to them is: why don't you, instead of your relentless negativity—which is on display yet again as we speak—actually work with us to ensure the parliament can act— (Time expired) McPhillamys Gold Project 50 14:11 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator McAllister. Minister Plibersek yesterday tried to equate the blocking of the billion-dollar, near-1,000-job-McPhillamys-goldmine tailings dam with a proposal to relocate a go-kart track. Given Regis Resources had already spent $200 million on the mine by the time of Ms Plibersek's decision, and to help us better understand the accuracy of the minister's attempted comparison, could the minister tell us what each of the equivalent figures for the go-kart track were? 14:12 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Well, of course, it is the case that Minister Ley was required to make a decision under the very same act that Minister Plibersek was required to deal with in the case of the McPhillamys mine that has been the subject of so much discussion in this chamber. There are, in fact, a very great number of similarities between the two decisions. Minister Plibersek made her decision based on the advice of the same traditional owner group as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition consulted with, the Wiradyuri Traditional Owners Central West Aboriginal Corporation. She made the same type of decision, a section 10 decision under the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act, and I would observe that that act has been in place since the 1980s and operative under a range of governments of different flavours. Minister Plibersek makes the point that she made her decision, essentially, based on the same reasons as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition when she made her decision, and at that time she spoke about—and I speak now of Ms Ley—the cultural significance for the Wiradjuri people 'in contributing to local Aboriginal narratives, songlines, ceremonies and cultural heritage'. She made the decision to protect the site— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister McAllister, please resume your seat. Senator Duniam? Senator Duniam 263418 A point of order on relevance: I asked specifically how much money was spent on the go-kart track and how many jobs came from it in my question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam, I'd also refer you to your preamble, if you have it written down. I would say that the minister is being directly relevant to the question. Minister McAllister, please continue. Senator McALLISTER 121628 Thank you very much, President— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order across the chamber! Senator Watt 245759 Ask Sussan Ley. Sussan was probably too busy— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Watt, that includes you. Senator McKenzie 207825 Yes! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McKenzie, it does not need a response from you. Minister McAllister, please continue. Senator McALLISTER 121628 Of course, interestingly, Senator Duniam, the two sites are very close together—less than 50 kilometres apart from one another—and it is the case that not everyone agreed with the decision taken by Ms Ley at the time. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam, a first supplementary? 14:14 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania At the time of the go-kart track decision there was a petition with over 10,000 signatures from locals to stop the project. In contrast, Labor's section 10 decision, proposed by fewer than 20 people, has left those same locals furious and at a loss as to how they'll continue to live and work in the area. How can the minister so offensively equate the economic blow to the Blayney community with the decision to prevent a go-kart track from being built? 14:15 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Well, there are a number of assumptions in the question put to me about the statement made by Ms Plibersek that I simply don't accept. I will say this. Ms Plibersek has repeatedly indicated that her obligation is to apply the law. What is extraordinary is that Mr Dutton, the Leader of the Opposition, has indicated that he is indifferent to the law on these questions—that he will rule these projects in or out based on how he feels about them. For the benefit of the chamber, I can outline some of the processes that are required. Essentially, Aboriginal heritage is the responsibility of state governments, but this act exists to protect Aboriginal cultural heritage— (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Duniam, a second supplementary? 14:17 Senator DUNIAM 263418 Tasmania Given that the minister has demonstrated complete indifference to the people of Blayney and the decision has caused a loss of nearly a thousand jobs in the area, and given that she hasn't been able to tell us how many jobs a go-kart track actually creates, what is the actual comparison between a go-kart track and its impact on the community and a goldmine? How can the minister justify this decision? 14:17 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales The very obvious connection is that both sites were the subject of a section 10 application under a piece of legislation that has been in place since the 1980s. The way it works is that the department provides advice to the minister on the application and its merits, and this includes providing a summary of the application, a map of the area and its boundary, a detailed analysis of the available evidence, an assessment of the evidence against the relevant criteria and any other matters of relevance. Submissions from the applicant and those received from any other interested party throughout the course of the evaluation period are also summarised and presented to the minister. Procedural fairness is carefully observed in the processing of applications made under this act. In advice to the minister, the department also outlines how the principles of procedural fairness have been observed. Those are the similarities. (Time expired) DISTINGUISHED VISITORS 52 DISTINGUISHED VISITORS Parliamentary Delegation: Indonesia 52 14:19 The PRESIDENT 112096 I draw to the attention of honourable senators the presence in the enclosed gallery of a parliamentary delegation from Indonesia. 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 52 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE Maugean Skates 52 14:19 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator McAllister. Minister, the federal government's own Threatened Species Scientific Committee recently estimated that there are just 40 to 120 maugean skate left on this planet, provided preliminary advice that the skate be uplifted to 'critically endangered', and stated very clearly that salmon production in the skate's last known home, Macquarie Harbour, in Tasmania, poses a catastrophic risk to the survival of the skate. Minister, does your government accept the findings made by the committee that industrial salmon farming is the single biggest threat to the survival of the maugean skate in its natural habitat? 14:20 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thanks very much for the question. Of course, the Australian government are deeply committed to ensuring that the maugean skate does not go extinct under our watch. We know that this is a species at high risk of extinction, as you have alluded to in your question, and that substantially reduced water quality in Macquarie Harbour is the primary contributing factor. The minister is aware of these issues. You will know, I think, because we have talked about it in estimates, that on 12 October the minister held a roundtable discussion in Devonport with industry, with government and with other stakeholders regarding Macquarie Harbour aquaculture, and she wrote to the Tasmanian Premier, Mr Rockliff, on 6 November 2023 and provided really clear information to him about her responsibilities under the EPBC Act with regard to salmon farming in that harbour. Now, the minister has been asked to reconsider a decision, made back in 2012 under the EPBC Act, about marine farming in Macquarie Harbour, including whether current farming operations require further approvals under national environment law. The department is rigorously assessing a very large volume of information relevant to that decision and, I understand, will soon provide Minister Plibersek with advice. Macquarie Harbour will need long-term support to recover, and the Australian government is actively working with the Tasmanian government, technical experts and community stakeholders to achieve that, but we also acknowledge that in the short term there are things that we can do. You will be aware that in September last year the minister announced $2.15 million to urgently initiate a captive breeding program ahead of hot summer conditions. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Whish-Wilson, first supplementary question? 14:22 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania As you point out, Minister, it has been 221 days since Minister Plibersek was ordered to reconsider that 2012 decision to expand salmon farming, yet evidence at an Administrative Appeals Tribunal hearing last week revealed the minister doesn't yet have a brief on this decision. Minister, why has it taken 221 days, and are you kicking the can down the road till after the next election? 14:22 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Thanks very much, President. Senator McALLISTER 121628 Sorry, there's some laughing on the other side of the chamber on a reasonably serious question. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Please continue, Minister. Senator McALLISTER 121628 Thanks, President. This is an issue that requires quite serious consideration of substantial volumes of information. It's an issue that is of real concern to industry and of real interest and importance to industry and to many conservationists in the local community as well. The consequence of that, in part, is that over 2½ thousand submissions have been received by the minister. The government is carefully considering the information and the scientific advice that it has obtained to ensure that there is a proper, legally robust decision, and I think you will understand that it will take time to do that properly. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Whish-Wilson, second supplementary? 14:23 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I'm not sure the skate's got time, Minister. When launching the Threatened Species Action Plan in 2022, Minister Plibersek stated, 'I will not shy away from difficult problems or accept environmental decline and extinction as inevitable.' Minister, if you want to prevent extinctions, at some point you will have to do something that will prevent extinctions. Will you listen to the scientific advice that has been before you for months, stop salmon farming in Macquarie Harbour and give the skate the best possible chance of survival? 14:24 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I've already emphasised in my answer to your first supplementary question that the approach the minister is taking is to carefully consider the information and the scientific advice to ensure that there is a proper and legally robust decision at the end of this process. But you are right: there are things that we can do now in advance of that decision, and we are working to ensure the protection of the skate. I spoke earlier of the $5.7 million that is being invested to help protect the skate and improve that health of the harbour. That includes a $2.1 million program to establish this captive breeding program, and we are pleased to report that that program is helping to save the maugean skate. More than 19 baby skates have hatched and over 100 new eggs have been laid in captivity. Senator Whish-Wilson 195565 Will they survive in a polluted harbour when you put them back in? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Whish-Wilson, you've asked your question. Senator McALLISTER 121628 More eggs are on track to start hatching, and scientists are planning for the skates born in captivity to be returned to their rehabilitated habitat in the harbour. (Time expired) Workplace Relations 53 14:25 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria G'day everyone. It's Wednesday. Excellent! My question is to my good friend the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Senator Watt. Senator Scarr 282997 Aren't they all good friends? Senator CICCONE 281503 Especially this bloke here! At the last election, Minister, federal Labor promised to get wages moving again and support Australian workers. We know that low wages and insecure work were a deliberate design feature of the coalition's economic plan when they were last in government. We also know that these policies led to high levels of industrial action and rising cost-of-living pressures on Australian households. After a decade of deliberate wage stagnation and attacks on workers, how is the Albanese Labor government's policy agenda supporting Australian workers to earn more and keep more of what they earn while also keeping industrial action low? 14:26 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Ciccone. I can see why you were so excited to ask that question. There is good news for Australian workers and Australian businesses arising from the Albanese government workplace reforms. The Albanese Labor government is helping working people in Australia to earn more and keep more of what they earn. After a decade of low wages being a deliberate design feature of the coalition's economic policy, this Labor government is getting wages moving again, creating more secure jobs, making workplaces safer and closing the gender pay gap, all while keeping industrial action down. Senator WATT 245759 Senator Henderson, I'm sorry to hear that all of that good news disappoints you so much. Because of our agenda, wages growth is back— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator WATT 245759 Oh, they're so unhappy! Senator Henderson ZN4 I raise a point of order. The point of order is that you are completely out of order by impugning my reputation by misrepresenting me. I was sitting here doing nothing. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson, please resume your seat. There's no point of order. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Henderson! Order! I note you are perfectly within your rights to call a point of order, which you do fairly regularly. I am the President of the Senate, and when I ask you to resume your seat and stop speaking, that is what I expect. Minister Watt, please continue. Opposition senators interjecting— Senator McGrath 217241 What about the point of order? The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath, if there wasn't so much disorder in the chamber you would have heard me say that there is no point of order. Now please resume your seat. Senator WATT 245759 If opposition members are going to object and complain about our policies, we are going to point that out to you. How many glass jaws are there on that side of the chamber? When we want to talk about the fact— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Watt, I am going to draw you to the question. Senator WATT 245759 Sure. It is unfortunate that that side of the chamber feels so upset and so disappointed every time we talk about the fact that our workplace reforms are delivering higher wages, more secure jobs and safer workplaces and are closing the gender pay gap, all while keeping industrial action down. I don't know why you're so sad about that, but every time we talk about it you arc up, you cry and you complain. It's very, very puzzling. Because of our agenda, wages growth is back, the gender pay gap is at its lowest level ever, there are more people in jobs and industrial action is low. In fact, in the last quarter of the previous government, industrial action was far higher than it is now, and that is because Labor has built a cooperative workplace relations system to replace the conflict driven model that we inherited. We've closed loopholes which is benefiting workers and also benefiting businesses, stopping them from being undercut by rogue competitors. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ciccone, first supplementary? 14:29 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Thank you very much, Minister, for that answer. I note the Liberals and the Nationals have repeatedly voted against the Albanese Labor government's policies to support Australian workers earning more and keeping more of what they earn. Given the coalition's track record of attacking workers' rights and wages, how are the government's reforms supporting workers and the economy and what is the biggest challenge to implementing these very important reforms? 14:30 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you again, Senator Ciccone. We already know that Mr Dutton, Senator Cash and all their colleagues over there are out there running scare campaigns against higher wages and more cooperative workplaces. It wasn't that long ago that we had Senator Cash out there saying Labor's workplace law changes would close down Australia. Sadly for Senator Cash, Australia is open and functioning and—you know what?—delivering higher wages and more jobs, reducing the gender pay gap and reducing industrial action all at the same time. We also know that Mr Dutton has been telling big employers in Western Australia that he will hit Ctrl+X on his computer and cut the rights we've promised to workers and their unions. What will that actually mean for the Western Australian economy? Under this government, employment growth in Western Australia is at a record high of 3.6 per cent. Under the Morrison government it was 1.6 per cent. Wages in Western Australia have been growing faster under this government than under the Morrison government, and working days lost to industrial disputes in Western Australia have fallen under this government. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Ciccone, second supplementary? 14:31 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria Thanks again, Minister; I know a lot of frontline workers and people in retail and hospitality rely on those increased wages. I note the coalition have not ruled out reprising their low wages policy but have promised to take a suite of targeted repeals to the next election. Why is getting wages moving and fostering cooperative workplaces so important, and why has the government been committed to strengthening the rights and entitlements of every single Australian worker? Opposition senators interjecting— 14:32 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland They get upset when we talk about workplace reform, don't they? They get upset when we talk about wages rising, more secure jobs, a lower gender pay gap and, importantly, lower industrial action. Unlike those opposite, who thrive on conflict, this government is focused on bringing businesses and workers together to ease cost-of-living pressures and deliver higher wages and more productivity for businesses. We know the coalition had an anti-worker and anti-union agenda when they were in government. They deliberately kept wages low, kept workers in insecure work and refused to fix the bargaining system, leading to more industrial action. We know the coalition have already committed to ripping away rights for casual workers and taking away the right for workers to stop working for free with our right to disconnect—scrapping casual worker rights, scrapping the right to disconnect. They're on the record saying it. We had Senator Hume out there saying adding more rights for workers is 'unreasonable', and that's because the coalition have a plan to take a targeted package of repeals to the next election. (Time expired) Veterinary Medicines 54 14:33 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator McCarthy. A few years ago sheep farmers had limited access to an Australian manufactured footrot vaccine, called Custom R-Pilus, that was highly effective in reducing and managing footrot, but its use was discontinued by the APVMA. It was also cheaper and much more effective than the single overseas manufactured vaccine now available to Australian farmers to manage this debilitating disease which costs the industry more than $83 million a year. Will the minister please explain why the Australian manufactured vaccine is no longer available to Australian sheep farmers? 14:33 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Thank you, Senator Hanson, for the question. I will get some further details specifically on that. I understand that we are talking in relation to the APVMA as an independent regulator that administers a scientifically rigorous, risk based regulatory system for ag and veterinary chemicals. We have confidence that the APVMA decisions are based on the best available science to improve safety outcomes for Australians. I'm certainly happy to get more details in regard to your specific question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, first supplementary? 14:34 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I appreciate that you weren't warned about my question before this. One sheep farmer from Victoria has informed me that the overseas footrot vaccine cost her $76,000 in one year, along with approximately $50,000 in labour costs to treat her sheep. I'm also informed that a process to fully register the Australian vaccine is facing significant delays, and that this farmer's pleas to the minister and the Prime Minister have gone unanswered. Will the minister— The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, it's time. Minister Wong? Senator Wong 00AOU We're happy to give leave to finish the question. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, please finish your question. Senator HANSON BK6 I just wanted to ask the minister if she would explain the process. It's been delayed, to the detriment of the farmer's profitability and the welfare of Australian sheep. 14:35 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory Senator Hanson, thank you for the question. Obviously, you've given a specific question that I don't have an answer to in regard to that particular farmer, but I am happy to get that from the minister as soon as possible. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hanson, second supplementary? 14:35 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I do appreciate that. But also, considering the untold damage being done to the sheep industry by Labor's ban on live exports, on dubious animal welfare grounds, will the government provide the funding and support necessary to ensure this Australian manufactured vaccine is made fully available to the industry as soon as possible to address the real animal welfare issue? 14:36 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I certainly reject the premise of the question in terms of our legislation to ban live exports, Senator Hanson. We have done that in absolute consideration of animal welfare across the country. What I will do, though, as I've said, is get the answers to your particular request on the farmer. Superannuation 55 14:36 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Minister, a few weeks ago APRA ordered Cbus and BUSSQ super to review their governance arrangements, given recent allegations of serious misconduct within the CFMEU, which is a shareholder of both Cbus's trustee, United Super, and BUSSQ. Minister, does the government think it's appropriate for the CFMEU to remain a shareholder in superannuation entities controlling over $100 billion in members' savings? 14:37 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator Bragg for the question. As Senator Bragg's question indicated, this matter is under consideration by APRA, which is the regulator of superannuation in this country. Mechanisms are in place for the regulator to manage and investigate those matters, and, if they think there is anything that they need to respond to, I'm sure that they will. But I think Senator Bragg's war on super— Senator GALLAGHER ING That's what this is about. He's obsessed with it. He's obsessed with his war on super and undermining— Opposition senators interjecting— Senator GALLAGHER ING He can dress it up anyway he likes. He is well aware that APRA is looking into any matters. I'm sure they're engaging closely with Cbus as they investigate these matters. But he's using that as a shield to continue to undermine compulsory super in this country. That's what he's doing. He does it at every single opportunity. And, if it's industry super he can attack, then he'll go after them. Industry super in this country plays an important role in managing and enhancing millions of Australians' retirement incomes to ensure that they are able to retire with dignity and that the hard work that they do through their working lives is rewarded through the superannuation system. We have a regulatory system here that manages and regulates the superannuation industry. They've already indicated that they are working with Cbus and having a look at some the concerns that have been raised, and I would encourage Senator Bragg to allow them to do their job. And I have no doubt that he will be speaking to or questioning APRA at estimates on this very subject. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bragg, first supplementary? 14:39 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales Time will tell. On 29 August the CFMEU administrator, Mark Irving KC, forced all three of the CFMEU appointed trustees off the Cbus board. CFMEU appointed directors still make up half the eight-member BUSSQ board, and BUSSQ recently launched a federal court challenge to APRA's request that they conduct a review of their own arrangements, describing the licensee conditions as unreasonable. Will the government take action so that fund members can be better served by more independent directors on super fund boards rather than them being controlled by unions; and, if not, why not? 14:40 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory The Albanese government expects all superannuation funds to act in the financial interest of their members. There have been long debates about governance of superannuation funds in this country, and that's why we have APRA here—to ensure that the responsibility for the best interests of members is met by superannuation funds. On this side of the chamber, we acknowledge the valuable role that unions have played in establishing, advocating for and arguing for superannuation in this country, and we believe they have a right to sit at the table, in the interests of their members and the funds that those funds administer on their members' behalf. Senator Bragg, again, your war on superannuation is all that seems to drive you in this chamber, but it is a significant financial asset for millions of Australian workers in this country. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Bragg, a second supplementary? 14:41 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales Last Friday APRA took legal action against First Super co-chair and CFMEU official Michael O'Connor, alleging he breached his director duties by using member savings to bankroll a union official's salary. According to 2022-23 disclosures, First Super gave $2.5 million to the CFMEU. What is the government 's plan to ensure such misappropriation of funds is not systemic? 14:42 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory We expect the regulator to do the job that they are charged with doing. They need to ensure that superannuation funds meet the highest standards of governance and act in the best interests of their members, and the independent regulator has the mandate to uphold these standards. Your question, and the fact that you have referred to APRA, shows that we have the system in place to manage concerns and, if complaints or cases are raised, then APRA should respond to them. That's the system that this parliament has put in place. APRA, I think, has a very strong reputation in enforcing and upholding those standards, and I have no doubt they will continue to do so. Asylum Seekers 56 14:42 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Watt. Over the weekend I visited a group of Sri Lankan Tamil refugees protesting in the electorate of Tangney, grieving the death by suicide of 23-year-old Mano Yogalingam and calling for an end to mandatory offshore detention. The recent reports by the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre reveal the suffering of refugees held in offshore detention and subjected to uncertainty, medical neglect and trauma. On page 141 of the 2023 Australian Labor Party platform, there is a mandate to reintroduce the 90-day rule in the Migration Act. Independent MP Kylea Tink has introduced a refreshed private member's bill calling for a 90-day time limit on detention for people seeking asylum. Minister, will the government support Ms Tink's bill? 14:43 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Thank you, Senator Payman. Can I first say what an outstanding member of parliament Sam Lim, the member for Tangney, is. I am aware that there has been a pretty longstanding protest outside his office. The protest and the rally that Senator Payman was referring to has been occurring outside Mr Lim's office for quite some time, and I think it has been obstructing members of the public from obtaining services from that office, but I'm sure that that won't stop Mr Lim from doing the excellent job that he has been doing as a representative member in the electorate of Tangney. I'm also aware that many of the community members who have been at that protest are members of the Tamil community, and, of course, we respect their right to protest. I know that in at least some cases their protest activity has been motivated by the recent tragic suicide of a Tamil asylum seeker. Of course, it goes without saying that our thoughts are with the family and friends of that man who did take his life on 28 August. We have provided a visa pathway for thousands of people who were neglected by the former government. We understand that, when we came to office, there were several thousand people who had gone through what was known as the fast-tracking process. Their asylum claims had not been properly dealt with and in many cases were rejected, but then they weren't given any security as to their future situation. They were told they couldn't stay in Australia, but they also weren't sent back to their originating countries, so they have been in limbo for more than a decade. This is one of the many challenges that we inherited from the former government in the immigration portfolio. Of course, it's now a matter of record that, when Mr Dutton oversaw that portfolio as home affairs minister, it was a broken system. That has been the finding of several reviews. The issues that Senator Payman is referring to are some that we're dealing with right now, and I know Minister Burke is giving it his full attention. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payman, first supplementary? 14:45 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia Minister, the remaining 8,550 people failed by the fast-track process who feel left behind and forgotten are still working, paying taxes, attending school and rebuilding their lives. Will the minister grant permanent residency to all people seeking asylum and failed by the fast track via a mechanism similar to the temporary protection conversion to resolution-of-status visas? 14:46 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland As I say, the former government did leave thousands of people in limbo for years with no resolution in sight. The number was given by Senator Payman, and, of course, it's a very large number. But, since taking office a couple of years ago, our government has taken a different approach to this matter. We've provided resolution-of-status visas for anyone with a temporary protection or safe haven enterprise visa before 14 February 2023 and who has been found to be owed protection. This has provided a visa pathway for thousands of people neglected by the former government. Of the 6,352 people who were not found to be genuine refugees but are still lawfully in the community, only 167 are without work rights and access to Medicare. As I say, the Minister for Home Affairs, Minister Burke, is working through the failed fast-track cohort on a case-by-case basis. It's a large job to be done as part of our fixing our broken migration system, but it's one that Minister Burke is committed to. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Payman, second supplementary? 14:47 Senator PAYMAN 300707 Western Australia We can't keep blaming the opposition for the decade. I speak from the heart on this matter, as my late father was in detention upon arriving in Australia and described the horrors back in 1999. Considering the documented evidence of suffering and human rights violation in offshore detention centres, will the minister finally commit to an independent investigation into these facilities and their operations? 14:47 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland Senator Payman, I think you yourself acknowledged that there were several thousand people who had gone through the failed fast-track process, and that is a situation that we are dealing with. I think it's entirely appropriate to point out the work that was required to deal with this issue when we came to office and that we inherited from the former government. That's what we're doing. I've already pointed out— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator WATT 245759 Senator Shoebridge, if you want to ask a question, feel free to get up on your feet or get a question up, but this is Senator Payman's question, and maybe she's entitled to an answer to the question. Our government has taken a different approach to that of the former coalition government. As I say, we've provided resolution-of-status visas for anyone with a temporary protection visa or safe haven enterprise visa before 14 February 2023 who has been found to be owed protection. That is a very different approach to what was taken by the former government. It does remain an issue for many people in our community, and it's an issue that Minister Burke is working through. Paid Parental Leave: Superannuation 57 14:48 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales My question is to the Minister for Women and Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher. Minister, you've spoken before about the Albanese government's commitment to paid parental leave, a policy that Labor introduced and that is now expanding and modernising. Labor's commitment to PPL is also about valuing the important work of caring for babies, supporting families to share the care and reducing the long-term economic impact of time out of the workforce, especially for women. Can the minister please outline why the government is committed to paid parental leave and why adding superannuation to PPL is a priority? 14:49 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I thank Senator O'Neill for such a good question—an important question as we continue to drive economic equality for women across this country—and for Senator O'Neill's long advocacy in this area. I acknowledge that today. When we came to government, we had a long list of things that had been left undone or ignored relating to women in this country, and we started implementing changes and announcing new measures. One of those was about expanding paid parental leave, which the former Labor government bought in over a decade ago. It always takes Labor governments to do these important social changes that drive outcomes for women. We expanded that to 26 weeks by 2026, and we are seeing those increasing weeks come on board this year. We've introduced reserve leave for each parent. This will reach four weeks by the end of 2026, with the remaining week shared between parents however they may decide, and that's about making it flexible for families. An important part that we hadn't addressed was paying superannuation on paid parental leave. It was something that had been advocated for and campaigned about for years. It was the only employment condition that didn't have super paid on it, and we put that in place in this year's budget. It is due to come in on 1 July next year. This is an important change to paid parental leave, but it's an important statement from the government about the value that we place on parents taking time out of the paid workforce to care for the next generations—whether it be the birth parent or the non-birth parent of that child. We want that condition to be flexible, but we don't want people to pay an additional penalty because they're doing that. This is work we value. It is important work, and we know that all the data shows women pay a penalty for taking time out for it. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator O'Neill, first supplementary? 14:51 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales How is the government supporting the retirement savings of mothers and parents caring for their children, and are you aware of any alternative positions? 14:52 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Senator O'Neill, I am aware of an alternative position. We've heard—it has Senator Bragg's hands all over it, doesn't it? It has his hands all over it. It's no real surprise that after a failure to do anything on PPL or to strengthen super or to put super on paid parental leave that the opposition has announced that they don't think it's that important. Why not? That's right—choice. We always hear that. It's always about choice. This is about ensuring that women don't retire with 25 per cent less than men at the same age. This is about ensuring that we are sending a message that, when you are caring for children, you deserve to have superannuation paid on that leave. Every answer from those opposite is about raiding your super. COVID? Raid your super. Housing? Raid your super. Now, with PPL, it's raid your super. Opposition senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Order, Senator Scarr and Senator Bragg. Senator O'Neill, second supplementary? 14:53 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales It's really disappointing to hear the voices in this chamber articulating once again that the opposition are letting down Australian women. The Liberals will take any chance they can get to undermine the super system. We saw that in the pandemic, and they want to do it again for housing. How is this approach from the Liberals and the Nationals the latest attack on women's economic security? 14:53 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory Thank you, Senator O'Neill, for that question. It is women's economic security that is being attacked here. We have report after report, women who have fought for decades to get super on PPL, experts who have repeatedly recommended super on PPL and challenging evidence that shows there is a direct link between unpaid care and women's retirement incomes. Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister Gallagher, please resume your seat. Order across the chamber, but particularly on my left. Minister, please continue. Senator GALLAGHER ING I will say it again, that mob over there have never met a problem they don't think super can fix. In COVID times, it was, 'Raid your super and look after yourself'. A lot of women did that and they're now behind. Housing pressures? 'Raid your super and buy the house' despite all the experts saying that's ridiculous. Experiencing violence? 'Raid your super'. Go and raid all that super you don't have. And now, super on PPL—'raid your super'. That's your answer to everything. Senator McGrath 217241 It's their money! The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator McGrath and Senator Hughes! Senator McGrath in particular, I've had to call you to order a number of times since question time started. You are out of order! Electric Vehicles 59 14:55 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland My question— Senator Watt 245759 He's here! Here we go! The PRESIDENT 112096 Order! Senator Watt, I have had to equally call you to order. Senator RENNICK 283596 My question is for the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator McAllister. The Albanese government has lent to $100 million to Ampol for 200 battery-charging stations to expand electric vehicle fast-charging infrastructure nationwide. If, as Senator Wong claims, renewables are cheaper, why is it necessary for the Albanese government to give taxpayer funds to a company that recently reported a half-year profit of $235 million in order to subsidise electric vehicle charging stations? 14:55 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Nearly one in 10 new cars purchased is now an EV, and that's up from just two per cent under the former coalition government. The thing is that those consumers are making a choice, and the choice that they are making requires them to have access to charging facilities. Under this government, we think that's important because we know that when you purchase an EV there are substantial savings available to you on fuel. And it's why, under this government, the number of EV charging locations has nearly doubled in 16 months to around 900 as of March 2024. We've also seen a 131 per cent increase in ultrafast charging locations. We want to make sure that existing industries, businesses and stations are part of that transition. We announced in August, as your question points out, that CEFC capital will be available to finance a range of clean energy technology measures at Ampol service stations across the country, and that is to accelerate the decarbonisation of its operations, to kickstart its biofuel development and to drive down national transport emissions. The thing that you need to understand, Senator Rennick, is that all of these CEFC investments are made with the expectation of a positive, risk based financial return. It's a program that has actually been running for more than a decade. It's a legacy, in fact, of the last Labor government. It's been very successful and it's an important institution that has been able to leverage significant new capability and capacity in the Australian economy. It's a good application of the power of government. I am surprised that, for someone who's interested in how the economy develops, it's not of more interest to you. (Time expired) The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Rennick, first supplementary? 14:58 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland How many tonnes of electric vehicle lithium battery waste does the Albanese government forecast Australia to produce in the next decade? Where will it be recycled? What will the cost of that recycling be? Honourable senators interjecting— 14:58 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales Senator, we're in a period— Honourable senators interjecting— The PRESIDENT 112096 Minister McAllister, please resume your seat. Senators, if you can't listen in silence, I invite you to leave the chamber. Minister McAllister, please continue. Senator McALLISTER 121628 We are in a period of very significant technological change across a range of fronts, and this is one of them. The National Electric Vehicle Strategy is this government's response to that. It's a pathway to cut our transport emissions, but it also has three objectives which are relevant to the question that you ask. The first is to increase the supply of affordable and accessible EVs, the second is to increase the resources, systems and infrastructure to enable rapid electric vehicle uptake and the third is to encourage increased EV demand. Part of that is thinking about waste. Senator McALLISTER 121628 I encourage you to go and take a look at the strategy, have a look at the appraisal and have a look at the measures that are being proposed and set out in that strategy. The PRESIDENT 112096 Senator Hughes, this is not your question! I have previously asked the minister to resume her seat. I invited people who could not listen in silence to leave the chamber. That applies to you. Senator Rennick, second supplementary? 15:00 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland The former head of the CSIRO Larry Marshall said it cost three times more to recycle an EV lithium battery than the cost of the materials to make it. If this is true, how will the Albanese government ensure that EV batteries can be renewed and recycled cost-effectively and not end up as environmental waste? 15:00 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales As I indicated in my answer to your first supplementary question, this is an issue that is being considered as part of the National Electric Vehicle Strategy. It's also the case, more broadly, that lithium batteries are an increasing feature of our economy. It's not just electric vehicles where lithium batteries are used; they're used in a whole range of products. There are a range of things that we do need to do as a community to make sure that the technology is being used safely. There is some work being undertaken to ensure that we've got appropriate arrangements to make sure that if there are incidents of any kind relating to lithium batteries that our first responders are well equipped to deal with it. There are standards being developed through the Building Codes Board. There are a range of things that need to occur to make sure that this technology can be safely and appropriately integrated into the Australian economy. Senator Wong 00AOU President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS 60 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: ADDITIONAL ANSWERS Veterinary Medicines 60 15:01 Senator McCARTHY 122087 Northern Territory I have a response for Senator Hanson. There is currently no active application before the APVMA to register the footrot vaccine. QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS 60 QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE: TAKE NOTE OF ANSWERS Answers to Questions 60 15:02 Senator SHARMA 274506 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the answers given by ministers to questions without notice today, particularly those given by the Minister representing the Treasurer (Minister Gallagher). To hear this government talk about inflation, you'd think that their fight against it is going well. They're fond of quoting the inflationary figure when they came to office. In June 2022, Australia's inflation figure, at an annualised rate, was 6.1 per cent. But, at the same time, in the eurozone it was 8.6 per cent. In the United States, it was 9.1 per cent. In Canada, it was 8.1 per cent. So when the Labor government came to office, inflation in Australia was lower than benchmarked advanced economies around the world—several percentage points lower. This is the picture today: inflation in Australia is 3.5 per cent annualised, higher if you look at core inflation, but in the eurozone it's 2.2 per cent; in the United States, it's 2.9 per cent; in Canada, it's 2.5 per cent. Inflation was several points lower than other advanced economies when the coalition left office. Now, with Labor in government, two years later, it's several points higher. This is why interest rates are higher in Australia than they need to be, because the government is not getting control of inflation. We heard the Minister representing the Treasurer say, 'Our economic plan is supporting economic growth.' But the only thing supporting economic growth in this country is immigration running at record highs. We are in a per-capita real GDP recession. We have now had six negative quarters of real GDP per capita growth. That's the largest per capita recession in Australia in 50 years. Real net disposable income per person—this is a measure of how well off or otherwise people feel—is down 8.6 per cent over the past 18 months. So if you wonder why people feel poorer, why households are complaining about the cost of living, this is why: because there is no economic plan from the Labor Party. We've seen a collapse in productivity. It's down by 6.3 per cent. And we've seen that the only economic measure this government has is an expansion of the public sector. Of the 209,000 new jobs created in the first six months of this year, 2024, one in two of them were public sector jobs, or in the non-market sector. In a normally functioning economy, that would be one in seven. Instead, it was one in two. We also heard from the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Watt, who claimed that industrial disruption was at an all-time low. In fact, under this Labor government there have been 36,700 days lost to industrial action every quarter. Compare that to the number during the coalition's nine years in office; it was 23,600. So days lost to industrial action is 50 per cent higher under Labor, the result of their sclerotic, union-friendly industrial relations regime they are forcing down the throats of Australian corporations. If households are wondering why they are feeling worse off, this is why—because their real incomes are not increasing and there is no productivity growth and no productivity agenda from this government. They are paying more in taxes because of bracket creep. This government is collecting record amounts of income tax, and their stage 3 tax cuts, even on their own forward estimates, are going to take more in receipts. You're paying more for your mortgage because interest rates are higher than they should be, despite countless warnings from the Reserve Bank that government spending is too high and keeping inflation higher than it needs to be. Despite all the evidence from economists, respected institutions and people in the financial markets, the government refuses to accept this and instead seeks to blame the Reserve Bank. In other advanced economies around the world, central banks are cutting interest rates. The Bank of Canada is cutting interest rates. Eurozone is cutting interest rates. The Bank of England has cut interest rates. The US Federal Reserve is poised to cut interest rates. Only in Australia is the central bank, the Reserve Bank, saying that there are no interest rate cuts on the horizon and certainly not this year, because inflation is too high. As I said before, when this government came to office, it inherited inflation that was several percentage points lower than other advanced economies. It is now presiding over inflation that is several percentage points higher. That is why people are paying more for a life's everyday essentials—because inflation in this country is out of control. This government does not have an economic plan to address the economic challenges facing Australia. They need to come up with one. 15:07 Senator POLLEY e5x Tasmania If you had been overseas and not actually understood what had gone on in this country over the last decade, when those on that side were in government, you might believe some of that contribution, but we know the facts are very different. They were in government for almost 10 years and never delivered a surplus—not one. We've been in government for just over two years and have already delivered two surpluses. Even the RBA governor has made comment about the extent to which that has actually helped to reduce inflation in this country. You might want to come in and try and paint a very different picture, but people in Australia understand that, if inflation had a six in front of it and now has a three in front of it after two years, that is a downward trend. If you are that concerned about the cost of living for ordinary Australians, why is it that you have voted against every measure that this government has put forward? We know that, under Mr Dutton, there would be higher energy costs and tax cuts would not have been delivered at the rate that we have delivered them, because Australian taxpayers on average have got twice the tax cut under our government than they would have had if they were still in power. We know that, when we put measures in place, like increased wages for Australian workers, you voted against them. You have voted against every single measure that we have put through this chamber to help with the cost of living for ordinary Australians. You voted against them. Every time you say no. So coming in here and bleating about inflation and what would have happened under you is not going to wash with the Australian people, because they see right through you. What did you do when we introduced cheaper medicines? You voted against it. When we introduced 60-day scripts, which will help people reduce the amount of times they have to go to their GP and cost them less when they go to the pharmacy, what did those on that side do? They voted against it. Every single opportunity those opposite in this place have to attack superannuation for Australian workers, they do it each and every time. Why do they do that? Why do they attack superannuation? Because, fundamentally, it's in their DNA not to support super for Australian workers. That's the reality of it. Why was it that, when they were in government for almost 10 years, their policy was to keep wages low? Because it's part of their DNA. On this side of the chamber, we will always support Australian workers. We believe in superannuation. We believe in access to Medicare. We haven't tried to tear it down, which is what they have done each and every time they've been in government. That's why Mr Dutton, when he was the Minister for Health, cut billions of dollars out of health each and every time—because they do not fundamentally believe in universal health care. All these things add to the cost of living. Whether it is increasing wages or making medicines cheaper, they have voted against it. They have voted against every measure we've tried to put in place through this chamber to help with the cost of living. When they actually make a contribution with their hand on their heart, trying to have the Australian people believe they really care about what they're going through with the cost of living, all the people have to do is look at their record of voting in this chamber. Each and every time—they never let them down—they vote no. Their great contribution to the energy debate and reducing the cost of energy for Australian households—22 policies when they were in government, and they couldn't even deliver one of them. And the one they want to try and deliver, if Mr Dutton ever becomes Prime Minister, will cost the Australian taxpayer billions and billions of dollars and not reduce their personal energy bills by one cent. That's the reality, that's the truth and they're the facts that need to be put on the record, which I'm happy to do. 15:12 Senator SCARR 282997 Queensland I admired your contribution last night, Senator Polley; this one, less so. I rise to take note specifically with respect to Senator McAllister's response to questions asked on the McPhillamys gold project. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Senator Polley? Senator Polley e5x I am seeking clarity. The first taking note was on one issue alone, one question— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 He's not moving it. Senator Sharma moved to take note of all answers to coalition questions but more particularly one—so his motion stands. Senator Polley e5x Sorry; I didn't hear that part. I thought it was just one—otherwise I would have gone into other areas! The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 You were confused by Senator Sharma's rhetorical flourish! Senator SCARR 282997 I was listening very carefully, as someone speaking in the debate following! I rise to take note, following Senator Sharma's very wide motion alluding to all the answers to questions, in relation to Senator McAllister's answer to the question in relation to the McPhillamys gold project. I want to put this in context for the people listening to this debate. There is a dispute at the moment with respect to Minister Plibersek, in her capacity as environment minister, exercising powers under section 10 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act, refusing approval for a $1 billion gold project called the McPhillamys gold project in regional New South Wales. In defending that decision, Minister Plibersek went on ABC AM: Sabra— a wonderful journalist— just a couple of years ago, the previous Environment Minister, the Deputy Leader of the Liberals, Sussan Ley, made a very similar decision just down the road, about 50 kilometres away in Bathurst. Now, when this was referred to earlier in the week, I assumed—in good faith—that Minister Plibersek was actually referring to a material project—a project comparable to a $1 billion gold project, but she was in fact referring to a go-kart track. It never even occurred to me that the comparison that Minister Plibersek was drawing was one that sought to conflate a decision made in relation to a $1 billion gold project with one in relation to a go-kart track. That was not disclosed by the minister when the minister made that comment on ABC AM. There is a reason, when you give evidence in court, that you've got to take an oath that you're going to give the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth—the whole truth, and that was not disclosed. If we look at section 10(1)(d) of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act, it says that the minister must consider 'such other matters as he or she thinks relevant'. I say to the Australian people: how about these for relevant matters that should have been considered by the minister—the hundreds of jobs that would have been provided in regional Australia by this $1 billion project? How can you compare that and say it's a similar decision to one in relation to a go-kart track? How about a major project of this size acting as a foundation stone for the local regional community? These projects have economic consequences that go beyond the fence of the project and could provide jobs and support for small businesses, for NGOs, for students to go to local schools et cetera. How about the hundreds of millions of dollars of royalties that would be generated by this gold project? There are at least 10 million ounces of gold in the ore body that this project would have mined, and now those hundreds of millions of dollars of royalties are forgone. How about the $192 million that had already been invested in relation to this project when it got to this late approval stage? Seven years! How can you possibly, in good faith, compare that to a go-kart track? Lastly, what about sovereign risk? The most disturbing thing about this decision is that it says to mining companies all over the world that you could come to this country and spend $192 million of capital, get to the end of that process, and then have the rug pulled from under you. It's an absolute disgrace. 15:17 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia In taking note of answers this afternoon, the coalition is completely out of touch with the real issues facing Australians, just as the questions they posed to the government were. Looking at the cost of living in our country, we have a shadow Treasurer who is so out of touch with the needs of our country that he calls substantial cost-of-living relief 'manipulation'. Fancy that—manipulation! And we have, coming from the opposition, policies that would pull the rug out of our economy at the very worst possible time. Indeed, at a time when we have an economy that is barely growing, it is absolute economic insanity to slash and burn as the opposition would have government do at this time. Some $315 billion worth of cuts would leave our economy in a critical condition. Meanwhile, we know they also had on their agenda—which we have undone and which eventually they, sensibly, voted for—tax cuts that they had targeted at the very highest income earners in our nation. Had we not delivered the redistribution of those tax cuts, we would have left the Australian economy and household incomes in a dire, dire plight. We have an opposition that does not want to fight inflation. You are here, day after day, to fight your ideological battle with us for your own electoral purposes, but, in doing so, you are fighting against the interests of the Australian people. You don't want to help Australians; you want Australians to get hurt and have a hard landing so you can manipulate it for electoral purposes. You've left us with debt and deficit as far as the eye can see, and now you want to bring forth cuts and chaos on the Australian people. We, the Labor government, are committed to doing the hard work of getting the balance right. I'm proud to be part of those efforts and to see our ministers working hard day after day to balance our books and get our policies right. Meaningful, substantial cost-of-living relief that helps everyone in the fight against inflation is not there to smash what is—as we all acknowledge—an already soft economy. We know inflation is higher than we'd like, but it is less than half of its peak and is much lower than what we inherited from the coalition. At the election just two years ago, inflation had a six in front of it; now it's come down to have a three in front of it. We know we've got more work to do, but it's good to see that underlying inflation has moderated and we now have momentum towards inflationary pressures heading downward. That is a good achievement. We are pushing in the right direction. Of course we'd love it to be faster, but you're not helping. You're not doing the work to push inflation down; all you're doing is pointing the finger. Monthly inflation has hit a four-month low. Our budget strategy is helping in the fight against inflation, not hampering it. As we know, fiscal policy isn't the primary determinant of prices in our economy, but our decisions in the budget and as a government are here to help—and they are helping. We want to be, and indeed we are, a government that, day after day, in the last budget, this budget, and the next budget, takes the edge off inflation. That's why we've delivered back-to-back surpluses— The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Thank you, Senator Pratt. Senator Bragg. 15:23 Senator BRAGG 256063 New South Wales That was a lacklustre question time, if ever there was one, from the government for vested interests. Our questions this afternoon were about the issues that are important to the Australian people in relation to the cost of living: interest rates, taxation policy and superannuation policy. These are the things that impact Australians. To hear Senator Pratt say that these are not the issues that impact the Australian people is actually quite offensive. The reality is that interest rates are stubbornly high in Australia because there is a massive inflation problem in this country which comparable nations are not having to deal with. Inflation is running so high because of public sector spending. Labor can't say no to their favourite vested interests. They keep on spending taxpayer funds, which is making the inflation problem so much worse, and households and small businesses are getting smashed. It is outrageous for Dr Chalmers, the Treasurer, to say that the Reserve Bank is smashing the Australian people. It is him and his government, through their lacklustre fiscal policy, who are smashing the Australian people. Taxes are up. That is also eroding the household budgets of the Australian people. One of the things that this parliament will live to regret is the reinsertion of a tax bracket that was abolished by the last parliament. Who would have believed we would turn back the clock and put a tax bracket back in place? That that has happened has locked in bracket creep in the long term. There will be more and more bracket creep and Commonwealth budgets will be riding high on stealing people's income to pay for surpluses and the like here in Canberra. The government is offering nothing for small business—absolutely nothing. There is nothing in relation to cutting regulation or taxes or doing things like accelerated depreciation. It is no wonder that business investment is flatlining and the economy is turning sour. The government could do things like cut regulation and taxes, and until they do that, I fear we are heading for the rocks. The central charge against this government is that it is a government for vested interests. It only works hard for the unions and the special interests like the super funds and can't bring itself to work hard on inflation or on things like housing. But the other part of this very revealing question time was that the government is against choice. On the question on paid parental leave, it was very clear that the government thinks it's a bad idea for new parents to be given access to their own money and they want it locked away for 40 years in a superannuation fund. Now, anyone who has had children would know that, when you have children, you need to buy nappies. Nappies are more important than superannuation when you have children. The idea that the government would deny people choice and access to their own money shows how paternalistic this government is and how they believe that the Australian people are too stupid to save for their own retirement. There is no rule that says the only way you can save for retirement is through the Labor Party's favourite superannuation scheme. There are other ways to do it. Australians know how to pay a mortgage. They know how to tighten the belt when the going gets hard. So the idea that the Australian people are too stupid and need to have all this paternalistic policy is, frankly, very offensive. But it is revealing that this is the character of the modern Labor Party. It has such a low view of the Australian people: that they are too stupid to save for their own retirement. That is not our policy, nor is it our position. We think that the Australian people are smart enough to make their own judgements, and if they want to put their money into superannuation, that's fine. If they want to put their money into their own living expenses, that's fine. If they want to negatively gear to provide an investment property for someone else, that's fine. It is our view that people are smart enough to look after themselves. So that is the choice that is coming for the Australian people next year—or maybe later this year. I assume it will be next year. It will be a choice between, on one side, a party and coalition that is in favour of empowering people to make their own judgements about their own lives and seeks to support small business and, on the other side, the Labor Party that thinks the Australian people are too stupid to make their own judgements, has no interest in helping small business to invest and to grow and is locked into a corporatist, unionist mindset such that it thinks that the function of government is to funnel money and policy in favour of special interests. This is a sickness and a cancer on the Australian polity, and it shows that Alfred Deakin was right 100 years ago when he said that Labor's problem was that it was beholden to vested interests. Question agreed to. Maugean Skates 64 15:28 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania I move: That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water (Senator McAllister) to a question without notice I asked today relating to the maugean skate. I started this week on Monday morning with a contribution on the maugean skate, following an editorial in a Tasmanian newspaper, The Advocate. The editor had made some comments, and I think it's fair to say I was furious when I read those comments. The editor had commented that, while he might find it unfortunate if 'that damned fish', the maugean skate, went extinct, it's not something he would lose sleep over. I've reflected on my comments on Monday morning and my fury, and something has occurred to me. To give Mr Haneveer credit, at least he spoke what he believed to be the truth. He said out loud the quiet thing that a lot of decision-makers haven't been prepared to say, which is that they really don't give a rat's arse about a species that's likely to go extinct. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 Please restraint your language. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 I withdraw that. It's a bit of pub vernacular. The DEPUTY PRESIDENT 287062 We're not in a pub. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 They really don't care that a species is on the edge of extinction. I haven't heard any concern from any of the politicians in this chamber who support the salmon industry in Tasmania about the fact that this ancient creature that's been with us since the time of the dinosaurs is on the edge of extinction, based on all the best science that we have. Sure as the sun rises in the morning, if we don't care that a creature is about to become extinct, especially when we're leaders—whether the editor of a newspaper or a politician—then it will become extinct. It's 100 per cent sure it will become extinct. Where do we draw the line if we don't do what we can to prevent an animal becoming extinct because it's inconvenient for the salmon industry in Tasmania—or the Tasmanian devil because of a wind farm in one of its last known disease-free habitats, or the swift parrot because of logging in its critical habitat? Where do we draw the line when we've got 2½ thousand endangered species in this country alone? It's great that we had politicians going to Minister Plibersek's session out the front here for endangered species. It's good that they can choose to connect with an animal, and I hope that they do when they go along. Of course, it's those charismatic animals that we tend to love and talk to our friends about. But there is such a broad array of wonderful creatures in this country that are on the edge of extinction. It's absolutely critical that we understand that what these 2½ thousand or so endangered creatures in Australian habitats, and other endangered creatures—and there are many more of them around the world—all have in common is that we can link them to a decision of government. I wanted to ask my question of Senator McAllister today because of my fury on Monday morning around what I felt was a very irresponsible editorial by the Advocate newspaper. I wanted to see if the government cared about the maugean skate, and I'm none the wiser from today's answers. I asked why it's taken 221 days for the government to make a decision on this. I know senators across the chamber, like Senator Duniam, also would like the minister to hurry up. Of course, they're champing at the bit for her to hurry up so they can farm more salmon and push the skate to the brink of extinction. I'd like them to be honest about that. If they don't care about the extinction of a species, come out and say it, like Mr Haneveer did. At least say the quiet thing out loud. That way, people know and they understand just what we're up against. Senator Duniam 263418 They can co-exist. Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 They know just what we're up against, Senator Duniam—that politicians and other people in my home state of Tasmania and elsewhere just don't care about this extinction crisis that we're facing. That way, they can vote. That way, they can lobby their local members of parliament to actually do something about this, because politicians have it in their hands if they choose to act. It is that simple. We can protect nature now by making the right decisions and getting some decent environment laws and a whole range of other things. Thank you for listening, Deputy President, and giving me a few extra seconds. Question agreed to. NOTICES 65 NOTICES Presentation 65 COMMITTEES 66 COMMITTEES Reporting Date 66 Public Works Joint Committee 66 Reference 66 15:35 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report as expeditiously as is practicable: Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts—Command Centre and Canine Facility at Western Sydney International (Nancy-Bird Walton) Airport. I table a statement in relation to the work together with the accompanying documentation. Question agreed to. BUSINESS 66 BUSINESS Consideration of Legislation 66 15:35 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory At the request of Senator Chisholm, I move: That the provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 not apply to the following bills, allowing them to be considered during this period of sittings: Better and Fairer Schools (Information Management) Bill 2024 National Health Amendment (Technical Changes to Averaging Price Disclosure Threshold and Other Matters) Bill 2024. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 66 DOCUMENTS National Disability Insurance Scheme 66 Order for the Production of Documents 66 15:36 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania At the request of Senator Steele-John, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the National Disability Insurance Scheme, by no later than midday on 17 September 2024, the analysis referenced in footnotes 1053 and 1054 of the supporting analysis on the recommendations in the final report of the independent review into the National Disability Insurance Scheme, referenced as: (a) 'National Disability Insurance Agency, Unpublished analysis supplied by the NDIA to the NDIS Review, October 2023'; and (b) 'NDIS Review, Analysis of unpublished data supplied by the NDIA as at 30 June 2023, October 2023'. Question agreed to. Department of Industry, Science and Resources 66 Order for the Production of Documents 66 15:36 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Kovacic, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Science, by no later than midday on 4 October 2024: (a) all advice from the Chief Scientist provided by the Department of Industry, Science and Resources (the department) to the office of the Minister for Industry and Science regarding: (i) PsiQuantum, including but not limited to advice provided on: (A) 29 August 2022, (B) 25 November 2022, (C) 22 December 2022, (D) 17 February 2023, (E) 10 May 2023, and (F) 7 September 2023, and (ii) the assessment of the PsiQuantum expression of interest market testing applications for the expression of interest round that closed in September 2023; (b) the department's ministerial submission and attachments for the document with department reference 'MS22-001540'; (c) the draft Quantum Strategy of 2022; and (d) the document that details the department's assessment of the PsiQuantum expression of interest market testing applications for the expression of interest round that closed in September 2023. Question agreed to. Department of Defence 67 Order for the Production of Documents 67 15:37 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania At the request of Senator Shoebridge, I move: That— (a) there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, by no later than 9 am on Wednesday, 18 September 2024, workplace behaviours survey summary results for each element of the Army, Navy and Air Force that had such a summary for the years 2019 to 2023; and (b) for clarity, the information in the documents should be consistent with the information provided to the Royal Commission into Defence and Veterans Suicide in 'Exhibit 58 01.089—DEF.1074.0002.0029—2021 Workplace Behaviours Survey—Summary Results for ADFA'. Question agreed to. Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water 67 Order for the Production of Documents 67 15:37 Senator McKIM JKM Tasmania I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 608. Leave granted. Senator McKIM JKM At the request of Senator Hanson-Young, I move the amended motion: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, by 5 pm on Wednesday, 18 September 2024: (a) all correspondence between the Minister for the Environment and Water (the minister), including any representatives of the minister's office, and Tamboran Resources since 1 December 2023 and up to 10 September 2024; (b) all correspondence between the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (the department), and Tamboran Resources since 1 December 2023 and up to 10 September 2024; (c) all correspondence between the minister or the department and the Northern Territory Government in relation to Tamboran Resources since 1 December 2023 and up to 10 September 2024; and (d) all correspondence between the minister and the Independent Expert Scientific Committee in relation to unconventional gas development in the Northern Territory since 1 December 2023 and up to 10 September 2024. Question agreed to. BILLS 67 BILLS Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024 67

Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024

Reference to Committee 67 15:38 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Bragg, I move: That the Housing Investment Probity Bill 2024 be referred to the Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 1 November 2024. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 1, standing in the name of Senator Bragg, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [15:43]
(The President—Senator Lines)

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

Question negatived.

 DOCUMENTS 68 DOCUMENTS Department of Industry, Science and Resources 68 Order for the Production of Documents 68 15:45 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Resources, by no later than 10 am on Tuesday, 17 September 2024, the expert analysis of the viability of the Laminaria and Carollinea oil fields used by the Australian Government to decide to decommission the Northern Endeavour facility and remediate the Laminaria-Corallina oil fields and infrastructure. 15:46 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to make a short statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator GALLAGHER ING The government will be opposing this motion. The decision to decommission the Northern Endeavour was a decision taken by the former government in 2021. It may be the case that the former government's decision to decommission the Northern Endeavour was informed by expert analysis, but we don't have access to advice provided to the former government and no documentation of the type described has been furnished to the Minister for Resources, the Hon. Madeleine King MP. We oppose the motion on that basis. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 604, standing in the name of Senator Hanson, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [15:48]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 18 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Babet, R. Cox, D. Faruqi, M. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Hodgins-May, S. Lambie, J. McKim, N. J. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Roberts, M. I. (Teller) Shoebridge, D. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 32 NOES Askew, W. (Teller) Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Duniam, J. R. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. McDonald, S. E. McLachlan, A. L. O'Neill, D. M. O'Sullivan, M. A. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, D. A. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. Walsh, J. C. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

 Department of Home Affairs 69 Order for the Production of Documents 69 15:50 Senator ASKEW 281558 Tasmania At the request of Senator Paterson, I move: That there be laid on the table by the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, by no later than 10 am on Monday, 16 September 2024, a copy of all advice provided by the Department of Home Affairs to the former Minister for Home Affairs, the Honourable Clare O'Neil MP, and the former Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, the Honourable Andrew Giles MP, relating to the issuance of visas to Palestinians in response to the Israel-Hamas conflict. 15:50 Senator GALLAGHER ING Australian Capital Territory I seek leave to make a statement. The PRESIDENT 112096 Leave is granted for one minute. Senator GALLAGHER ING Senator Paterson's motion highlights the lack of trust in our security agencies the opposition has demonstrated throughout the debate on this issue. The opposition is recklessly asking the government to table advice from our intelligence and security agencies in relation to the Middle East. We've acted in accordance with the advice of our security agencies on this issue. The personnel and the processes that underline that advice remain the same as when the opposition were in office. Rather than engaging on the cost of living, the Liberals seek to drive fear and division in our community. Senator Paterson has talked of a social cohesion crisis. These types of motions and the coalition's dog whistling are what is causing it. We urge the crossbench to send a message to the opposition that enough is enough. Leave our intelligence and border agencies to do what they do best, which is to keep us safe. Our visa processes are strong. The system has multiple checks built into it, and referrals can be made at any point. This is the same visa system that existed under those opposite. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that general business notice of motion No. 592, standing in the name of Senator Paterson, be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [15:53]
(The President—Senator Lines)

 45 AYES Allman-Payne, P. J. Antic, A. Askew, W. (Teller) Babet, R. Brockman, W. E. Cadell, R. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Colbeck, R. M. Cox, D. Davey, P. M. Duniam, J. R. Faruqi, M. Fawcett, D. J. Hanson, P. L. Hanson-Young, S. C. Henderson, S. M. Hodgins-May, S. Hughes, H. A. Hume, J. Kovacic, M. Lambie, J. Liddle, K. J. McDonald, S. E. McGrath, J. McKim, N. J. McLachlan, A. L. Nampijinpa Price, J. S. O'Sullivan, M. A. Paterson, J. W. Payman, F. Pocock, B. Pocock, D. W. Rennick, G. Reynolds, L. K. Roberts, M. I. Ruston, A. Scarr, P. M. Sharma, D. N. Shoebridge, D. Smith, D. A. Steele-John, J. A. Tyrrell, T. M. Waters, L. J. Whish-Wilson, P. S. 20 NOES Ayres, T. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Darmanin, L. Farrell, D. E. Gallagher, K. R. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Lines, S. McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. Polley, H. Pratt, L. C. Sheldon, A. V. Smith, M. F. Stewart, J. N. A. Urquhart, A. E. (Teller) 0 PAIRS

Question agreed to.

 COMMITTEES 70 COMMITTEES Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee 70 Reference 70 15:55 The PRESIDENT 112096 Yesterday evening after 6.30 pm a division was called on the motion moved by Senator Rennick relating to a proposed reference to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee. Senator Lambie, are you seeking something? 15:55 Senator LAMBIE 250026 Tasmania Madam President, I intend to vote differently. I would like to remove one of the parts from that motion and split it. I would like paragraph (f) to be put separately. The PRESIDENT 112096 The question is that the motion moved by Senator Rennick, relating to a proposed reference to a committee—minus (f), as asked for by Senator Lambie—be agreed to.    

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

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

Question negatived.

 MATTERS OF URGENCY 71 MATTERS OF URGENCY International Students 71 16:03 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x I inform the Senate that the President has received the following letter, dated 11 September 2024, from Senator McKim: Pursuant to standing order 75, I give notice that today I propose to move "That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The Labor government is displaying absolute disregard and contempt for the international education sector and international students with their chaotic policy which will decimate the tertiary education sector". Is the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 16:03 Senator FARUQI 250362 New South Wales I move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The Labor government is displaying absolute disregard and contempt for the international education sector and international students with their chaotic policy which will decimate the tertiary education sector. The Labor government is intent on destroying the international education sector in Australia. Over three Senate inquiry hearings, we heard from witness after witness—from students, from academics, from universities, from peak bodies and from private providers. They are pretty unanimous in their opposition to this reckless policy and the chaotic process that has brought us to this stage, where a government is hell-bent on decimating the tertiary education sector. We are staring down the barrel of thousands of job losses, irreparable damage to Australia's reputation as a welcoming destination for international students and a complete betrayal of the principles of university autonomy and student choice. For decades, governments of both stripes have been slashing funding for unis, and they have all become over reliant on international students, whose exorbitant fees now cross-subsidise domestic students and research. This situation should never have arisen. International students should never have been used as cash cows. But here we are, because of the short-sightedness of governments. And now they want to slash and burn, with no plans on how the shortfall of funds will be met. This is just plain disastrous. Labor is holding the sector hostage by telling them they will get rid of the crappy MD107 if these gaps are in place. This is a choice between two evils. It is a no-win situation, and I'm glad people can see right through this and are fighting back because their livelihood, their profession and the future of education in this country are on the line. Labor will tell you that this is all about ensuring quality and integrity. But 70 submissions and three hearings later, no-one is able to tell me that caps have anything to do with quality or integrity. And let me tell you about how Labor has made a complete mockery of the Senate inquiry process itself. They released the university cap numbers the day after our original final hearing. When we pushed for a further hearing, the government published caps for the VET sector while we were in that hearing. The government knows they don't have a leg to stand on, so they want to avoid any scrutiny. Well, we're not going to let that happen. Evidence shows gaping holes, perverse outcomes, uncertainties, inconsistencies and a complete lack of consultation. These are just some of the flaws that make the whole policy and its process a complete catastrophe. This is a hot mess. The more details that are forced out of the government, the messier this trainwreck gets. Not only is the Labor government intent on decimating the sector; they have absolutely zero regard for the harm they are doing to international students by making them scapegoats for their own policy failures and blaming them for the housing crisis—just disgraceful. International students pay massive fees. They work here doing the jobs no-one else does. They bring vibrancy, diversity and culture. They keep unis and the economy going. And you have the audacity to scapegoat and demonise them. And I am loath to frame education as an export sector, because for me it is a public good and a pursuit of knowledge. But the reality is that it is the second-highest export, mining being the first. If anything, it should be climate-wrecking coal and gas that you should be capping, not international student numbers. And if Labor really cares about tertiary education, then fully fund it; wipe student debt, make uni and TAFE free, scrap the Job-ready Graduates Package and give staff job security. Don't come to the table with half-cooked rubbish policy. Labor is hell-bent on strangling the sector in their bullish attempt to achieve a migration outcome that has absolutely nothing to do with international students' education. The Liberals don't have clean hands, either. Both have the same racist playbook on migrants. The tertiary education sector, their staff and their students are becoming collateral damage in this shameful racist race to the bottom between Labor and the Liberals on migration. Prime Minister Albanese knows how to backflip. It's time he backflips on these reckless, irrational and illogical caps. It's time to go back to the drawing board and come back with an education bill, not a migration policy. 16:08 Senator HENDERSON ZN4 Victoria I rise to firstly place clearly on the record that the coalition vehemently disagrees with the Greens about the need for caps on international students studying in Australia. I also have real issue with the way you've characterised the Liberals, Senator Faruqi—the reference of the word 'racist' is appalling—and I would ask, through you, Chair, that you consider withdrawing such a slur on the Liberal Party, because we have a very proud history of supporting international education in this country. We have a very a proud history of supporting a great multicultural country, but the capping of foreign student numbers is critical to fixing Labor's immigration chaos. Since Labor was elected, the number of foreign students has increased from 336,000 in March 2022 to well over 800,000. This has fuelled a housing crisis, particularly in large metropolitan centres. As we heard during our Senate inquiry into the bill, 500,000 foreign students have been forced into the private rental market. In the suburb of Glebe, near the University of Sydney, where foreign students now number 52 per cent of all students, rents have gone up by 17 per cent in just 12 months. In Clayton, which is the home of Monash University, rents are up a staggering 20 per cent in 12 months. By bringing in 1.6 million migrants into Australia over five years, Labor's 'big Australia' policy has completely failed to safeguard the national interest, including the right to find an affordable home, see a doctor and access other essential services. But I will agree with the Greens on this. The government has made a complete mess of its proposal to cap international student numbers, and I am disgusted. I share Senator Faruqi's disgust with the way in which the government has treated this parliament and the higher education sector. In the Senate hearings that we have had into the bill, the government has done everything it possibly can to keep the actual student caps provided to each higher education and VET provider a secret. Even last Friday, after we said very strongly that we opposed the way the government was treating the parliament and the sector, they were still keeping all the separate international student caps secret from the Senate committee. That is completely unacceptable. Labor has made a real mockery of the Senate inquiry process. What we do know is that, of the provider caps that have now been given to the sector, the total allocation for universities has gone backwards by one per cent. But we understand that across the private higher education and VET sectors it has gone back by 28 per cent. So we are seeing gross discrimination at play. The minister, when he announced these caps, said this was a win for the regions. We've now learned, through the Senate inquiry, that this is not a win for the regions. A number of regional universities have done very badly out of these caps, because the government have basically gone about imposing these caps without any transparency and have been doing deals behind closed doors. We are, as a committee, seeking to extend the reporting date of the committee. We're also seeking to reopen submissions and have another public hearing, because the way the government is treating this whole issue, including the sector, is absolutely not good enough. The coalition will implement a hard cap on the international student program in consultation with the higher education sector, which is what has been missing. International students contribute to the Australian economy. They provide valuable labour by working in casual and part-time jobs. However, the vast majority of international students are housed off-campus. This is placing enormous pressure on housing. There is a housing crisis courtesy of this government. That is not good enough. We need a system that manages this properly. (Time expired) 16:13 Senator PRATT I0T Western Australia We have, in the international education sector, an economic and social contribution to our nation that is incredibly important. It's important for those students in their future lives abroad and indeed for those who might progress to migrating to Australia. But we are progressing reforms, as a government, to strengthen the integrity and sustainability of international education in our nation. I've got many dear friends all over the world who I met as international students, and they form such a firm foundation for government-to-government and community-to-community relationships right around the world. But, following the pandemic, when international students were in grave strife, often trapped without incomes et cetera, we had to work hard to come back from that. But international students have indeed voted with confidence in Australian education and have come back stronger than anyone expected. We have about 10 per cent more in our universities and almost 50 per cent more in our VET sector. But when we look at what the government is actually doing now—at the new limits that have been set out transparently to university institutions, for example—we'll see 23 of our 38 universities set above the 2023 student numbers and, for 34 of the 38 universities, above the levels of student numbers that they had in 2019. What we don't want to see is what has happened, which is that the growth of the sector post the COVID pandemic has lured back unscrupulous providers, who are motivated by profit, not quality. It has lured students to Australia who seek to work in Australia, not to study. We are as a government determined to commit ourselves and continue to remain committed to the integrity of the sector, strengthening the sector and ensuring it retains and maintains a social licence so that we can confidently invite international students here and know that they will be welcome. We need this experience to benefit students and our partners overseas but also Australians. We need reform to ensure sustainable growth into the future. So, subject to the passage of legislation before the Senate, we are intending to set a national planning level for overseas student commencements at a rate of 270,000 for the calendar year of 2025. The NPL will support a managed international education system designed to grow sustainably over time. We can't have a system of international education that sets housing economies and employment markets completely out of whack. We need to be careful about how we balance higher education and VET sectors, for example. For publicly funded universities, the managed-growth approach, in aggregate, will result in around 145,000 new overseas student commencements in 2025, which is very close to last year's number. For other providers, in aggregate, their new overseas student commencements in 2025 will be around 30,000. That is about the same as student numbers were before the pandemic. That is where they should be, because that is where a quality VET service to international students was seen. We've got to cut out sham providers and people seeking to come to Australia simply to access the labour market. We will, though, see around— (Time expired) 16:19 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland Senator McKim's motion talks about the government's disregard and contempt for international students. Let's be honest: it's to keep foreign students' numbers uncapped. This motion shows the Greens' disregard and contempt for Australian families experiencing homelessness and mortgage stress. As always, the Greens are putting the interests of foreigners before the interests of the Australian people and Australian university students. There were more than 810,000 international student enrolments in Australian universities as of May this year. That's more than the entire population of Tasmania and the Northern Territory combined. These same universities, which make billions of dollars a year from international education, make insufficient provision to house all these students. Last year it was reported that international students took up about 70 per cent of available rental accommodation in Australia. That's an appalling figure when so many Australian people are struggling with rental vacancy rates in mainland capital cities that have fallen to under one per cent. International students are also affecting the quality of education for Australian students, who are being left behind. So many of them cannot speak English and sit in lectures and seminars with their phones translating for them or get lectures in Mandarin. The Greens must learn a simple fact: record immigration and international student numbers are hurting this country while the Greens advocate for more immigration, more refugees and, now, more international students. Australia owes nothing to foreigners that it does not first owe to Australian citizens. In fact, our universities, built and funded by Australian taxpayers, cost approximately $20 billion to $25 billion a year, and that includes student loans. They are classified as charities and don't pay tax. We have the bull by the horns if we now believe foreign students are more important than Aussies when it comes to educational and living standards. As for Senator McKim, he is trying to use foreign students to prop up the University of Tasmania, regardless of the impact on housing, while rents in Tasmania have doubled and vacancy rates in Hobart have fallen to less than 1½ per cent. 16:21 Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 South Australia I, too, rise to speak on this matter of urgency moved by Senator McKim, and on one thing we agree: the value of Australia's international education sector. It is a vital part of our economy, and international students are a valuable part of our communities. That's why it's important that we progress reforms that strengthen the sector's integrity and sustainability. Such reforms will ensure that students have a brilliant experience in Australia and go on to be proud ambassadors for our country and our values when they return home. I want to make it absolutely clear that our government is committed to this sector and its future. That's why, subject to the passage of legislation which is currently before the Senate, the government will set a national planning level for new overseas student commencements of 270,000 for 2025, divided between the higher education and the VET sectors. Since the pandemic, international enrolment numbers have surged more strongly than anyone expected and, unfortunately, some of these enrolments are people who seek to work in Australia, not study. That needs to happen through the appropriate pathways. We have also clearly seen a resurgence of unscrupulous operators who are focused on profit over delivering quality education. That leads to bad outcomes for students—students whom we want to have an amazing and transformative experience in our education system; students whom, as I said, we want to return to their countries with nothing but positivity and share with others about their time in Australia and the education that they received here. That's why the government has taken these measures to deliver sustainable growth for our international education system into the future. This policy will ensure that students coming to Australia can be confident that they are investing in a high-quality education and study experience. Since the pandemic we have seen that the previous, unmanaged system presented unacceptable risks to the quality of international education received by students and that it would ultimately undermine the strength of our sector and its reputation internationally. The government has released indicative international student profiles, using a transparent formula that has been designed to ensure that regional universities, in particular, whose enrolments have generally not returned to prepandemic levels, have room to recover from the pandemic and continue to grow. These proposals do not decimate the sector, as this motion claims. They do not cut enrolments by 90 per cent or any of the other misleading numbers that members of this chamber have claimed. The fact is that, overall, public universities will be able to take roughly the same number of new students next year as they did last year. For publicly funded universities, our government's approach will result in around 145,000 new overseas student commencements in 2025, which is close to last year's number. Senator Henderson ZN4 Regional universities are going backwards. Only the group of eight are— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x Senator Henderson, you were heard in silence. Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 I thought it was my turn to speak, but that's alright. I'll keep going. Almost all universities—89 per cent—have received an indicative allocation for 2025 at or above their 2019 level. That includes the three great universities in my home state of South Australia, all of which have received an indicative allocation higher than their new overseas student commencements in 2023. Honourable senators interjecting— Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 I have interjections about misinformation from the Greens, which is hilarious. Perhaps, Acting Deputy President, you could— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT e5x I would remind senators that others are being heard in silence, and I would appreciate the same courtesy. Senator Smith, you have the call. Senator MARIELLE SMITH 281603 After nine years of mismanagement by those opposite, we are working to get our higher education sector back on track. We are trying to do so in a way which advances and supports a quality international education offering and which leads to a positive experience for students when they come to Australia. We're also doing what we can to support those students in Australia for whom university is the pathway that they prefer, that they choose and that they seek to have a transformational benefit from—for Australian students to be able to go to university—and we're supporting them to do so by wiping $3 billion in student debt for more than three million Australians. We're making higher education more accessible and more affordable for students. That follows the landmark Australian Universities Accord final report which contains 47 recommendations and targets to reform higher education and set it up for the next decade and beyond. We're already progressing this work by committing to suburban hubs and regional university study hubs and expanding access to First Nations students in particular. I visited a number of these student hubs around regional South Australia. They offer a huge benefit to students who wish to further their education but do so in a way where they can stay at home, continue studying at home and continue studying their prac placements at home. 16:26 Senator DAVID POCOCK 256136 Australian Capital Territory The Senate committee inquiry into the government's Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Quality and Integrity) Bill 2024, or ESOS, has heard overwhelming evidence of a bill that has been rushed, poorly drafted, poorly consulted on and which presents serious risks to the higher education sector, including the already record low research funding levels, as well as the economy more broadly. That's not to say that the government's objectives are wrong. The integrity measures are welcome and much needed. There is a genuine issue in some courses in some organisations with an over enrolment of international students leading to poor student outcomes. No-one can deny that housing affordability is one of the biggest issues we face. A strategy for immigration—how big Australia gets—is needed. I believe that is something Australians want, but this bill, as drafted, doesn't deal with those issues. There are a range of sensible amendments that could make this legislation more workable, but there must be a delay in implementation. It is getting so close to the start of the next university year. We simply cannot risk the reputational damage from rescinding offers that are already out there—that students are planning for next year. We can't risk the hit to the economy from slowing too quickly our biggest non-mining export industry. I cannot see how government and higher education providers can possibly be in a position to implement this in a matter of months. We need to delay the start date, put a safety net and a buffer around the caps, provide a process to challenge individual caps and sunset the extraordinary powers that this bill gives the minister. I urge the government and the coalition to work in good faith with the sector to get a good outcome for such an important part of our economy and the staff and students at its heart. 16:29 Senator BARBARA POCOCK BFQ South Australia I rise to speak to this urgency motion and to the dire state of our university sector. I know, after 25 years working in the sector, that public higher education fulfils a vital role in society and the benefits are broad-reaching, and I've witnessed the extraordinary strain in the sector. Universities educate workers of the future, equipping them with the skills, knowledge and critical thinking that we need for democratic participation and inclusion in a constantly changing labour market. This week is Social Sciences Week. Not a week goes by without this place being dependent on the work of social scientists: their research and their training of people who inform all of our work in this place. High-quality, accessible education serves the public good and should be adequately funded by governments. Students should have fee-free access to a safe and effective learning environment, and staff need secure jobs and pay. Inadequate public funding and the gradual corporatisation of Australian universities has eroded the quality of research, teaching and employment. The future of public university hangs in the balance, and this cap on international students will only make things worse—much worse. Rather than address the structural issue of chronic university underfunding, this government would rather scapegoat international students and blame them for the housing and cost-of-living crises. Australian universities have been chronically underfunded for decades. The structural crises in university funding and workforce reflect decades of punitive restructuring and underfunding, and they pushed deregulation and privatisation that's been underway in our sector since the mid-1980s. Federal funding for universities between 1995 and 2021 declined by $6.5 billion. That equates to almost half of current higher education funding. In addition, Australian universities are experiencing an epidemic of insecure and casualised employment. It's been going on for years. If this bill is passed, it will put a further 14,000 university jobs at risk, according to the sector. I know what this means for research and the quality of teaching in our Australian higher education system. Make no mistake: this is an appalling migration policy masquerading as an education policy. This bill is a political smokescreen that the government hopes will give it an upper hand in its political battle with Peter Dutton on migration ahead of the next election. This is wrong on so many counts. International students accounted for more than half of Australia's GDP growth last year, almost single-handedly saving the nation from recession. International students are more than numbers or commodities; they bring culture and vibrancy to our cities, towns and campuses. International students pay astronomical fees, yet too often face bias, discrimination and racism. In my home state of South Australia, international education is the largest export sector. In 2023 it was worth over $3 billion to our state economy, and our community in South Australia would be so much worse off on so many counts without our international graduates. In the hearings about the international student caps, the Deputy Vice-Chancellor of the University of Adelaide, Professor Jennie Shaw, said, 'The imposition of caps endangers the future prosperity of South Australia.' The president of the Flinders University Student Association also said that the government's measures over the past 12 months have left international students feeling completely dehumanised. There was universal opposition to this chaotic and reckless bill at the inquiry hearings. The higher education sector will be collateral damage in this race to the bottom and race to the Right on migration between Labor and the Liberals. The government must scrap the caps and immediately get rid of ministerial direction 107. They must go back to the drawing board. They must genuinely consult with the higher education sector and restore public funding to these critical institutions which are so important to the economic, social and cultural health and richness of our country. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB The question is that the motion moved by Senator Faruqi be agreed to.    

The Senate divided. [16:38]
(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Bilyk)

 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. 26 NOES Ayres, T. Babet, R. Bilyk, C. L. Brown, C. L. Canavan, M. J. Chandler, C. Chisholm, A. Ciccone, R. Colbeck, R. M. Darmanin, L. Ghosh, V. Green, N. L. Grogan, K. Henderson, S. M. Kovacic, M. (Teller) McAllister, J. R. O'Neill, D. M. 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. 0 PAIRS

Question negatived.

Cattle Industry 77 16:41 The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB The Senate will now consider the proposal from Senator Canavan and Senator Ciccone, which has also been circulated and is shown on the Dynamic Red: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The significant impact that the European Union Deforestation Regulation will likely have on Australian beef producers because of the EU's definition of forest and uncertainty about its implementation; and hence the consequent need to delay the implementation of the Regulation until these matters can be resolved. Is consideration of the proposal supported? More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT HZB With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips. 16:42 Senator CANAVAN 245212 Queensland I, and also on behalf of Senator Ciccone, move: That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: The significant impact that the European Union Deforestation Regulation will likely have on Australian beef producers because of the EU's definition of forest and uncertainty about its implementation; and hence the consequent need to delay the implementation of the Regulation until these matters can be resolved. I recognise the great achievements of the Australian cattle industry. It's an industry that has existed in this country from pretty much the inception of European settlement here in Australia. In fact, the First Fleet brought over the first herd, so to speak—four cows and two bulls. They were put out to pasture on Bennelong Point, where the Sydney Opera House now stands. It didn't go so well because they escaped from that area within weeks, and the first settlers lost them. But it was actually a happy circumstance because around 20 years later they found this herd of cattle south of Sydney that had flourished; hundreds of cows had bred and naturally grazed on Australian pasture lands. There was no human development, no clearing of land; it was just a natural place where cows could survive and ultimately build the cattle industry we have. I remember being at a meeting in Normanton where Fred Pascoe, a great Indigenous leader, spoke about how the cattle industry is now part of his people's culture. He is part-owner, with other Indigenous leaders, of the Delta Downs cattle station in the Gulf of Carpentaria. The cattle industry is part of our country's heritage and history, and it's why there's been such a reaction from the industry to the attempt of another nation's government—another colonial power—to take over and dictate what Australian graziers should do on their own lands and properties, including Indigenous Australians who run their own cattle properties now. The European Union, a few years ago, introduced a new set of regulations called the deforestation regulations. They cover a range of products, but the one I'm focusing on is beef. In short, those regulations mean that in areas of Australia that the EU deems forest land we will not be able to raise, graze and ultimately produce beef from cattle. If any cow sets foot in an area the European Union deems forested area, it won't be able to be exported as a beef product or other animal product to the EU. I think this is gross overreach into the sovereignty of another nation. It should be the job of an elected representative body either here in Canberra or at state level to decide how our land is regulated in such a detailed way. But you also, of course, get the normal problems when other governments—on the other side of the world, in this case—seek to dictate what should be best for the environment and for agricultural production in a part of the world they obviously know very little about. The European Union's regulations have a number of challenges for our graziers. Those regulations dictate that, of any area that has a canopy of five metres or above, over 10 per cent is deemed forest land. Consistent with my example from the First Fleet, a lot of our pastoral lands have not been cleared. They are naturally part of the environment already available for cattle grazing, even with a large amount of woodlands on them. It's very different from the European situation, where they have very thick forests and, to graze cattle, they have to clear those forests. That's not necessarily the case in Australia, where there is lots of downs country that is naturally formed in that way, or it has been slightly cleared over time but it's been part of our practice to do that. The Europeans have put out maps of the forest areas that they reckon exist in Australia. They've taken it upon themselves to map our own country. That area covers 144 million hectares, not far off the size of Victoria, and 44 per cent of the green blotches the EU have on their map are actually grazing lands in Australia. There remain huge issues with the implementation of the EU regulations. They haven't finalised the country-benchmarking scheme. There is no clarity for our beef industry on how they would comply with these regulations. The reason we're moving this motion is to respectfully ask the European Union to look again at these regulations and to defer their implementation. We're not the only country in this boat, asking for a deferral. We ask that they look properly at this issue and not seek to overregulate another part of the world that they don't really understand, understandably, which will only actually worsen environmental outcomes here in Australia and cause economic damage to the relationship that we have with our friends in Europe. We should work together on these issues, not seek to pass laws against each other's nations, ignorant of the facts on the ground. 16:47 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I thank Senator Canavan for that contribution and also for working constructively with Senator Ciccone on this motion, because this is an important issue for our country and for our cattle industry and beef producers in particular. As a Queensland senator I understand the importance of the cattle industry to my state, and, in my new role as Assistant Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, I have enjoyed the engagements I've had with the cattle industry across Australia at the same time. It is an issue that is important to our economy, but it's also important to many regional places. I was in Cloncurry and Mount Isa last week, and it was a topic that came up for discussion amongst the mayors and community members that I engaged with whilst I was in that part of the world, which obviously has a really proud history in terms of beef cattle, particularly the export trade. This specific issue is important. It is something that the government are taking seriously, and we understand the role that we have to play in supporting our industry in this country. We are committed to combating deforestation, and we understand the European Union's concerns about the rate of deforestation globally. Like the European Union, we understand the critical importance of forest biodiversity and sustainable land use. The European Union is a close trading partner of Australia's, and we look forward to working with them on areas of mutual interest. As Senator Canavan said, that is something that we have a strong history on in the past and that we would seek to continue on this matter. The government is committed to halting and reversing net forest loss and land degradation by 2030. Australia and the European Union are both signatories to the Glasgow Leaders' Declaration on Forests and Land Use, the Forest & Climate Leaders' Partnership and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. We have a well-established institutional framework to support the conservation and sustainable management of forests. However, we are concerned about the complexity and regulatory burden that the European Union Deforestation Regulation will place on our agricultural exporters, in a market that already has high costs of entry—a concern that is shared strongly by industry. As we have continued to do since coming into government, we will support and advocate for our agriculture sector when it comes to arbitrary measures imposed by trading partners. The Albanese Labor government has undertaken significant advocacy with the European Commission on the European Union deforestation regulation since forming government. These steps have included a submission on Australia's forest status provided to the European Commission on 30 June 2023 supporting our advocacy for a low-risk-country rating. On 6 May 2024 Senator Watt, in his former capacity as Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, wrote to the European Union environment commissioner calling for a delay of commencement beyond 30 December 2024 and outlining a range of issues with the European Union deforestation regulation, including a lack of clarity, slow development of European Union information technology systems and insufficient preparedness among member state competent authorities, all of which could potentially have an adverse impact on Australia's agriculture trade. There have been a range of government officials meetings and exchanges of correspondence with European Unions counterparts to seek clarity on specific destinational issues to ensure that the European Union understands Australia's agriculture and forest management practices, including our national forest maps, to increase the accuracy of the European Union global forest cover dataset, although the European Commission confirmed that they are preparing additional formal guidance for trading partners with respect to agricultural use, grazing intensity and frequency, set-aside land and plantation forest, among other topics that Australia has raised with them directly. We are still waiting, and our advocacy will continue. The government continues to engage with the European Union on the regulation to seek clarity and to support our agricultural industry's efforts to comply with the regulation. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry recently completed work to assess the implication for Australia's trade, which involved industry stakeholder engagement, in-depth trade analysis and ongoing engagement with the union. Separately, we continue to work closely with like-minded countries to raise specific concerns about the European Union deforestation regulation, including with the WTO. We are supporting Australian led industry initiatives to respond to the European regulation, including an ag trace project led by the Food Agility Cooperative Research Centre. We call on the European Union to delay implementation of the European Union deforestation regulation until the uncertainties around its implementation are resolved. 16:51 Senator WHISH-WILSON 195565 Tasmania Deforestation is a significant contributor to emissions and therefore to climate change. So, avoiding deforestation—in which Australia, sadly, is a world leader—is taking climate action. I expected that the LNP would bring on a motion like this, because they spent the last decade in government in this place doing whatever they could to undermine climate action. But I am surprised that the Labor Party would co-sign and join this motion. I'm not surprised about the timing. We had farmers here yesterday protesting, so the timing of this is no doubt designed to try to give the Labor Party some cover in trying to keep farmers on side. Let me tell you a little bit about deforestation. Documents obtained by the Wilderness Society by freedom of information revealed that the government was seeking assurances from the EU in relation to its deforestation import regulation and that Australia ought to be considered a low risk for deforestation, because it claims that Australia has a robust environmental law that supports the protection and sustainable use of our forests. Well, Australia's environment minister, Tanya Plibersek, has described the environment law as broken and recognised that under these laws deforestation is a significant problem. So, which one is it? The law is currently going through a supposed reform, and no doubt this is something we are going to be acting on. As the good senator from the government said, the Australian government is also a signatory to a global Glasgow leaders' declaration to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030. There is a quote from the Wilderness Society that I really like, from Adele Chasson, Corporate Campaigner for the Wilderness Society: The government can't seem to keep its story straight on Australia's deforestation problem. The Australian government is telling the world Australia is a global leader on environment issues, all while asking for delays and exemptions to the EU's flagship deforestation regulation. At the same time, they are undertaking a tumultuous environment reform process to, at least in part, tackle a serious and admitted deforestation problem. Well, we now know that the laws around deforestation aren't going to come before this parliament, and I reckon we'll be bloody lucky if they come before the next parliament, having been in this place for nearly 13 years and having seen how little attention, focus and priority is put on climate action. So, let's call this out for what it is. This is an attempt, on behalf of a vested interest—the beef industry—who want to have a low carbon footprint. The MLA and others have actually been ahead of the government in their emissions reduction targets, and consumers want to buy zero-carbon beef, as they do in the EU. And good on the EU for having strict regulations. I hope they stick to it. I hope they force Australia to step up and do something about avoiding deforestation and tackling this issue. Maybe then we'll be the world leaders we claim to be in environmental and climate— (Time expired) 16:55 Senator BROCKMAN 30484 Western Australia It's not surprising the Greens stand up in here supporting the taking over of Australian sovereignty by ideological fellow travellers from overseas. The fact is that Australia should set the rules for Australian farmers as to how they operate in what is considered forest country in Australia. We should not have those rules imposed on us from outside by another party. I consider myself a strong free-trader. It's one of the reasons I thought very hard before speaking out against a prospective free trade deal with the EU, because, quite frankly, the EU have history in this space. They have a strong focus on trying to control the countries they do business with and how they operate and, quite frankly, this is not acceptable. This is not an acceptable way for an international player to operate, and it's not an acceptable way for an Australian government to take those approaches lightly. We should push back; we need to push back. We need to defend the rights of this place, this parliament, to make decisions for Australia. We need to support great industries, like the Australian beef industry, who do a lot in this area to manage the plains type environments, open savanna type environments that Senator Canavan talked about, where there is a mixture of agricultural activity, trees, landscapes. We have great Australian businesses operating in that sort of an environment. We don't need rules and regulations being imposed on Australian beef producers in this way by a foreign actor. This isn't the only space where the European Union in particular has sought to interfere in other countries. We've seen it in the use of some chemicals. A chemical like glyphosate is extraordinarily important to the broadacre farming sector in Western Australia particularly, but also right across Australia. Without chemicals like glyphosate, broadacre farming would be forced to either shut down or return to the old methods of tilling. The environmental damage that would be done if we were forced to abandon no-till approaches to agriculture would be simply extraordinary, to the point where it would probably be either completely inefficient or extraordinarily destructive to do. The idea that we would accept the judgement of other countries who do have other imperatives driving this—as Senator Canavan said, the type and nature of forest cover in Europe, given their long, long history of intensive agricultural production, is very different to Australia. As are their soil types and the kinds of agriculture they undertake. They're much heavier soils than in Australia and the use of chemicals such as glyphosate are less important to their farming systems, on a relative basis, than they are in Australia. So we have to be very careful when considering our relationships with other countries and other foreign organisations like the European Union. Looking at the incentives that are driving their decisions, they aren't always just about positive environmental messages. Often there are underlying reasons for the settings they seek to put in place, the settings they seek to impose on other countries. These settings actually give them a relative economic advantage. That's their job, and I don't think we should find anything particularly surprising in that. But when making decisions in this country, we have to make them in the best interests of this country. That is why I'm very happy to support Senator Canavan in this urgency motion. 16:59 Senator CICCONE 281503 Victoria I rise to speak on the urgency motion before us today, and I'm proud to co-sponsor with Senator Canavan, someone who I know is a big supporter of the Australian beef producers, which are very important for our economy. Like many in this place, I am very passionate about advocating for Australian agriculture. I celebrate the jobs that it creates, the communities that it supports around the country, particularly in regional parts of Australia, and the significant contribution that it makes to our economy nationally. From the outset, I would like to particularly acknowledge the role of the beef industry in our ag sector. It's my view and the view of many, thankfully, that our country's reputation as a high-quality, safe and sustainable producer of beef is something that all Australians should be very proud of. In fact, we're also clean and well respected around the world, having some of the best agricultural products. We are renowned for what our farmers do to make sure that we can deliver not just for us to consume here but for us to export internationally. That is why we are a global leader. It's for very, very good reasons, as any person who enjoys a steak or sausage on their barbeque would understand. According to Meat & Livestock Australia, the total value of Australian beef and veal exports amounts to almost $11 billion, with the export trade accounting for approximately 70 per cent of beef production in Australia. In fact, we are one of the largest beef exporting countries in the world, with only Brazil outpacing us for T-bones shipped. You don't get to be that big without a commitment to reaching and maintaining high standards of quality and safety. You also don't get to stay that big without an equally strong commitment to sustainability and sound land management practices. I am the co-chair of the Parliamentary Friends of Red Meat with my friend Senator McDonald. I know we constantly enjoy hosting these events here at Parliament House to promote the benefits of our cattle producers, red meat and butchers and the fine work that the many men and women in the industry do every single day to feed Australians right across the country. We also educate our parliamentary colleagues, particularly those on the crossbench who failed to understand the benefits that people in this industry actually deliver for many regional communities and communities in metropolitan parts of Melbourne. These jobs are part of the whole supply chain. That always gets ignored and neglected by those on the crossbenches. But it is important also to make the point that we who constantly go out to regional parts of Australia see firsthand the commitment of these Australians who do the work every single day, as I and many others in this place have seen. It is with pride that I must say that the demand for Australian beef is at a record high. Indicators are that, in the future, it will only continue to grow. This is very, very good news for the thousands of jobs that it supports across regional and rural parts of Australia. In 2021-22, for example, over 430,000 people were employed in Australia's meat and livestock industry. From the direct jobs of our many producers, who wake up at the crack of dawn, to the additional industries like transport, veterinary services and meat processing, the jobs it provides are critical. The commitment of the industry and the government to sustainability and constant improvement in livestock practices will play an important role in ensuring that we keep our status as a leader in beef production. But I'm concerned at what the implementation of the European Union Deforestation Regulation would mean for our beef producers. I'm concerned about the complexity of the measures and the regulatory burden that it would create, and I know beef producers share this concern, as does the government. Like all governments should be, ours is committed to combating deforestation and reversing net forest loss. Like the EU, we appreciate the importance of our forests and sustainable agricultural practices. This has been mentioned by the former minister Murray Watt when he spoke at beef week in Rockhampton, where he articulated the government's call on the EU to delay the implementation of the regulation. 17:04 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Last year the European Union regulation on deforestation-free products entered into force. It ceased to control deforestation worldwide using a devious trick: requiring proof that products imported into the EU did not originate from recently deforested land or contribute to forest degradation—products like Australian cattle and wood, as well as derived products like leather, chocolate and furniture. It does seem inconsistent to One Nation that the two parties, Liberal-National and Labor, who just voted through a bill to prevent illegally logged timber coming into Australia, now oppose a measure to stop the same material being exported from Australia to the EU. One Nation, on the other hand, opposes both measures. Trying to control deforestation through holding food and building materials hostage is the long way around the block. It introduces compliance costs, and it's impossible to confidently determine the status of products. It's easier to use satellite imaging to identify and take direct action against illegal logging. Using the European Union approach allows for politics to enter into the equation. It allows greenmail, it allows tit-for-tat sanctions on spurious environmental grounds and it gives life to bureaucracies that should not exist. For instance, define 'recently cleared land'. In Australia, farmers will let fields go fallow for several years, after which there is some vegetation growth, which is cleared to return the field to use. It's bad enough that farmers have to put up with idiot greenies crying over junk vegetation being mulched to enrich the soil. Now we must put up with the European Union bureaucrats joining them. Seriously, our farmers won't be able to feed and clothe the world with the layers of stupid regulation being heaped on them. They're the best farmers in the world. They know what they're doing. I don't know how we can influence the European Union on this matter, yet One Nation is happy to support the motion. At some point, hunger might inspire an awakening of commonsense across Europe and across the Liberals, Nationals and Labor to stop pushing climate fraud and its allies and to stop pushing net zero. 17:07 Senator McDONALD 123072 Queensland I also rise to support this urgency matter, and I thank Senator Canavan and Senator Ciccone for providing a bipartisan position of reason on this matter. To be clear, this is not about environmental management or protection. This is not about diversity. This is not about habitat protection. This is nothing more than a cheap, non-tariff barrier to trade. What this will do is ensure that Australian beef producers and, I'm concerned, other agricultural producers, like blueberry and cane farmers, will also bear the brunt of these EU deforestation regulations. We don't have a huge beef market into the EU—it is a very premium market—but what we do have are markets for things like cattle hides, markets that could otherwise no longer exist because of the crazy rhetoric on pleather and other fake leather products, on motor vehicles and on other things. But I digress. What I am concerned about is that we are going to have a non-elected, non-Australian organisation restricting Australian farmers from being able to export into this market and, worse, that these restrictions will be picked up by other countries. When we start seeing these same standards which are unclear and undefined creeping into other regions and other trade markets, this is incredibly dangerous. We know that, over the last five years, since 2019, we have seen 10,000 pages of legislation on this matter. That equates to about 15 pages a day that farmers are expected to manage. This is outrageous because food production, fibre production, is the most important that we can do for humans. We eat three times a day, and the quality of food that we produce should be protected. Our farming expertise should be protected and encouraged. As I've already said, this is a non-tariff barrier to trade and is going to restrict Australian farmers. Worse, we're not sure where it stops. This is an incredibly important precedent that has to be pulled up. I think that the lack of definition, of Q&As provided and of advice means that we are trying to manage a regulation that is unclear and complex, and it is an unreasonable regulatory burden to put on people who are doing such important work. I'm from northern Australia. I also want to flag what this will mean to the development of northern Australia. From Cape York right across the Northern Territory, this will stop any future development of agriculture and, potentially, mining. This is a shocking piece of regulation that we should hold out against at every opportunity. Already we're seeing companies like Woolworths and banks adopt some of these allegedly science based target initiatives, but I'm here to tell you that they are not about environmental management. They are a restriction that we should be very afraid of. I want to call out to Woolworths and any other retailers here in Australia: if you think adopting these measures is going to be in the interests of Australian farmers or Australian consumers, you are wrong. You will restrict their ability to farm, and, worse, the contagion may mean that we will see other regions and other trade areas for Australia also restricted. This is dangerous stuff. Wars are fought over food production. Food security, food reliability and, particularly, the high standards of Australian produce are things that we should nurture, encourage and protect. To have these EU deforestation regulations that are not about the environment but about non-tariff barriers to trade is dangerous. We should be very afraid of what this could do to both our beef industry and farmers more broadly, and I urge the government to hold out against it and ensure that our farmers are protected at all costs. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 82 DOCUMENTS Consideration 82 COMMITTEES 82 COMMITTEES Scrutiny of Bills Committee 82 Scrutiny Digest 82 17:13 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales On behalf of the Chair of the Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Senator Dean Smith, I present Scrutiny digest 11 of 2024, together with ministerial correspondence received by the committee. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee 82 Government Response to Report 82 17:13 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I present the government response to the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee on the provisions of the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023 and a related bill. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to have the document incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows— Australian Government response to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee report: Inquiry into Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023 [Provisions] and Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 [Provisions] SEPTEMBER 2024 Introduction On 16 November 2023 the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defence, the Hon Richard Marles MP, introduced the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023 [Provisions] and Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 [Provisions] (together, the ANNPS bills). These bills are a significant legislative step in delivering a conventionally armed, nuclear- powered submarine capability for Australia under AUKUS, building on the Defence Legislation Amendment (Naval Nuclear Propulsion) Act 2023. The legislation is specifically focused on ensuring Australia maintains the highest level of nuclear safety in respect of conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarines by establishing a new regulatory framework, including an independent regulator, to ensure nuclear safety within Australia's conventionally-armed, nuclear-powered submarine enterprise. The Senate referred the ANNPS bills to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 26 April 2024. On 16 April 2024, the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee tabled a progress report requesting to extend the reporting date. The Committee subsequently tabled its final report on 13 May 2024. The Government's response to the recommendations of the Report follows below. The Government thanks the Committee for its work on the bills. Government Response to the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Report: Inquiry into Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023 [Provisions] and Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety (Transitional Provisions) Bill 2023 [Provisions] Dissenting Recommendations (Australian Greens) The Government notes the comments and recommendations in the Australian Greens' Dissenting Report, and further notes that the stated policy position of The Greens is that Australia should withdraw from the AUKUS Agreement. While the Government does not agree with this position, a substantive response to the recommendations is provided below. Additional comments by Senator Lidia Thorpe The Government notes the additional comments by Senator Thorpe, in particular the Senator's stated opposition to AUKUS. While the Government does not agree with this position, a substantive response to the Senator's recommendations is provided below. 17:13 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. 17:14 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I rise to speak on the government response to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee report on the Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill 2023. We asked for the usual courtesy of an early provision of the government's response. We weren't afforded that courtesy; it's Defence, so there's a love of secrecy. It is a bit odd in this case because it's now been made public by being tabled, but we asked for the usual courtesy and we weren't granted the usual courtesy. I think that speaks to the ongoing frustration many people have with the way Defence treats parliament and democratic oversight. It's part of a pattern of aggressive nondisclosure that comes from Defence. This bill was first presented in 2023. It proposes to set up a standalone naval nuclear regulator. The government thought they could just wave it through because the impetus of AUKUS would somehow drive the parliament to wave this through without close scrutiny. The difficulty the government had was the bill not only deals with an incredibly controversial matter of public interest—putting in place a regulatory regime to deal with nuclear powered submarines—and brings into that the growing public disquiet and opposition to the AUKUS project—last time I checked, the AUKUS project was not much more popular than the Labor Party; I think it had about 33 per cent public support, and it was falling. There were those matters of genuine public interest with the subject matter. When the bill was actually read by my office and subject matter experts, it became clear that it was a dangerous and reckless proposal from the Albanese government in a number of ways. The first way in which it is dangerous and reckless is that it's proposing a standalone regulator for naval nuclear propulsion, and it proposes that that regulator report to the defence minister and be oversighted by the defence minister. The defence minister is at least notionally the person in charge of the Australian Defence Force. Where you have both the operator and the regulator of a nuclear facility or facilities responsible to the same minister, you have a shameful lack of independence. One of the non-negotiable minimum standards under the International Atomic Energy Agency for nuclear regulation—and that's whether it's civilian or military—and one of the non-negotiable key safety features the International Atomic Energy Agency requires for a nuclear regulator is legal, structural and practical independence from the operator. The United States, for its nuclear submarine project, addresses that by having both the Department of Energy and the Department of the Navy as co-regulators of its naval nuclear propulsion. The UK has a blended form of regulation, with both civilian and military regulators forming a combined regulator of the UK naval nuclear propulsion ecosystem. Australia decided to reject both of those and come up with its own model, which literally has the regulator solely reporting to the defence minister and indeed giving the defence minister the power to direct the regulator as well—a critical, inherent and fundamental flaw in the legislation. The second issue that became apparent on a close reading of the legislation was that it was putting in place a regulatory system that was giving the defence minister, through regulation, the power to nominate anywhere in the country—whether public land or private land, defence land or not defence land—to be a high-level nuclear waste dump. This is in circumstances where Australia has failed to get a low-level nuclear waste facility approved, because of the intense opposition from First Nations traditional owners and local communities. The government attempts to avoid all of that by creating an absolute power, in the defence minister, to nominate anywhere in the country, at any point and without any process, to be a high-level nuclear waste dump. This dump would take the most toxic nuclear waste on the planet, which is highly radioactive material, including the reactor components and spent nuclear fuel from highly enriched uranium that is in UK and US nuclear submarines and potentially Australian nuclear submarines. The community couldn't believe that the government was proposing to give that absolutely unrestrained power to the defence minister. They were appalled by the proposal. The third aspect which really set an irradiated cat amongst the pigeons was the decision by whoever the genius drafters of the bill were—someone in Defence, no doubt—to permit the United States and the United Kingdom to dump their nuclear waste at any one of these nuclear waste facilities to be created at the stroke of a pen by the defence minister. The legislation automatically creates a nuclear waste facility just off Perth, on Garden Island, and another nuclear waste facility in Port Adelaide, 10 kays from the Adelaide CBD. It is already creating those two nuclear waste facilities. The legislation then said that it would be permissible to dump nuclear waste from an AUKUS submarine in not only those two facilities but any other facility in the country. And an AUKUS submarine is defined in the act to be a UK sub, a US sub or an Australian sub. We know that the UK, for example, has a couple of dozen rusting hulks of nuclear submarines chock-full of highly irradiated reactor parts and highly enriched uranium that they don't have a solution for. You can go on Google and look at them. The United States has a similar problem of rusting hulks of nuclear submarines tied up and chock-a-block with high-level nuclear waste. They're just looking for some sucker to take all their nuclear waste, and in walks the Albanese government, which puts its hand up and says, 'We'll take all your high-level nuclear waste.' Is it any wonder that the community was in revolt about this? At every hearing we went to we heard the same thing: How could they possibly be doing this? How reckless! There's no independence in the regulator, no community consultation, and we're taking US and UK high-level nuclear waste. Who came up with this stuff? The answer, it appears, is Minister Marles and his genius advisers in the Australian Submarine Agency; that's who came up with it. We now see that the government is moving to make some minor changes, and we welcome what we understand these changes to be. There'll be some form of community consultation, some form of slightly greater independence, in terms of the senior positions, in the new nuclear regulator. This wouldn't have happened without a widespread community campaign. When we first raised the issue of the high-level waste being from US and UK submarines, at the end of last year, we had the defence minister come out and say it was Greens scaremongering. He actually got a front-page headline in the Sydney Morning Herald saying it was Greens scaremongering. They now realise it's a significant issue, but they'll be moving an amendment that is grossly inadequate. The legislation is still permitting high-level nuclear waste, if it's contaminated reactor parts or cooling rods, to be dumped in Australia. There will be a lot more to be said on this when we read in detail the response and consider the amendments. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Public Accounts and Audit Joint Committee 90 Government Response to Report 90 17:24 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland On behalf of the Chair of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the government response to the report of the committee on its inquiry into Commonwealth grants administration. In accordance with the usual practice, I seek leave to incorporate the document in Hansard. Leave granted. The document read as follows— Australian Government response to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit Report 495: Inquiry into Commonwealth grants administration September 2024 Response to the Committee's Recommendations Recommendation 1 2.93 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government implement the recommendation from JCPAA Report 484 to add an eighth principle to the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines that decision makers should adhere to the guidelines, which the previous Government agreed to but failed to actually implement. Agreed The Government will implement this recommendation through the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Principles 2024 (CGRPs), which come into effect on 1 October 2024. The CGRPs will replace the Commonwealth Grant Rules and Guidelines 2017. The CGRPs include a new key principle for grants administration, 'Consistency with Grant Guidelines and Established Processes'. Officials involved in grants administration must have regard to the key principles (paragraph 4.4b) and entities must put in place practices and procedures to ensure that grants administration is conducted in a manner that is consistent with the key principles (paragraph 6.3). Under this new key principle, the CGRPs make clear that: decisions to award grants should correspond to the guidelines and the published process for the grant opportunity, be based on merit, be transparent and well documented, and align with the objectives of the grant opportunity. grant opportunity guidelines should document the circumstances in which the eligibility or assessment criteria set out in grant opportunity guidelines may be waived or amended, along with the strategies that will be used to mitigate any disadvantage to potential grantees from waiving or amending selection criteria. Decisions to waive or amend eligibility and assessment criteria should be taken by the appropriate decision maker and documented. grant opportunity guidelines should not be changed after the grant opportunity is closed to applications. Decisions to deviate from published guidelines and any amended processes should be documented and appropriately communicated, including whether potential grantees will be provided an opportunity to apply or to revise an application, or whether a new grant opportunity will be issued. Recommendation 2 2.94 The Committee recommends that the Department of Finance amends its Resource Management Guide No. 412—Australian Government Grants—Briefing, Reporting, Evaluating and Election Commitments to clarify the definition of an election commitment for the purpose of delivering grants programs. Agreed The new CGRPs explicitly state that they apply to all forms and types of grants, including election commitments (paragraph 2.4). The Department of Finance will update Resource Management Guide 412 to adopt the definition of election commitment used by the Parliamentary Budget Office. Recommendation 3 2.95 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government amends the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines 2017 to provide that: • Competitive, merit-based processes must be adopted by default with program design guidelines or decision makers required to document appropriately detailed reasons when a non-competitive approach is utilised, acknowledging there are legitimate circumstances where it is appropriate or preferable to do so including urgent situations such as disasters, or instances where there are only limited suitable grant recipients to give effect to election commitments or a policy. • The role of all stakeholders must be disclosed in the published program guidelines for competitive merits-based grants programs, including any who assess or award grant funding and how advocacy and input from MPs and stakeholders is to be considered. • A deadline for the receipt of advocacy letters and stakeholder input should be advised, after which time such input may not be able to be considered as part of the assessment process. • Clear recommendations must be made for each individual grant and that the pooling of 'eligible' recommendations for decision-makers to choose from does not meet this requirement. • Explicit reference be made to Resource Management Guide 412 so officials are fully aware and cognisant of this guidance. • A decision-maker's approval of funding against the recommendations of agency officials must be: clearly recorded, with any refusal or unreasonable delay by decision makers in doing so to be reported to the Minister for Finance at the earliest opportunity; and reported online, including the basis for that approval. This should preferably be in a central location on GrantConnect or at least on the agency's website and be updated within three months of announcements being made. • Any 'other factors' by which grants will be assessed must be: transparently listed and published in program design guidelines to enable applicants to address them, and formally included as part of the assessment criteria and appropriately assessed and scored. Agreed with qualifications The Government agrees with the need to strengthen and provide greater clarity in relation to: the use of merit-based processes (and to document reasons for not using such processes); the role of various stakeholders in grants administration; the process for making recommendations; and recording and reporting requirements. The Government will address the various elements of this recommendation as follows: Competitive, merit-based processes The CGRPs include a new key principle for grants administration, 'Merit-based Processes'. Officials involved in grants administration must have regard to the key principles (paragraph 4.4b) and entities must put in place practices and procedures to ensure that grants administration is conducted in a manner that is consistent with the key principles (paragraph 6.3). This new key principle maintains the existing default position that competitive merit-based selection processes should be used to inform the award of grants unless specifically agreed otherwise by a minister, accountable authority or delegate. However, noting that there are instances where non-competitive processes are appropriate, the principle provides that the rationale for using a different approach to the default should be documented and included in the grant opportunity guidelines. Clarifying stakeholder roles Third parties that undertake grants administration processes on behalf of the Commonwealth must adhere to the key principles and applicable requirements of the CGRPs and the published grant opportunity guidelines. The term 'third party' is defined in the CGRPs to include any person or entity involved in the grants administration process who is not a minister, accountable authority or official, including parliamentarians and external committees. otConsistent with the key principle of 'Governance and Accountability', officials must clearly define the roles of third parties in grants administration (paragraph 14.3), including through the grant opportunity guidelines, operational guidance and entity procedures. This would include, for example, explaining the role of parliamentarians and other stakeholders who will provide advice or recommendations to decision makers (paragraphs 2.10 and 2.11). Finance will also develop guidance to support entities to consider when it may be appropriate for other inputs such as advocacy and representations to be considered in grants decision making, consistent with the key principles of 'Collaboration and Partnership' and 'Probity and Transparency'. Recommendations to decision makers and recording and reporting requirements The CGRPs include new mandatory requirements for strengthened briefing by officials and decision making, recording and reporting by ministers (paragraphs 4.6 and 4.7). In addition to the existing requirements under the CGRGs, officials will be required to provide ministers with clear advice on the merits of grant applications and to indicate which applications can be supported within the available funding. In addition, officials must recommend that applications that do not meet any of the selection criteria be rejected. Officials are also encouraged to make other specific recommendations regarding the grant applications. These recommendations could, for example, be based on other factors outlined in the grant opportunity guidelines (paragraph 4.7(d)). The new key principles of 'Consistency with grant guidelines and established processes' makes clear that grant opportunity guidelines should clearly set out how such factors will be assessed and applied ( paragraph 13.3). In addition to the existing requirements under the CGRGs, the CGRPs will require ministers who are the approvers of grants to record the basis for approving grants that officials have recommended be rejected and the basis for not approving grants which officials have recommended be approved. Ministers must also record in writing any conflicts of interest relating to a grant that they approve (paragraph 4.10). The CGRPs will also require the Minister for Finance to table in each House of Parliament a copy of reports received from ministers under paragraph 4.11(a) (approval of grants in own electorate) and 4.12(a) (approval of grants which officials recommended be rejected), as soon as practicable after the end of each quarter (paragraph 4.13). The decisions by ministers under paragraphs 4.11 and 4.12 must also be recorded on GrantConnect. References to guidance While the CGRPs do not reference specific Resource Management Guides, the CGRPs note that additional guidance, tools and templates are available on the Finance website (paragraph 2.12). This approach is appropriate to ensure guidance material can be updated as required without the need to amend the CGRPs, which is a legislative instrument. The Department of Finance is providing a range of support for officials to support implementation of the CGRPs and exploring further education opportunities to increase awareness and understanding of the grants framework and to improve grants administration. Recommendation 4 2.96 In keeping with the key principles of 'Governance and Accountability' and 'Probity and Transparency' in the administration of Commonwealth grants, the Committee recommends that the Department of Finance develops 'good practice' examples of record-keeping templates with an accompanying checklist that give effect to the rules and principles of the CGRGs that all Commonwealth entities be strongly encouraged to use for any grants or 'grants-like' programs. These templates and checklists should prompt both public officials and ministers to clearly document all decisions and decision-making processes throughout the operation of a grants program. The following requirements are recommended: sample templates and accompanying checklists be developed no later than six months from the date of this report input on template design and accompanying checklists to be sought from the major Commonwealth entities that operate grants programs, Grants Hubs, and from the Australian National Audit Office all Departments of State and other significant grant-making entities be asked to advise the Committee within 6 months of the templates and checklists being finalised how they have now embedded the guidance in their agency's practices. Agreed with qualifications The CGRPs highlight that officials must retain appropriate records, consistent with their obligations under Part 2-3 of the Public Governance Performance and Accountability Act 2013 and the Archives Act 1963 (see CGRPs, paragraph 3.15). Entities must also ensure that they have in place appropriate internal policies and processes that are consistent with the requirements of the CGRPs (paragraph 6.3). The Department of Finance is developing guidance to support officials to implement the new CGRPs. This guidance will include appropriate links to the support and guidance provided by the National Archives of Australia, which sets policy and standards on data management and record security. To support consistency across government, the Department of Finance has developed a range of tools including templates for grant opportunity guidelines and agreements, a checklist for officials who are briefing ministers and templates to assist ministers to report to the Minister for Finance on decisions to award grants in their own electorates or against the advice of officials under paragraphs 4.11 and 4.12. Entities are strongly encouraged to use these templates and checklists. Recommendation 6 2.128 The Committee recommends that the Australian Government amends the Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines 2017 and makes any consequential amendments to other legislation to provide that: The Commonwealth Grants Rules and Guidelines will apply to corporate Commonwealth entities by default unless exceptions are made via legislative instrument issued by the Minister for Finance. Agreed with qualifications Division 6A of Part 2-4 of the PGPA Rule mirrors the existing requirements under the CGRGs where a minister is involved in the making of a Corporate Commonwealth Entity (CCE) grant. Division 6A will be updated to reflect the new obligations applying to ministers under the CGRPs, which come into effect on 1 October 2024. Following the implementation of these amendments, Finance will undertake further work, in consultation with CCEs, to explore whether the remaining elements of the CGRPs should apply to CCEs, and the appropriate mechanism/s to do so. Recommendation 7 3.23 The Committee requests that the Department of Finance reports back to it on its progress in implementing the recommendations of the audit into the grants hubs by the Australian National Audit Office within 12 months of the date of this report. Agreed The Secretary of the Department of Finance wrote to the Chair of the JCPAA on 8 June 2024 providing an update and acquitting this recommendation. A copy of this letter is available on the JCPAA inquiry website. 17:24 Senator CADELL 300134 New South Wales I move: That the Senate take note of the document. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Treaties Joint Committee 93 Report 93 17:24 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia I present the 220th report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation Committee 93 Delegated Legislation Monitor 93 17:24 Senator O'NEILL 140651 New South Wales I present the Delegated legislation monitor No. 10 of 2024 of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation. I also table ministerial correspondence relating to the Delegated legislation monitor No. 11 of 2023. I move: That the Senate take note of the report. This monitor reports on the committee's consideration of 122 legislative instruments registered between 28 June and 22 July 2024. In this monitor, the committee has commented on three new instruments, including the Therapeutic Goods Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Regulations 2024. This instrument supports the vaping reforms introduced by the Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Act, which was recently passed by the parliament. The instrument amends two sets of regulations to specify commercial quantities of vaping goods for the purposes of new offences and civil penalty provisions in the act. The instrument also introduces conditions applying to existing exemptions in the regulations that allow sponsors to lawfully handle therapeutic vaping devices and goods where they were imported or manufactured before 1 March 2024. In this monitor, the committee has raised scrutiny concerns about the broad discretionary powers in the instrument. These powers also appear to be coercive in nature, as they require the production of documents and allow entry to premises. For example, a number of conditions introduced by the instrument require sponsors of vaping devices or goods to allow authorised officers to enter any premises at any reasonable time and enable such officers to make recordings on those premises. While broad discretionary, coercive powers can seriously impact on an individual's rights and liberties, the committee expects these powers will not ordinarily be included in delegated legislation. Where an instrument does include coercive powers, the committee expects that the explanatory statement will explain why this is considered necessary and appropriate. Further, where instruments confer broad discretionary powers, the committee expects the explanatory statement to set out several matters, including the factors the decision-maker will consider in exercising the discretion, who will exercise the discretion, their qualifications or skills, how the public interest is served by including the powers in the instrument and whether independent merits review is available for decisions and actions in connection with these powers. In this monitor, the committee is requesting the Minister for Health and Aged Care's advice about these matters, as they are not addressed in the instrument's explanatory statement. The committee is also raising privacy concerns about several conditions introduced by the instrument. Some of these conditions require sponsors of therapeutic goods and devices to produce documents to an authorised officer and allow them to make copies, enter premises or make recordings. However, the explanatory statement does not explain the nature and scope of the information that might be collected, used or disclosed, whether it may contain personal information or whether any safeguards are in place to protect personal information. Accordingly, the committee is requesting the minister's advice on these matters. The committee has also commented on the Therapeutic Goods (Vaping Goods—Possession and Supply) Determination 2024 as amended by the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989, including a number of offences and civil penalties for the importation, manufacture and commercial supply of therapeutic vaping goods. These instruments are made pursuant to that act and set out vaping goods or classes that may be supplied or possessed in Australia, the persons or classes of persons that may possess or supply the goods and the circumstances and conditions on the possession or supply. The committee is raising scrutiny concerns, as, in doing so, the instruments create exemptions to offence provisions in primary legislation. The committee's longstanding view is that provisions which create exemptions to primary legislation or include significant elements of a regulatory scheme should ordinarily be included in the primary legislation instead of delegated legislation. However, where these provisions are nonetheless included in delegated legislation, the committee expects the explanatory statement to comprehensively justify the nature and scope of the exemptions and explain why it is appropriate to include them in delegated legislation. The committee is therefore requesting the minister's advice as to why it's necessary and appropriate to include the exemptions in the instrument, as this is not detailed in the relevant explanatory statements. Similarly, the committee is concerned that these instruments also confer broad discretionary coercive powers—which enable the production, seizure and inspection of documents or information—and that many of the conditions in the instrument require the collection and disclosure of information which may contain personal information. The committee looks forward to engaging with the minister on these matters and its other concerns as detailed in Delegated legislation monitor 10. The committee has also resolved to lodge protective notices of motion to disallow three instruments examined in this monitor. However, the committee wishes to emphasise that these protective notices of motion are being given to facilitate the committee's consideration of the instruments, and this is prior to the minister having the opportunity to respond to the committee's comments. The timing of these protective notices of motion to disallow are a reflection of the significant number and the complexity of legislative instruments registered in June, at the end of the financial year, and the time taken by the committee and its secretary to scrutinise the high volume of instruments. The protective notices to which I've just referred will be lodged on 17 and 19 September—the last day on which these notices can be lodged—to facilitate the maximum amount of additional time to engage with the minister and resolve the committee's scrutiny concerns. The committee would also like to thank the agencies and ministers that have provided updates to the committee secretariat on the progress of implementing outstanding undertakings in line with the committee's new practice. I'm pleased to advise the chamber that the number of undertakings that have been outstanding for more than 90 days has decreased to 24 matters, and that 12 undertakings have been implemented since 16 August. I reiterate the committee's expectation that undertakings are implemented in a timely manner and that the committee will continue to closely monitor the implementation of outstanding undertakings. With these comments, I commend the committee's Delegated legislation monitor 10 of 2024 to the Senate. Question agreed to. DOCUMENTS 94 DOCUMENTS Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications and the Arts, Ilpeye Ilpeye Estate 94 Order for the Production of Documents 94 17:32 Senator CHISHOLM 39801 Queensland I table documents relating to orders for the production of documents concerning fire ant eradication and helicopter flight permits, and the Ilpeye Ilpeye Trust. BILLS 94 BILLS National Health Amendment (Technical Changes to Averaging Price Disclosure Threshold and Other Matters) Bill 2024 94

National Health Amendment (Technical Changes to Averaging Price Disclosure Threshold and Other Matters) Bill 2024

First Reading 94 17:33 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I move: That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bill read a first time. Second Reading 95 17:33 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows— The National Health Amendment {Technical Changes to Averaging Price Disclosure Threshold and Other Matters) Bill 2024 amends the National Health Act 1953 to clarify the operation of provisions relating to pricing and supply arrangements for older and low-cost medicines. Under the National Health Act 1953, price reductions can occur for multi- branded medicines listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme—these are known as price disclosure price reductions. These price reductions ensure that the subsidy paid by the Commonwealth under the PBS for a particular medicine more closely reflects the price actually paid in the market for a medicine by a pharmacist. This results in price reductions to some medicines on the PBS on 1 April and 1 October of each year. These reductions are based on data submitted to the Department by medicines companies about their sales volume and revenue. A price reduction can occur where the difference between the PBS price and the average market price that the medicine is being sold at meets thresholds in section 99ADH of the Act. Amendments under the Bill clarify provisions that were introduced through the National Health Amendment (Enhancing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme) Act 2021 that implemented reforms negotiated with the medicines industry through Strategic Agreements, to improve access to medicines for Australian patients. The Amendment Act included new prov1s1ons to support supply of the medicines that Australians need and use every day. This was achieved through the 'Medicines Supply Security Guarantee' which included reforms to improve the supply of older, lower cost multi-branded medicines referred to in the Act as 'designated brands'. This Bill will make technical amendments only, which are intended for avoidance of doubt and therefore are not intended to change the operation of the provisions in the Amendment Act which have been in effect since 1 July 2022. The Bill includes amendments that apply retrospectively and prospectively to ensure the understanding of the provisions is consistent with the Parliament's intention when it passed the Amendment Act, removing any possible doubt as to how these provisions have operated to date, and how they will continue to operate. The amendments clarify provisions in section 99ADH of the Act which relate to the 12.5% average unadjusted price reduction test, and section 99ADHC of the Act which relates to the timing of when a brand becomes a designated brand. The amendments to section 99ADH of the National Health Act 1953 reflect the policy intent outlined in the Explanatory Memorandum for the 2021 Act, which states in relation to designated brands with an approved ex-manufacturer price greater than $4: '...there will be no further price reductions under the Act unless, over a period of three consecutive data collection periods (1.5 years),.the brand is discounted on average by 12.5% or more without taking a price reduction, or if the brand is discounted by more than 30% in any one price disclosure cycle' The amendments clarify paragraph 99ADH(6)(b), that for a brand to pass the 12.5% average unadjusted price reduction test, that a price reduction cannot have occurred as a result of calculations using data from the 3 consecutive data collection periods used in the test. Each data collection period is 6 months in duration, therefore 3 consecutive data collection periods results in a period of 1.5 years between a possible price reduction for designated brands that have discounted on average by 12.5% or more in those periods. Section 99ADHC of the National Health Act 1953 sets out the conditions for a brand to be a designated brand and subject to a range of more protective pricing and supply provisions. These provisions include price disclosure thresholds, floor price protections, and the Minister's powers under Division 3CA if a medicine company offers a discount or incentive in relation to sales of a designated brand with an AEMP of $4 or less. Designated brands are also subject to the minimum stockholding requirements under Division 3CAA. As outlined in the Explanatory Memorandum for the Amendment Act in relation to designated brands: 'Where a PBS listed brand is protected by the price reduction floor, it will be subject to a condition that minimum stocks of the brand are held in Australia' As there are various consequences that flow from brand of pharmaceutical item being identified as a 'designated brand', it is necessary to clarify the timing on when a brand becomes a designated brand. The Bill provides a definition of 'previous data collection period' to make clear which data collection period the 'previous data collection period' refers to, which is required to determine whether or not a brand is a designated brand. This in tum ensures it is clear that each of the operative provisions associated with a designated brand are effective from the same date on which a brand becomes a designated brand. The Bill includes prov1s10ns that are retrospective, commencing from 1 July 2022, in the interests of providing certainty to the various medicine supply chain stakeholders due to the inherent complexity associated with the PBS statutory framework. Although the amendments do not change the intended meaning of the provisions, they are made for the avoidance of doubt to avoid potential ambiguity. Therefore, retrospectivity and validation removes any potential doubts regarding past price reductions subsequent to which subsidies have already been paid to approved suppliers by reference to reduced approved ex-manufacturer prices. In conclusion, this Bill includes technical amendments only, that will provide clarity regarding the operation of sections 99ADH and 99ADHC of the National Health Act 1953 that relate to designated brands. These amendments are consistent with the Parliament's intention when it passed the Amendment Act and the overarching policy intent of the price disclosure regime. Debate adjourned. Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024, Family Law Amendment Bill 2024 96

Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024

Family Law Amendment Bill 2024

First Reading 96 17:34 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I move: That these bills may proceed without formalities, may be taken together and be now read a first time. Question agreed to. Bills read a first time. Second Reading 96 17:34 Senator McALLISTER 121628 New South Wales I move: That these bills be read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated into Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows— ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TRIBUNAL (MISCELLANEOUS MEASURES) BILL 2024 The Administrative Review Tribunal (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2024 supports the establishment of the new Administrative Review Tribunal, created by the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (ART Act). The ART Act received Royal Assent on 3 June 2024 and will commence on 14 October 2024. Two additional Acts, containing consequential and transitional amendments to 248 Commonwealth Acts, have also received Royal Assent. The ART legislative package gives effect to the Government's commitment to a establish a new federal administrative review body that is user-focused, efficient, accessible, independent and fair. This Bill completes the establishment of the Tribunal and ensures that existing legislation interacts effectively with it. It amends 52 Commonwealth Acts (including the ART Act). These amendments, which are largely procedural and technical, will: update outdated references to the AAT in legislation currently before Parliament or which has passed the Parliament since the ART legislative package was introduced in December 2023, ensure that the ART Act operates as intended and ensure that it is user-focused, and further harmonise requirements across the statute book to support consistency in the approach to Commonwealth administrative review. The Bill is necessary, and could only be introduced following the passage of the ART Act due to the volume and complexity of interactions between the ART Act and other pieces of Commonwealth legislation—particularly those already before the parliament when the ART package was introduced. While there are transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 that ensure out-of-date references to the AAT in other legislation do not impede its effective operation, it is highly desirable to update those references to ensure legislation is as accessible as possible for Tribunal users. The Bill demonstrates the Government's ongoing commitment to improvement of the federal system of administrative review. Amendments to the ART Act The Bill makes a number of minor changes to the ART Act to improve user experience and ensure the Act's intended operation is clear. For example, the Bill amends the ART Act to exclude the period between 24 December and 14 January from the calculation of the 28-day period from which a party can appeal a decision of the Tribunal to the Federal Court of Australia. This addresses practical difficulties and disadvantages to parties seeking to make an appeal over the holiday period—when many legal assistance providers and law firms have limited staff and capacity to assist. This time period aligns with existing practice within the Federal Courts, and is consistent with the reform's object to improve access to justice. The Bill also clarifies that where an applicant is no longer able to continue with an application for review of a decision for reasons such as death, bankruptcy or liquidation, another person may only apply to continue the proceeding if they would have been able to apply for review of the substantive decision. This will ensure that the ART Act does not conflict with other legislative provisions relating to who has standing to apply to the Tribunal for review. To ensure that persons exercising powers and functions in the Tribunal's Intelligence and Security jurisdictional area are of an appropriate level of seniority and experience, the Bill makes amendments to ensure that these functions can only be exercised by the Tribunal as constituted. The Bill amends the ART Act to ensure that amendments to the AAT Act in legislation introduced, and passed, after the ART legislative package was introduced are given effect. The Bill includes amendments to ensure that decisions of the National Archives of Australia relating to access to certain national security records are reviewed in the Tribunal's Intelligence and Security jurisdictional area. This ensures that the amendments in the Intelligence Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 are reflected in the new Tribunal. Amendments to other legislation In addition to these amendments to the ART Act, the Bill amends other laws to support the effective operation of the Tribunal, consistent with the overarching objective of harmonising the federal system of administrative review. Consistency of timeframes to apply for review of a deemed decision The Bill removes specific provisions of other legislation providing 28-day timeframes to apply to the Tribunal for review of decisions that have been deemed to be made under the terms of those Acts. There is currently inconsistency as to when this 28-day period begins and ends across these different Acts. This Bill harmonises timeframes to apply to the Tribunal for review of these decisions by applying the standard timeframes in the ART Act and related rules to these decisions (which cannot be less than 28 days after the decision is deemed to have been made). The amendments ensure consistency for users and reduce unnecessary administrative burden for the Tribunal. Consistency of timeframes to apply for review of debt decisions The Bill amends legislation in the Social Services portfolio to remove the three-month time limit to apply for both internal and Tribunal review of ABSTUDY or Assistance for Isolated Children debt decisions. This time limit is anomalous, as there is no time limit to apply for reviews of debt decisions in relation to other social security payments. By removing the time limit from the ABSTUDY and Assistance for Isolated Children debt decisions, the Bill removes a potential barrier for individuals seeking review of government decisions. Removing the ability to alter a decision once referred to the GAP Some Commonwealth legislation removes limitations on decision-makers varying or substituting a decision while the decision is before the Tribunal for review. This Bill makes amendments to ensure that once an application has been referred to the guidance and appeals panel, the decision under review cannot be varied or substituted without the Tribunal's visibility. This does not prevent a decision-maker from substituting a more favourable decision to the applicant, provided this is done in accordance with the ART Act. These amendments address concerns, informed by the Robodebt Royal Commission, that decision-makers might seek to alter or substitute a decision under review in order to avoid a systemic issue or error coming under scrutiny by the Tribunal. Clarifying requirements to make a valid application for review of a Migration decision The Bill amends the Migration Act 1958 to remove ambiguity about the requirements to make a valid application for review of a migration or protection decision, and how the Tribunal may deal with applications that do not meet minimum requirements. This amendment clarifies that an application is not valid, and therefore does not enliven the Tribunal's jurisdiction, unless it is properly made. An application will only be properly made if it includes the prescribed information, is made by a person with standing to apply and is made within the prescribed period. For reviewable migration matters, any prescribed fee must be paid for an application to be properly made. These amendments do not change the existing requirements. But they ensure that applicants can easily identify, on the face of the legislation, what they are required to do to make a valid application. Clarity on these matters is essential to support the administration of the complex visa framework with the appropriate degree of transparency, certainty and consistency. Immunity for nominated Tribunal members The Bill amends the Crimes Act 1914 to provide Tribunal members nominated to issue Post-Entry and Delayed Notification Search Warrants, with the same immunity and protections as Tribunal members who are nominated to exercise other similar functions under the Crimes Act. Given the extraordinary nature of these warrants, it is critical that nominated Tribunal members exercise these functions independently and without fear of personal liability. Conclusion This Bill completes the package of reforms that establishes the new Administrative Review Tribunal. It makes reference changes to Bills and Acts that were introduced to or passed the Parliament since the ART legislative package was introduced. It also makes technical amendments that support the intended operation of the ART Act and harmonises, streamlines and enhances the operation of a range of legislative provisions. The Bill reflects the ongoing commitment of this Government to reforming Australia's system of administrative review. It simplifies the process for applicants and promotes a more efficient, accessible and cohesive Tribunal. FAMILY LAW AMENDMENT BILL 2024 The Family Law Amendment Bill 2024 builds on landmark reforms to Australia's family law system in 2023. Together, these important reforms demonstrate the Government's ongoing commitment to ensuring that the Australian family law system is safer, more accessible, simpler to use, and delivers justice and equity for all Australian families. Recent inquiries, including the 2019 Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry and the 2021 Parliamentary Joint Select Committee inquiry, have highlighted ongoing challenges in the family law system. It is complex and confusing. It fails to respond effectively to family violence. This Bill makes a range of amendments to the Family Law Act 1975 to address recommendations from these recent family law inquiries. Where the family law reforms of 2023 focused principally on safety and clarity in parenting orders, the key amendments in this Bill make resolving property and financial aspects of relationship breakdown safer and simpler for separating families. Importantly, the Bill implements improvements to the legal frameworks underpinning property settlements and spousal maintenance matters, including to specifically recognise the economic impact of family violence on the wealth and welfare of Australian families. The Bill also makes the family law system safer and simpler by including amendments to enhance the operation of Children's Contact Services, clarifying various aspects of family law, safeguarding sensitive information in family law proceedings, including the interests of family pets, and supporting the effective operation of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. Codifying the property decision-making framework The Bill makes significant changes to Parts VIII and Part VIIIAB of the Family Law Act, which relate to property and financial proceedings for married and de facto couples, respectively. The effective operation of these Parts of the Family Law Act is critical to ensuring financial arrangements following relationship breakdown are resolved safely, and on just and equitable terms. The Bill will codify the steps in the decision-making framework for property settlements, making the law clearer and more accessible for users of the Family Law Act. The Family Law Act does not currently identify the steps a court undertakes before making a property settlement order. This can be an obstacle to separating couples seeking to negotiate their own settlement, because they may not understand what the court considers in reaching an outcome. The law relating to property settlement must be clear and easy to understand for all users of the system. The Government has consulted with the public and with key family law stakeholders. In response, this Bill will amend the Family Law Act to ensure it operates in a way that assists separating couples to better understand and more easily and safely navigate the division of their property, both within and outside the court system. Recognising the economic impact of family violence The Bill will ensure the economic impact of family violence on the wealth and welfare of Australian families is considered in property settlements where relevant. The Government considers that all forms of family violence are unacceptable and is committed to addressing the economic consequences of family violence on separated families. Family violence is a critical and far-reaching issue in the community. Women are victims of family violence from a current of former partner at significantly higher rates than men. First Nations women, in particular, are disproportionately impacted by family violence. They are 33 times more likely to be hospitalised due to violence than non-Indigenous women and six times more likely to die as a result of family violence. Women are also more likely to experience financial difficulties after separation and face a higher risk of poverty than men. This is particularly the case where there is family violence involved, with research indicating that victims of family violence struggle to achieve a fair division of property under the Family Law Act, and may suffer long-term financial disadvantage. For any children involved, in addition to the trauma of exposure to family violence, they may also then face financial insecurity and housing instability as a result of an inequitable outcome for their primary carer in a property settlement. The Family Law Act does not currently identify family violence as a relevant matter for the court to consider in a property settlement. This has been left to common law principles in case law, which are difficult to find, understand and keep up with. There has been a high evidentiary threshold for establishing the relevance and impact of the violence, and limited evidence that the principles result in a meaningful adjustment to the distribution of property in a victim-survivor's favour. The Bill makes amendments to explicitly allow the court to consider the effect of family violence on the parties' ability to contribute to the property pool of a relationship, and to consider the effect of family violence on their future needs. This may be considered by the court along with a range of other factors to inform its decision about dividing property and finances. The effect of family violence can also be considered by the court in determining an application for spousal maintenance. This Bill sends a strong message to the community that property settlement outcomes should recognise the effect of family violence on individuals, and on the wealth and welfare of the family, where this is relevant. It makes clear to the family law courts, and parties negotiating outside of court, that the economic consequences of family violence are relevant to resolving property and financial aspects of relationship breakdown. Codifying the duty of financial disclosure into the Act The Bill will encourage separating couples to understand and comply with their financial disclosure obligations, supporting fair outcomes in property divisions by ensuring all relevant financial information is shared. The Bill will introduce a duty of disclosure for property and financial matters into the Family Law Act. While the duty currently exists in Court Rules, the ALRC recommended that the duty to disclose be elevated from the Rules and codified in the Family Law Act, to support the transparent disclosure of separating couples' financial circumstances. This will encourage increased awareness of, and compliance with, the duty of disclosure and promote the early resolution of disputes by ensuring separated couples' financial information is disclosed at the earliest opportunity. Creating a regulatory framework for Children's Contact Services This Bill will also amend the Family Law Act to provide a regulatory framework for Children's Contact Services, providing additional safety, reassurance and predictability for families as they navigate the sometimes-uncertain time following separation. This measure will enable Regulations to be made that encourage the provision of child focussed and high-quality contact services for children whose families are unable to safely manage contact arrangements on their own. Less adversarial trial in property and other non-child-related proceedings The Bill will make the less adversarial trial approach available in property and other non-child-related proceedings. The less adversarial trial enables the court to actively manage the conduct of the proceedings, including directing how and on what issues evidence is brought forward and dealt with. Extending this beyond child-focussed proceedings will support parties to raise family violence risks in property and other proceedings, ensuring they are safe and these issues are managed effectively throughout the proceedings. It will also support those seeking to raise the economic effect of family violence as a factor relevant to determining their property or spousal maintenance matter to bring forward evidence of family violence and its effects. Pets Pets hold an important and unique place in many Australian families. In fact, in 2022, 69% of Australian households had amounting to 28.7 million animals across 6.9 million households. Families have strong emotional attachments to their pets yet pets are treated like any other type of property under the Family Law Act. This can be a source of confusion and angst for separating Australian families, particularly in circumstances where there is family violence. The Bill proposes amendments that will apply particular considerations to pets—defined as 'companion animals'—in determining the ownership of the pet as part of a property settlement. This will allow a court to make orders giving ownership of a pet to one party following a relationship breakdown. In making such an order, the court will be able to consider factors such as any history of family violence during the relationship, the extent to which each party has cared for the animal, any history of cruelty to the pet by a party, and the relationships of a party or a child with the pet. This will help recognise pets as a unique type of property that deserves special considerations. Protected Confidences The Bill will provide the courts with the ability to prevent records and other evidence generated from a child or party's engagement with health and specialist domestic and family violence services from being viewed by the other party or used as evidence, where the harm in doing so outweighs the need for the evidence. While these records will often contain information relevant to proceedings, the experience of having private medical records or counselling notes made available to the other party is traumatic and distressing for many litigants. Seeking to have sensitive information disclosed and adduced in family law proceedings is also a method that can be employed by perpetrators to exploit legal systems to continue to their abuse an ex-partner. Providing a safeguard against unnecessary access to this sensitive information is critical to reducing harm to families and children, and to ensuring that people can feel safe to engage with therapeutic and support services. This measure advances the efforts made in this Bill to combat family violence and supports families to safely access the family law system. Amendments that will simplify and clarify the Family Law Act Finally, the Bill makes a range of amendments that will clarify and simplify how the Family Law Act will operate. A consistent theme throughout the measures in this Bill is to aid usability of the Family Law Act for family law system users, including parties, self-represented litigants, legal advisers and the courts. These measures continue that theme, and include: clarifying the family law arbitration framework by consolidating the subject matter that can be arbitrated and providing arbitrators with a power to apply to the family law courts for procedural directions about an arbitration (including to terminate an arbitration in special circumstances) repealing and replacing costs provisions to provide greater clarity and certainty about when and how the court can make costs orders in family law matters, and how costs orders apply in relation to Independent Children's Lawyers permitting the courts to determine sole applications for divorce where there are children of the marriage under the age of 18 without requiring the attendance of the parties, reducing legal costs and stress for divorcing couples ensuring the courts can determine if an exemption to the mandatory pre-filing family dispute resolution attendance requirement applies before an application for parenting orders is accepted for filing, promoting the early resolution of parenting disputes clarifying the Commonwealth Information Orders provisions to ensure the timely and accurate disclosure of information about the location of a child; and improving safety by expanding the category of family members and persons about which information of actual or threatened violence must be provided under a Commonwealth Information Order providing a power to make regulations requiring superannuation trustees to review the actuarial formulas used to value superannuation interests for family law property matters, and empowering a Family Court of a State to make rules of court that apply when it exercises federal family law jurisdiction. This will support the efficient administration of the Family Court of Western Australia. These important clarifications implement a range of ALRC and JSC recommendations and respond to feedback from the family law sector. Finally, the Bill provides for a statutory review of the reforms made to the Family Law Act three-years after these amendments commence. This is important to ensure the reforms operate effectively, and prioritise the safe and fair resolution of family law property matters. Conclusion In closing, the Bill is a further significant step towards a safer, more accessible, just and fair, family law system, especially for separating families seeking to divide their property or resolve their finances. It builds on the Government's landmark reforms of 2023, which primarily focused on ensuring the safety and best interests of children in parenting matters. The Government has listened, and responded, to broad-ranging feedback from the public, from users of the family law system, and from the detailed reviews into the family law system. In proposing these measures, the Government thanks all who have contributed to relevant inquiries and the consultation process on this Bill. This Bill is a clear demonstration that the Government remains committed to ensuring that the family law system is safe, just, equitable and easy-to-access for Australian families. Ordered that further consideration of the second reading of these bills be adjourned to 18 November 2024, in accordance with standing order 111. Ordered that the bills be listed on the Notice Paper as separate orders of the day. COMMITTEES 100 COMMITTEES Economics References Committee 100 Reference 100 17:35 Senator RENNICK 283596 Queensland I move: That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 10 December 2024: Australia's taxation system, with particular reference to: (a) the social and economic impact of taxing people who earn less than the cost of living; (b) assumptions used by Treasury in modelling income tax cuts; (c) the tax arbitrage between onshore and offshore profits that encourage domestic profits to be transferred offshore rather than retained in Australia; (d) the tax arbitrage between onshore and offshore profits that puts companies domiciled in Australia at a competitive disadvantage to companies domiciled offshore; (e) the abolition of numerous tax loopholes that favour special interest groups, in particular foreign interests; (f) the actual net company tax rate after franking credits have been refunded; (g) the cost of recycling franking credits to and from Canberra; (h) whether capital gains tax concessions for passive investment cause a misallocation of capital into the non-productive economy which has to be offset by higher taxes on active income which drives down productivity and the velocity of money; and (i) related matters. I'm pleased to rise to speak to this motion today because tax reform is desperately needed in this country. Yesterday I addressed the issue of bureaucratic inefficiency, but we also need to change the way in which our taxation system works because we currently have a system that punishes those people who are productive and rewards those who sit back on their wealth. It can be lazy wealth, and it's not earning an income. We also have a system in this country where, for some reason, we seem to want to tax domestic earnings much higher than offshore earnings. That, of course, encourages retained earnings to be sent offshore, only to be replaced by foreign debt, and, yet again, there is even a special provision in the tax act that allows the interest you pay on this foreign debt to actually be exempt from tax. I became aware of that section of the tax act, and I've mentioned it many times before. It's section 128F of the 1936 act: the publicly offered test. It was the moment I thought, 'I'm going to have to make a run for politics here because there is no-one else in this country who will actually be aware of what this act is, why it's there and the impact it has on this country. I will start off on that slightly obscure but very important section because that publicly offered test is not a publicly offered test at all. What it says is that if you offer a bond in the primary market to at least 10 participants you don't have to pay withholding tax and, of course, anyone that knows anything about the Treasury bond market knows that not anyone in the public can just walk up and issue a bond in the Treasury bond market. I think it was half a million in my time; it might be a million today. That's the minimum parcel you need to issue a bond in the bond market. The sort of people that pay withholding tax, of course, are foreigners. I knew straightaway from my Treasury experience that this was a section in the tax act that allowed foreign banks to avoid having to pay tax on the interest that we pay them offshore. I thought to myself, 'I wonder how people who earn interest income in this country would feel knowing that foreign banks don't have to pay tax on the interest that we pay to them.' Many hardworking Australians, pensioners in particular, and retirees who earn interest on their bank account do want to earn interest on their bank account as they don't necessarily want to have their money in the stock market as they get older. They don't want to suddenly wake up one morning to find out the Dow Jones has collapsed and the value of their equities has rapidly diminished. Many older people don't want to take risks and do like to invest in fixed interest. Well, guess what? You've got to pay tax, but foreign banks don't. I want to address many other issues in this area. I know I'm going to run out of time, but it's important that I do address it. One of the other things that really grinds my gears in this country is the fact that people on low income who earn less than the cost of living have to pay income tax on that cost of living. I have to pay income tax on my income. All that does is actually drive these people further into poverty. My view is that if you get out of bed every day and put your nose to the grindstone—I don't care whether you're earning 40 grand or a 100 grand—that first 40 to 50 grand on your income should be tax-free. Currently, if you earn, say, $50,000, you're paying about $10,000 tax, you're paying about $6,000 in superannuation and you're just about to start paying HECS. You are effectively losing $16,000. So you are going from earning $50,000 to having take-home pay of $34,000. It's highly likely that unless you're still living at home with your parents—even then you would probably struggle to live on $34,000—you are going to go back below the poverty line. I think that we tax low earners at too high a rate in this country, and it needs to be reduced. Ideally, it needs to be reduced to zero. I think we also need to call out Treasury for the way that they model these tax cuts, because they effectively don't assume secondary impacts. That discriminates against income tax for low-income earners, because, if you are a low-income earner and you did get a tax cut of $1000, it's highly likely that most of that money will end up back in the Treasury within the next 12 months. We need to look at why we tax low-income earners at 16 cents in the dollar. It was previously 19 cents in the dollar. We need to ask ourselves why those low-income earners are playing 16 cents on the dollar plus two per cent Medicare plus 12 per cent super while you can have money in superannuation uncapped. You can have millions of dollars in superannuation. You could be earning $150,000 in superannuation, and the most you're paying on your earnings is 15 cents. I fail to see why someone earning less than $45,000 has pay 18 cents including Medicare plus 12 per cent super, while someone who's a multimillionaire and has millions of dollars in super only pays 15 cents on their earnings. If it's a capital gain and they have held it for longer than a year they only pay 10 cents. Yet again we have arbitrage between different trust structures or different corporate structures. If you've got your money in a superannuation fund, which is effectively a trust, you're paying a lower rate of tax than someone who is trying to get ahead by getting out of bed and trying to earn that through an active wage. Many of low-income earners work very, very hard. They travel the furthest to work. They're doing the menial jobs like cleaning, cooking or working in aged care. These aren't easy jobs, and someone has to do them. We really need to look at the way we go about taxing low-income earners. There's another thing that we need to look at. There is a big hoo-ha at the moment over the fact that Treasury want to bring in a system whereby if you have more than $3 million in assets in superannuation, you would pay 30 cents in the dollar, while if you have less than $3 million in assets, you would pay 15 cents in the dollar. It's really strange that with superannuation for some reason tax is based on your balance and not on your income. You could have $2.8 million in superannuation and earn a five per cent return, so you could earn $140,000. Or you could have $3,000,001 in super and earn three per cent, or $90,000, and pay a higher rate of tax on $90,000, because that particular year your rate of return on your asset was less than someone else's rate of return on their asset. So you would pay a higher tax rate than someone who actually earned more than you. I often think it's being used to mask the significant superannuation tax concessions, which are just shy of $50 billion. If you look at the tax expenditure statement, that $50 billion goes mainly to the upper 25 per cent. Nearly all of it goes to the upper 25 per cent, while we still have the pension, and it costs $54 billion. That tax expenditure statement has actually forecast that tax concessions for superannuation, which mainly go to the upper 25 per cent, are going to very quickly exceed the cost of the pension itself. This is another issue that we need to have a look at, because it is completely dysfunctional. There is no symmetry in any of this whereby we have a flatter tax rate. Different people, depending on their income, can have the same income and pay different amounts of tax, and that's completely dysfunctional. What we want is a system where we have a very simple tax system and everybody pays the same rate of tax based on the level of income they earn, regardless of whether it's in superannuation or not. It should be taxed at a flat rate on the same amount of money. I think that we need to seriously look at taxing superannuation based on income levels, and I would suggest that your first $20,000 to $30,000 in superannuation is tax-free. You can add that on top of your first $40,000 outside of superannuation, and there you go. You've still got a very generous tax-free income if you're retired, but after that you go back to your marginal rate, rather than just have a flat 15 per cent in superannuation. The other thing we need to look at in this country is that we have an onshore tax rate of 30c, and that's before franking credits, which I'll come to in a minute. Depending on the withholding tax treaty that you're dealing with and depending on where that money is sent, that withholding tax rate on profits transferred offshore can be between zero and 15c in the dollar if it's with one of our recognised trading partners. That is basically encouraging any company to either set up a subsidiary offshore or transfer their profits offshore. That is ridiculous. We saw it a few years ago with the iron ore companies. Obviously, if they kept their earnings here in Australia, they'd pay 30c, so they decided to set up a marketing hub in Singapore whereby they could pay marketing fees to Singapore. What Singapore knows about marketing iron ore is beyond me—it's not like they've ever had any iron ore—but suddenly BHP, Rio and Fortescue decided that they needed to set up a marketing hub in Singapore. Of course, that was nothing more than a tax dodge. I'm glad to say that the tax office did get onto those iron ore companies about it and they've shut them down. But this sort of behaviour goes on all the time. We've seen it with Pfizer, for example. Their operating profit ratio is seven per cent, despite the fact that their worldwide operating profit is 40 per cent. Of their $1.4 billion in sales, about $1 billion of it got transferred to Ireland. Why Ireland? Why that money needed to go to Pfizer Ireland, who I doubt would actually have a manufacturing plant, is beyond me—other than the fact that Ireland has a company tax rate of 12 per cent. So it's very simple logic. If you get a tax deduction here, you save 30c in the dollar. If you send the money to a low-income tax jurisdiction, you pay 12c there. Many people will say, 'You can't have withholding tax on profits sent offshore because you'll have double taxation.' That's not the way it works. What you've actually got to look at is the cumulative rate of taxation. If there's a withholding tax rate of 10c here in Australia, on profit-centre Ireland, which has a company tax rate of 12c, the cumulative rate of taxation is 10c plus 12c, which is 22c. It's less than 30c. So there's an eight-cent arbitrage there—for the sake of paying a lawyer to set up a subsidiary, putting an office over there and effectively transferring profits offshore. That sort of behaviour goes on quite a lot. While I know the tax office does a very good job and tries very hard to crack down on it, they literally cannot keep up with the amount of international transactions going on. That is why the very easy way to do all this and deal with this in a heartbeat is to effectively increase the rate of withholding tax on all profits sent offshore. There are more tax treaties than you can poke a stick at, unfortunately. I haven't been able go through all of them, even though after I finished my masters of tax law I actually went back and did another subject at the University of Sydney just to come up to speed with it. But you just can't keep up with this sort of stuff. Put a higher withholding tax rate offshore and lower the company tax here so that we encourage people and companies to retain their earnings here in Australia rather than shift the profits offshore. You will find that, like anyone that understands a balance sheet, if you increase your retained earnings, you'll have a higher capital account and you'll need less debt. So it's actually one of these things that will help reduce foreign debt in this country. The other thing we need to look at is the amount of churn and the real company tax rate here in Australia. Imputation tax credits have had two iterations in this country. The first time was when Paul Keating introduced imputation tax credits, and the second time was when Peter Costello decided that he would refund tax credits. Of course, what that did was create a massive churn in the economy. I've worked on both sides of the ledger here, first of all as a company tax accountant, where you would pay company tax down to the ATO in Canberra and then, six months later, the shareholders would lodge their tax return and the ATO would refund the company tax paid to Canberra back to the shareholder. Australia, I think, is the only country—or one of two or three countries in the world—that refunds franking credits. It's a very inefficient system of churning money through Canberra. It requires companies to keep franking accounts and streaming accounts, and they've got to watch how they frank their dividends and everything like that. Then it creates a whole heap of work on the other side for the public accountants, who have to go through and work out all the franking credits and all the rules around that. You're much better off having—and I'm pretty sure the states do this—a rebate of 10c. That way, you don't actually have to repay the money once it's been sent to Canberra. We need to have a look at that, because our net company tax rate is now below 15c as a result of the balance in superannuation funds going from about $500 million, when Costello introduced the refund of franking credits, to now $3½ trillion, and it's forecast to hit $9 trillion by 2050 or 2060. So, we're just churning money through these superannuation funds, only to repay it later on. Let's get rid of this, yet again, arbitrage between these different legal structures in which taxable income is declared. But, long story short: if we want to increase productivity in this country, we need to look at lowering taxes on active income, we need to look at lowering taxes on income earned here in Australia and we need to look at actually retaining our earnings and encouraging productivity, which our current tax act does not do. 17:50 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland In my first speech, in 2016, and many times since, I've called for comprehensive tax reform. The tax system in Australia as it exists is our country's most destructive system, and not just exorbitant tax rates. I'll give you some figures from the late 1990s and early 2000s. Someone on the average income paid 68 per cent of their income to government in the form of rates levies, fees, charges, special charges and special levies—68 per cent. That means someone's working from Monday to mid-morning Thursday to pay the government. Since then, it's got much more complex and more absurd, and some of the data I'll give you is more recent. Some of the figures are indicative, not definitive. The ABS average income figure is $100,000. The median income figure is $67,000. Life is tough for people on the median. In 2015 Joe Hockey said that a typical person in Australia pays 50 per cent in tax—works from January to June to pay the government, and then gets to keep from July to December. Basically, as I said, people are working at least half the year—probably 68 per cent of the year—for government. Then we think about the tax. Tax on a house, according to a News Corporation article a few years ago and according to recent figures, is 45 to 50 per cent of the house price, The effective tax rate is 80 to 100 per cent. International accountant and auditor Derek Smith in Queensland says that 50 per cent of the price of bread is tax, which is an effective tax rate of 100 per cent. Petrol excise and tax varies. At 70 per cent, the effective tax rate is 230 per cent. So, a worker on the average income on payday gives 21 per cent of his or her gross income to the government. With what's left—that's 79 per cent—she the next day wakes up in her house and pays 80 to 100 per cent to have that house and makes some sandwiches because food is too expensive to purchase wherever she works. So, that's a tax of 100 per cent. Then she fills up at the petrol station on her way to work, and that costs her 230 per cent tax. Then we have GST. GST can be levied on bills, including stamp duty, so we've got a tax on a tax. So, there are three aspects. First, there's the total tax paid. Second, how is it levied? And third, is it enforced fairly? Ultimately, the people pay a tax in the form of higher prices. So, it doesn't matter if a company is being taxed or if another entity is being taxed; they pass it on to the customers. Cost of living, inflation, overregulation and many other factors make sure that today's system of government impositions—government cost recovery—is highly regressive. Look at the carbon dioxide tax and offsets—a UN tax, driven by the UN, introduced by the Liberals-Nationals in 2015 under Greg Hunt and Malcolm Turnbull and now ramped up under this government with Chris Bowen and Anthony Albanese. We've got a highly regressive imposition of taxation and other charges by the government. The Australian Bureau of Statistics showed that the median income is $67,000. People on that median income are doing it extremely tough because of government and the mishmash that's evolved in the taxation system. That takes care of terms of reference (a) and (b) in Senator Rennick's motion. I agree with them; in fact, I agree with his whole motion, and I thank him for his motion. I've raised the need for comprehensive tax reform many times, so I support this motion. Then we see the core, one of the bedrocks of our federal system and Constitution—competitive federalism. That is being converted under the current tax system to competitive welfarism, destroying productivity in this country. The way competitive federalism should work is it promotes competition between the states—not cut-throat competition, just competition for efficiency. As I said yesterday, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, as Premier of Queensland, abolished death duties in Queensland and people moved to Queensland to retire, which developed the Gold Coast. The other states then saw their people were leaving, so they abolished death duties too. Now we've got Labor—and the Greens, I think—wanting to put in place a central death duty as a state duty—centrally imposed, no competition, no accountability. When you have a marketplace in governance because the state can't operate according to their needs and the needs best suited to their constituents, then you have competitive federalism, a marketplace in governance, and that is priceless. One of the reasons we've got such low accountability in state and federal parliament is it's too easy for the states to blame the feds and the feds to blame the states, as I said yesterday. The GST undoes competitive federalism and replaces it with competitive welfarism. It's a reward for states like Tasmania and South Australia to be inefficient and not use their resources and, instead, bludge off of Western Australia. I mentioned yesterday that systems drive behaviour and behaviour shapes attitude, and the combination of behaviour and attitudes along with values and leadership and symbols determine the culture, which is the most important determinant of productivity, security and accountability. Energy prices, as I said, are a huge regressive tax on the poor. Massive record immigration is a huge regressive tax on housing, especially on the poor. As I list some of these examples, as Senator Rennick listed some of his examples, I urge you to think about the impact on our culture in this country. The tax system is Australia's most destructive system. What behaviours does it drive? We've got the best and brightest accountants and lawyers in this country fighting the government, not helping our producers to fight our competitors overseas—the Koreans, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Americans. We've now got a tax system that's grown-up like Topsy; it's a mishmash of dishonest promises to various vested interests for favours. What behaviours does that drive? Is that productive? It's certainly not productive. Inefficient or suboptimal allocation of capital, allocation of resources, leads to inefficient or suboptimal decisions and a waste of resources and inefficient allocation to minimise tax rather than to maximise wealth and value. Then we have the ATO in a position where it can level complaints against people and businesses—small businesses particularly, because they don't have the lawyers to back them up. In addition to prosecuting those cases, they adjudicate on those cases. How can that be justice? It's not justice. It leads to corruption—and we saw that in the Australian Taxation Office just a few years ago. There is the complexity of various structures that Senator Rennick mentioned; he's got far more experience in that than I have. They're unfair to people who can't set up structures. Senator Rennick discussed some of the modern structures in the technologies that have come up. That increases the appeal for workarounds. Then we've got something that Senator Hanson has talked about for many years, since 1996: multinationals basically pay no or little company tax. These use their resources for free. We've got the world's biggest freeloader, the biggest tax avoider in the world, Chevron, taking our gas and sending it overseas, using our infrastructure, using our security forces, using our education system and not paying much at all for the gas. This is a figure I got from Jim Killaly, the former Deputy Commissioner of Taxation, Large Business and International, who retired in 2015 or 2016. I've met him. He said in both the nineties and in 2010—and it's quoted in the newspapers—that 90 per cent of Australia's large businesses are foreign-owned and since 1953 have paid little or no company tax. Who's paying that share of tax? It's the men and women of Australia, working families. Since 1953, when we had double taxation legislation enacted by the Menzies Liberal government, we've had foreign companies paying little or no company tax. In the 1980s, we had Labor, with the petroleum resource rent tax, making sure that large companies such as Chevron pay little or no tax when exporting our gas from the North West Shelf. Then we had transfer pricing rorts and so many other rorts, which Senator Rennick went into. So terms of reference (c) and (d) are definitely worth keeping. The tax reform, while it's necessary and arguably one of the most important things in this country, is difficult because the uniparty, Liberal and Labor, sees new ideas, seizes on new ideas and then basically tells lies and misrepresents to destroy our tax system. Paul Keating, as Treasurer to Bob Hawke, introduced the concept of the GST. Later, when John Hewson raised it as opposition leader, who smashed it? Paul Keating smashed it. He destroyed the GST concept even though he'd come so close to putting it over the line in Australia. When Pauline Hanson, who wasn't a senator at the time, got hold of the transaction tax, it was also sent to Costello by the originators of that taxation system and taxation proposal. Peter Costello, as Treasurer—and a good treasurer—was asked about it and he said: 'Sounds like a good system. We must have a look at it.' Then Senator Hanson introduced it to the public, and he used it to try to destroy her. And look at my motion for stopping bracket creep—a motion on a Labor bill for stopping bracket creep. Labor stood right up there and said it supports work to remove indexing of bracket creep, but it voted against it. The LNP, the Liberals and Nationals, did something similar. They stood up—Senator Hume, I think it was—and said, 'We support removal of bracket creep, the stealth tax, the hidden tax, the deceit tax,' but they voted against the indexation of bracket creep. Barely a few weeks later, Senator Sharma, in his first speech, said that one of his goals was to get rid of bracket creep. Well, pile on, but just a few weeks earlier he had voted against removing bracket creep. As Senator Rennick has already mentioned, the tax system has been wangled and mismanaged to protect special interest groups feeding off tax loopholes. The terms of reference (e), (f), (g) and (h) are all necessary. Tax is the cost of government. That's necessary. But it's now got to the point where tax, in this country of ours, is the cost of excess government interference and excess waste—well, all waste. It's the cost of poor governance, and it's the poor who pay regressively for it. I support Senator Rennick's motion as a step to exposing the harm and inefficiency of the tax system. Because of the complexities of the tax system and because of the politics around it, I think the first thing to do is to get an agreement to understand that the tax system is so destructive and so inefficient. Senator Rennick's motion is a commendable first step to exposing the inefficiencies and the unfairness in the tax system. Once there's an agreement on the inefficiencies, then we need to develop principles—not a system but principles: for example, simplicity; efficiency, so the tax system actually collects more than the cost of implementing that tax; fairness; objectivity; and the fact that it's inescapable, so we don't have multinational companies coming here, stealing our resources and assets, using our infrastructure and our people, and skipping the country without paying their fair share. So we develop principles and get agreement on them, and then, once that's done, the specific system falls out. I see Senator Rennick's motion as leading to an important first step in identifying the problems and some of the solutions and then, ultimately, we can take the next step: comprehensive tax reform, defining the ultimate system and the transition of baby steps to getting there. I support Senator Rennick's motion. Question agreed to. Environment and Communications References Committee 105 Reference 105 18:06 Senator HANSON BK6 Queensland I move: That the following matter be referred to the Environment and Communications References Committee for inquiry and report by 25 November 2024: The effectiveness, transparency and cost of the Australian Government's carbon credit and offset schemes, including the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Act 2023 and the Climate Active carbon-neutral labelling program, with particular reference to: (a) concerns raised by major companies like Fortescue, Telstra and BHP about the quality of offsets and lack of transparency; (b) the effect of Labor's carbon credit scheme, including the Safeguard Mechanism and the Climate Active program, on Australian businesses, particularly how these programs increase costs without delivering clear environmental benefits; (c) the use of international carbon credits by Australian companies, with specific attention to whether these credits are trustworthy; (d) how the Safeguard Mechanism and the Climate Active program have negatively impacted jobs, driven up electricity prices, and contributed to the current household recession; (e) the role of the Safeguard Mechanism and the Climate Active program in driving up resource and electricity costs, contributing to rising inflation; (f) the role of the Safeguard Mechanism in increasing demand for Australian carbon credit units and its consequences for businesses, particularly rising prices and reliance on offsets; (g) the potential for misleading claims (greenwashing) within the Safeguard Mechanism and the Climate Active program; and (h) any related matters. Scans within scams within scams—scams costing taxpayers untold billions of dollars every year, as wind turbines and solar panels spread across regional Australia like a malignant cancer; scams driving poverty across the nation, as Australian households struggle with record electricity bills; scams driving Australian small businesses into the ground, as they struggle with reduced revenue from the cost-of-living crisis and their own record energy costs; scams involving guaranteed taxpayer returns to union controlled industry superannuation funds for investing in uneconomic technologies, ending up in Labor and Greens election coffers; and scams that leave energy-rich Australia facing serious energy shortages when economic productivity is still in sharp decline. There is the scam built on the fantasy that Australia can stop global warming all by itself, while major carbon dioxide emitters like China rapidly increase their emissions. And, of course, there's the ultimate scam—that the world is doomed unless human beings stop emitting carbon dioxide altogether. These scams are a direct threat to Australia's future. These scams are a direct threat to jobs, farmers, miners, industry, manufacturing and innovation, and regional communities. What is truly perverse is the threat that these scams pose to Australia's natural environment and wildlife. Climate change extremists like the Greens, Labor and the teals would have us destroy the environment in order to save it. They would have us clear huge areas of native vegetation and rainforest to plant vast forests of ugly, toxic wind turbines that would end up in landfill less than 20 years later—and, I will add, they use more energy to make and erect than they will ever produce. They would have us rape the earth with child labour to get the vital ingredients for their fire-prone car batteries. They would have us cover prime agricultural land with toxic solar panels that contaminate the soil, wind turbines that harm wildlife and thousands of miles of transmission lines. They don't care, because they don't have to see it from their cosy inner-city sanctums. That price is paid by regional and rural communities and by our farmers. Perhaps if we planted a few of those 300-metre wind turbines around Sydney Harbour or on the banks of the Yarra or Brisbane rivers they might understand. But I doubt it, because they're all hooked on the money generated by the scam. They have net zero empathy for the Australian people, as they burn down our nation's future prosperity and growth. One of the many scams in this place is the concept we call carbon offsets. This is the idea that carbon dioxide emissions can be offset by buying carbon credits, generated by carbon dioxide sinks mostly located overseas. In other words, it absolves emitters of the reduction effort by handballing it to someone else. It's absolutely critical to the net zero emissions fantasy, because there is no human being and no human civilisation that can exist without omitting some amount of carbon dioxide. It's absolutely critical to Labor's promises to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 43 per cent by 2030. Twenty years ago carbon credits were all the rage among the big Australian corporations keen to put their environmental and progressive credentials on display. Today, however, it's a very different story. There are very serious concerns about whether carbon credits do anything to reduce real emissions. Big corporations like Fortescue, Telstra, Woolworths and BHP, which used to be big fans—big fans!—of carbon credits, have now abandoned them. In its latest annual report, Fortescue said the company would: … no longer buy voluntary carbon offsets unless required by law, as offsets have been shown to be troubled by extensive concerns about quality, lack of additionality and an inability to deliver real reductions in emissions. In June this year, Telstra announced it would also stop using offsets. Until then, the company was the single biggest participant in the Labor government's Climate Active carbon neutral labelling program. Even the extremist Greens think they're bogus, enabling the companies to claim they're carbon neutral when these claims are built on dodgy offsets. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, but the evidence backs them up. Last year, a joint media investigation found that 90 per cent of rainforest carbon offsets approved by Verra, the world's leading certifier of voluntary offsets, did not represent genuine carbon reductions. Also in 2023, a systemic review of more than 2,000 offset projects found that 88 per cent of the total credit volume across renewables, cookstoves, forestry and chemical processes did not constitute real emissions reductions. Again in 2023, the Australian National University conducted an analysis which found more than 24 million Australian carbon credit units worth more than $760 million had led to minimal, if any, carbon sequestration. There are dozens more such revelations, but you get the idea. Despite all this evidence, Labor continues to push a flawed scheme based on these bogus carbon offsets. These have to be bought by the corporations and the energy companies, with the costs always passed onto Australian consumers. Energy bills have never been higher in Australia than they are today and are a major component of Labor's cost-of-living crisis. We are paying through the nose so that Labor can pretend it's taking climate change action. We are in fact in a per capita recession. Labor is all talk and definitely no substance. They're all power with no responsibility. It's desperate Labor virtue-signalling in a vain attempt to stop votes leaking to the Greens. As our energy costs soar, Australians are wondering: what happened to Labor's promise to lower their power bills? The real tragedy is that all of this pain inflicted on the Australian people is completely and utterly futile. Even if we reduced our emissions to absolutely zero overnight, the reductions would be quickly overtaken by increased emissions in other countries such as China, India and Russia. This inquiry isn't just about scrutinising Labor's policies; it's about standing up for Australian families, workers, farmers and businesses carrying the burden of this scam. It's about holding this worthless, lying government accountable over expensive illusions of taking action on climate change. It's also about trying to hold them accountable for the high immigration levels that we have coming into this country, because the emissions of every person we bring into this country are about 32,000 tonnes a year. If you are really interested in reducing the emissions in this country, why have you brought in 1½ million people, adding to our carbon emissions? Clearly, you're not terribly worried about this country and its high emissions rate. You couldn't possibly be and bring in that number of people. It just doesn't make sense to me, or to a lot of other Australians. It has been a scam. The whole thing is a scam. All this money is pouring into this Australian made program, even from Australians. It all sounds good, but all it is doing is keeping your carbon emissions and climate change scam going. That's BS. Another fact was brought to me this afternoon. Polls were done a couple of years ago showing about 11 per cent of Australians and, prior to that, 16 per cent of Australians agreed with climate change. After all the cost-of-living crises that have been going on at the moment, people can't afford their mortgages. They're losing their houses and they can't pay their power bills. In this polling that they did, they had 11 per cent who agreed. Now it has gone down to four per cent. That tells you that you're losing the Australian people. They're starting to wake up to the scams that are going on and they don't like it. They don't believe this rubbish that the world is coming to an end and that, if we don't address our carbon emissions, then the whole world is going to come to an absolute grinding halt. Your actions speak the loudest, and what are you doing to our nation? You're destroying prosperity, you're destroying our standard of living and you're adding cost to it so that future generations are going to have a huge debt to pay off. And, at the end of the day, for what? You are so hypocritical when you talk about carbon emissions. These big companies are having to offset their carbon emissions, which is destroying industries and manufacturing, yet you actually do business with China, whose emissions are over 30 per cent. You continue to buy their solar panels and their wind turbines and everything else they're manufacturing; therefore, you're not questioning it. What a bunch of hypocrites you are! If you were true to a sense of duty that you were really deadset about and you thought the world was coming to an end and you had to clean up the planet, then you wouldn't allow the trade that goes on between you and China. But you won't do anything. You kowtow to China because you have no interest in standing up to them. What's happened is we've become so reliant on China and on what we buy from them that we can't do anything. So you buy into Australia instead of going to the heart of it and setting up real industries here in Australia that will create jobs and will enable us to provide to ourselves what we need and want. You're do absolutely nothing. As I say all the time, and I'll keep saying it, you are the worst government in the 28 years I have been around this place. Since I was first elected to parliament 28 years ago, this is the worst government I have ever seen, based on your performance in this place, on the policies you've brought in and on the destruction to this country that is going to go beyond your time and into the future. The sooner you lot are gone, the better for all of us. 18:18 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland Carbon dioxide credits are a scam and an absolute fraud, and the Greens agree with One Nation on this. Yes, you heard that correctly. It's difficult to believe. Australians may wonder what we agree on Granted, the Greens and One Nation have come to the same conclusion for very different reasons. Nonetheless, we share the conclusion that carbon dioxide credits are a scam. They are rife with opportunities for fraud. The Clean Energy Regulator has issued 140 million carbon dioxide credits. At the current spot price of $35 each, this represents a racket potentially worth $4.9 billion. That's expected to grow by 20 million credits, or $700 million, this year alone, making it $5.6 million. The Greens and One Nation aren't the only ones to criticise Australian carbon credit units, or ACCUs. In 2022 Professor Andrew Macintosh, environmental law expert at the Australian National University, and his colleagues published a series of papers absolutely tearing apart the ACCU system. Keep in mind that this is a $5.5 billion market that's being fabricated, in part to give the UN income, ultimately. As usual, they enlist parasites who benefit while pushing UN policy for them. For example, the major banks. Rothschild Australia, the Bank of America and Merrill Lynch had on their advisory boards in this country at the time the CSIRO chief executive, Dr Megan Clark—a conflict of interest? Back to the study of ACCU carbon dioxide credits. The study was done under Professor Andrew Macintosh, who said: The available data suggests 70 to 80 per cent of the ACCUs issued to … projects are devoid of integrity … So 20 to 30 per cent may have some integrity. Remember, this is a $5.5 billion market. Here's another quote: What is occurring is a fraud on the environment … 'A fraud on the environment', I say to the Greens. This is what Dr Macintosh said: What is occurring is a fraud on the environment, a fraud on taxpayers— Australian taxpayers— and a fraud on unwitting private buyers of ACCUs … In response to these revelations, the government commissioned what they call the Chubb review. The government should just have been honest and called it what it really was: a whitewash, a distortion and misinformation. Actually, the Chubb review is disinformation. In the past, when Professor Chubb has been requested to provide empirical scientific data within a logical scientific point backing up claims of climate change due to human carbon dioxide, he has repeatedly failed to produce it. He has never produced it, yet he's often advocated for it. He's part of the climate fraud industry and has received a lot of money to push climate fraud. He has been heavily rewarded by both Liberal-National and Labor Party governments. The Chubb review, in this case, addressed nothing of substance and provided no evidence for its claims that problems have been fixed, yet the government held the report up as proof that everything's fine. As Professor Macintosh and his colleagues outlined in their response to the Chubb review, it spent less than six pages discussing the ACCU rules, which relate to a $5.5 billion market. They say: The-- Chubb— report does not contain references to the evidence relied upon to reach its conclusions … I'll say that again: The-- Chubb— report does not contain references to the evidence relied upon to reach its conclusions, and includes very little analysis to support its findings. And importantly, the panel does not address key questions around the integrity of the scheme's rules. What use was that? This is 'a fraud on the environment, a fraud on taxpayers and a fraud on unwitting private buyers of ACCUs'. Here is another quote: Bewilderingly— I don't find it bewildering; it's straightforward, as I've been watching this scam unfold for years-- in its assessment of the methods, the panel does not refer to the findings of a review it commissioned from the Australian Academy of Science … The academy … found numerous flaws in the methods and the associated governance processes. There were 'numerous flaws in the methods and the associated governance processes'. This is so typical of this government. It is so typical of the Liberals, the Nationals and Labor, pushing the climate fraud. Here is another quote: The— Chubb— review … acknowledged the scientific evidence criticising the carbon credit scheme, but says "it was also provided with evidence to the contrary". Yet it did not disclose what that evidence was or what it relates to. The public is simply expected to trust that the evidence exists. Maybe the dog ate the evidence for breakfast. This is what the government says is assurance and integrity for taxpayer money. While the Greens, Professor Macintosh and I may agree on the integrity issues with carbon dioxide credits, here's where I leave them behind: there is no reason to reduce our output of carbon dioxide or trade credits for it. Carbon dioxide credits can never have integrity because they are a scam designed to transfer wealth from the pockets of everyday Australians and their families and small businesses to the bank accounts of billionaire net zero scam artists and parasitic multinationals sucking on the financial payout from climate fraud and associated financial scams. I note some of these points. I won't go into them in detail. The government that introduced the renewable energy target, a scam, and the national electricity market that is really a national electricity racket—it's not a market; it's a bureaucratic controlled entity—stole farmers' property rights across the country so that they could comply with the UN's Kyoto protocol. They put in place the first policy—not legislation—advocating for a carbon dioxide tax. It wasn't Julia Gillard. It was the Howard government that did all these things. The Howard government laid the foundation for all of this. It went around the Constitution to steal farmers' property rights around the country. Then, six years after being booted from office and after the Liberals and Nationals in the Howard government told us that it was all based on science, John Howard, in a major lecture to sceptic think tank in Londan said that on the topic of climate science, he was agnostic. He didn't have the science, and now our electricity sector has been crippled because of the renewable energy target, the national electricity market and an alphabet soup of bureaucratic agencies. There has never been—there never is—any empirical scientific data and logical scientific points that human carbon dioxide is warming the planet. There is not any from the CSIRO—I've done freedom of information requests and held them accountable in the Senate—nor from their publications ever. There is not any from the Bureau of Meteorology. It's the same deal. There is not any from the United Nations. It's the same deal. There is also no policy basis. There is no documented effect per unit of human carbon dioxide on climate factors such as air temperature, rainfall, heat waves, drought severity and frequency or storm severity, frequency and duration—none at all. There is no basis for the policy on which the carbon dioxide credits are based. There's been no cost benefit analysis. There's been no business case. Ross Garnaut, who produced a report for the Rudd-Gillard government, said in his report on the science that there basically was no science and he was going on the consensus. Yet he is parasitically sucking on solar and wind subsidies, driving up electricity prices and putting Australians into poverty. Remember, the money that goes to the extra costs of electricity in this country is a highly regressive tax on the poor in our country. In 2009 and 2020 we had two global experiments showing that human carbon dioxide has no effect on carbon dioxide levels in the air. We had a major downturn with the global financial crisis in 2008. We then had a recession in 2009. COVID hit us. It arrived on our shores—it didn't really hit us; the government hit us—in 2020, and then 2020 was almost a depression because of the restrictions and lockdowns. In both years, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued rising unabated. Yet we've been told for decades now that by cutting back on human production of carbon dioxide we would see the levels in the atmosphere start decreasing and go down. We had a major reduction in industrial activity and a severe recession in 2009 and 2020. The production of carbon dioxide from human use of hydrocarbons, coal, oil and natural gas decreased dramatically, yet nothing happened. The carbon dioxide in the atmosphere kept increasing. I asked the CSIRO why. They said that there is an inflection. I asked them for the details of that inflection, to characterise it statistically. They failed to do it. I asked the Bureau of Meteorology, and they said, 'Senator Roberts, it would take years for that to come through.' Here is the CSIRO saying that we've already seen it and the Bureau of Meteorology saying that we will see it eventually, but it will take a long while to come. You can't make this stuff up! What the experiments in 2009 and 2020 showed is that the production of carbon dioxide from human activity will not affect the level of carbon dioxide in the air. Once you understand Henry's law—the quantities of carbon dioxide dissolved in the ocean are 50 to 70 times more than the entire atmospheric carbon dioxide—then you start to understand why that's the case. But not content with climate science fraud, the CSIRO is perpetrating gen cost, which is energy fraud based on bogus assumptions that have been completely debunked. Aidan Morrison has done a marvellous job; others have done a marvellous job. There's no basis for this scam, this fraud, but let's return to the fraud. A report in the 2010s said Europol found 95 per cent of carbon dioxide trading credits were suspicious. That's easy to believe because there's no physical basis to the measurement of reductions to carbon dioxide produced. They're all projections. They're all based on guesses. They're formulae based on estimations. They were never quantified and are still not quantified. China is producing record quantities of carbon dioxide, and so are Russia, Brazil, the United States and the European Union—Australia are a small player—yet temperatures are flat and have been flat since 1995. That's almost 30 years of flat temperatures. I urge senators to establish this inquiry so that we can get to the bottom of how taxpayer money is being fraudulently abused. 18:31 Senator WATT 245759 Queensland The government will not be supporting this motion. This motion is a political stunt by a party that rejects the science of climate change and seeks to undermine action by businesses getting on with acting to cut pollution and store carbon in our landscape. The reforms to the safeguard mechanism, passed with the support of the Australian Greens and most of the Senate crossbench, have been welcomed by the business community, including the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Industry Group. These reforms provide the policy certainty for companies to invest to decarbonise their facilities. When our reforms passed on 30 March, the Business Council of Australia stated: … this is critical progress towards securing a transition that delivers new jobs and new opportunities. …   …   … After more than a decade of uncertainty and equivocation employers now have certainty about our emissions targets and how we're going to get there. The Australian Industry Group also made clear on 30 March: … the legislation delivers a measure of much-needed certainty that Australia is serious about both its emissions goals and the centrality of competitive industry to achieving them. On 31 January 2023 the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry urged those opposite to do the right thing for Australia's future and pass the bill, saying: The business community has been very clear in its support for reforms to the Safeguard Mechanism. This is the best way to secure the planning, investment and innovation that will underpin the decarbonisation of our economy without sacrificing reliability or affordability. Past failure to deal with this reality has crimped certainty for industry and investors, and left our energy sector in disarray. Australian businesses and households are now paying the price. On 3 April 2023 Orica made clear: Orica strongly supports the Government's reforms and strengthening of the Safeguard Mechanism, and we commend the Government's consultative approach and commitment to making this scheme work. Eighty-two per cent of safeguard facilities, representing around 90 per cent of covered emissions, are already covered by corporate net zero commitments because business knows that reducing emissions is essential to their long-term competitiveness in a global net zero economy. I might just add: only today I met with senior representatives of Rio Tinto, one of Queensland's major employers. I'm not sure whether Senator Hanson or Senator Roberts have ever bothered to go to Boyne Smelters in Gladstone. Rio Tinto, in partnership with the Queensland government, are investing heavily in renewable and other sources of power for their plant, which employs over 1,000 blue-collar workers in Gladstone, because Rio Tinto understand that their ongoing competitiveness, the ongoing future of those jobs in Gladstone and the thousands of jobs in manufacturing outfits that supply Boyne Smelters, along with other heavy industry in Gladstone, relies on making this transition towards cheaper, cleaner power. Rio Tinto are doing this because they understand that, if they want to be able to sell their product in the future across the world, they have to move towards renewable, cheaper and cleaner power. We know that One Nation and, unfortunately, elements of the LNP in Queensland want to put their heads in the sand and pretend that this is not happening. This is what companies need to do now to make sure that we have those jobs in heavy industry into the future. The reforms that the Labor government have introduced will progressively lower baseline on a trajectory consistent with the legislated targets, delivering more than 200 million tonnes of abatement to 2030. The use of Australian carbon credit units has always been central to the safeguard mechanism since it was legislated by the previous government in 2014. Let's not forget that, on 25 November 2015, the previous government's environment minister, Greg Hunt, boasted that the safeguard mechanism would generate approximately 200 million tonnes of emissions reduction by 2030—and that was towards the weak 2030 targets that the former government had at the time, a target that has now been abandoned by the Leader of the Opposition. The ACCU scheme has already been subject to multiple reviews and has been found to be sound. In 2022, the independent Chubb review found the ACCU scheme settings were sound and set out some sensible improvements that should be made. We are getting on with it and have already acted to implement the review recommendations. The Climate Change Authority's review of the scheme, which reported last December, has also found that the scheme is 'well designed', with 'robust governance, compliance and enforcement structures'. On 30 April, the Australian National Audit Office released their performance report of the ACCU scheme. They found the scheme's administration and development of methods was effective and was being effectively enforced by the Clean Energy Regulator. The Clean Energy Regulator has increased the transparency of HIR projects and established extra review and audit processes to implement recommendation 8. In May 2023, implementing the ministerial direction, the Clean Energy Regulator expanded its compliance audit program to include independent audits for regeneration and forest cover attainment checks, known as gateway checks, of all HIR projects. In June 2023, the Clean Energy Regulator published HIR project carbon estimation areas. In the second half of 2023, the Clean Energy Regulator engaged Associate Professor Cris Brack, a forestry services expert from the Australian National University, to independently review HIR projects passing their first five-yearly regeneration check. Associate Professor Brack's first report, published on 15 December 2023, found: … HIR projects are demonstrating regeneration and proponents are implementing the project activities. He also found: … the independent audit reports and the Clean Energy Regulator (CER) reviews of HIR projects provide strong assurance that projects meet the requirements of the method … A second report was published on 30 September. Associate Professor Brack found that the independent audit reports and the Clean Energy Regulator's assessments 'continue to provide strong assurance that projects are being managed properly'. The Albanese government has also been consulting on the Climate Active program and looking at ways to drive more effective voluntary climate action and provide consumers with greater confidence about businesses' climate credentials. The program is not related to our safeguard reforms and is not one of the key levers used by the government to meet its legislated emissions reduction targets. The Albanese government has put in place a comprehensive suite of climate and energy programs to encourage businesses and organisations to act on climate change and prioritise emissions reductions. Of course, we are doing that partly because of the environmental need to act on climate change, but we're also, as I say, doing this because we understand that so many thousands of jobs across Australia, particularly in the resources sector, heavy industry and other blue-collar occupations, rely on us making this energy transition as quickly and efficiently as possible. We know there are some in the Australian parliament—including One Nation and, sadly, many in the LNP—who continue to believe that we can ignore climate change. In some cases, they just don't believe that climate change is even happening. There are many in this chamber—fortunately, not in the Labor Party, but in other parties—who think that we can ignore the reality of climate change and that the rest of the world can move ahead in making this adjustment and we don't need to worry about it. The only thing that will happen as a result of that is that thousands of blue-collar workers in places like Gladstone will lose their jobs. It's not environmental activists who are making this point; it's companies like Rio Tinto. Senator Hanson interjecting— Senator WATT 245759 Senator Hanson can keep yelling at me if she wants to. I'd bet she's never set foot in Boyne Smelter. I'd bet she's never set foot in any of the alumina refineries. Well, people like me have. We've talked to the workers. We've talked to the companies. They understand that we need to make this change, because the workers want to have a job not just next year but in 10 years, 20 years, 30 years and 50 years. The way to do that is by making sure that we accept the reality of climate change, making the investments that are necessary to keep those jobs and ensuring that they are supplied by cheaper, cleaner power. We are not going to be distracted by the climate deniers who sit in parties like One Nation and the LNP. We're about protecting those jobs and protecting the environment. The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT 217241 The question before the chair is that the motion moved by Senators Hanson and Roberts be agreed to. A division is required, but, because it is past 6.30 pm, it will be deferred until tomorrow. Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee 111 Reference 111 18:40 Senator SHOEBRIDGE 169119 New South Wales I, and also on behalf of Senator Cox, move: That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee for inquiry and report by 26 November 2024: Australia's youth justice and incarceration system, with particular reference to: (a) the outcomes and impacts of youth incarceration in jurisdictions across Australia; (b) the over-incarceration of First Nations children; (c) the degree of compliance and non-compliance by state, territory and federal prisons and detention centres with the human rights of children and young people in detention; (d) the Commonwealth's international obligations in regards to youth justice including the rights of the child, freedom from torture and civil rights; (e) the benefits and need for enforceable national minimum standards for youth justice consistent with our international obligations; and (f) any related matters. To be clear, this motion is seeking to refer to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee an inquiry with a requirement to report by 26 November this year into Australia's youth justice and incarceration system, with particular reference to the outcomes and impacts of youth incarceration in jurisdictions across Australia; the overincarceration of First Nations children; the degree of compliance and non-compliance by state, territory and federal prison and detention centres with the human rights of children and young people in detention; the Commonwealth's international obligations in regard to youth justice, including the rights of the child, freedom from torture and civil rights; the benefits and need for enforceable national minimum standards for youth justice consistent with our international obligations and any related matters. We have seen so many instances of states and territories permitting their criminal justice system to imprison, in particular, First Nations youth at rates that are shameful. But we've also seen instances of systemic abuse across the entire country. There was a royal commission recently into the Tasmanian treatment of young people, more broadly, and child sexual abuse. Its findings in relation to Tasmania's sole child detention system were so appalling, showing such systemic abuse of young people in that prison: physical abuse, sexual abuse and violence. It is unimaginable that that institution continues, and yet it does. I'll give you one indication of the horrific nature of that child jail in Tasmania. The evidence was that, when the young girls were being admitted into that detention centre, if they had reached puberty, they were automatically being put on the pill. The system knew that they would end up being sexually assaulted in that place. That facility continues. There has been only one criminal prosecution brought in relation to the systemic abuse identified in that institution in Tasmania. That prosecution was brought against a corrections officer who took his life. There are no active prosecutions despite the appalling nature of the evidence, and that institution continues. We could go across the country to WA, where the Banksia Hill Detention Centre has been found by repeated Western Australian Supreme Court judgements to be acting in breach of WA laws in the prolonged torture of children. These are repeated findings of the Supreme Court that it's acting unlawfully against somewhat weak existing limitations on detaining children in WA. And the WA government has repeatedly ignored the findings from the WA Supreme Court. As my colleague Senator Cox will make clear, the tragedy, the loss of life, the loss of hope and the brutality of that particular institution identify the systemic unresolved failings in the WA youth justice system. We could turn our attention to the Northern Territory, where, while we are gathered here tonight in the Senate, I think we can have 99 per cent certainty that every child and every youth who will be jailed tonight under the Northern Territory's detention system, including some that are so notorious—pretty much every child in those children's jails will be a First Nations child. And the Territory government has just been taken by the CLP, who want to lower the age of criminal responsibility and put more First Nations kids in jail. We could turn our attention to Queensland, where tonight there will be dozens, perhaps hundreds, of kids held in Queensland police watch houses, because they keep putting more and more kids—the majority of them First Nations kids but not just First Nations kids—into the criminal justice system. They've seen an explosion of kids in jail, as a failed way of dealing with concerns about children's behaviour, sometimes criminal behaviour. In my home state of New South Wales, there are multiple child jails. I visited many of them on numerous occasions when I was a state MP. I've seen the way those detention centres can snuff out hope for young people and drive what is often child removal. It leads to a child being removed from their family. I've seen the failings in the foster care system, or the state care system, where the child has been removed. The child finds themself in juvenile detention, which is a pipeline into the criminal justice system. That system is broken. What I will say, though, is that there are some lessons to learn from New South Wales. The proportion of kids in juvenile detention in New South Wales effectively halved over the last 12 years. It effectively halved because of a series of measures taken—sometimes against the flow of state politics there—that have seen more kids being found stable accommodation outside of jail. If we look at why kids end up in jail in WA, the Northern Territory, Queensland, New South Wales and Tasmania, often it's because the courts know that there's no safe home for them to go to, apart from jail. The kids spend months on remand. They eventually get sentenced. Often it's a non-custodial sentence. They've been punished largely because there was no home for them. With all of that happening at the state and territory level, the Commonwealth government has done nothing—absolutely nothing. The federal Attorney-General will occasionally make some sad statement on Twitter to a collection of state and territory leaders. But who has all the international obligations to ensure that children aren't tortured and that the rights of the child are respected, that First Nations' rights are respected and that civil and political rights are respected? Which level of government has all those international obligations? It's not the Northern Territory government. It's not the WA government. It's not the New South Wales government. The international obligations—obligations to prevent torture, for example—all lie with the Commonwealth, and all the Commonwealth ever does is pass that responsibility on to the states. It washes it through the system and passes it through the states and says it's never any of the Commonwealth's business. What we say is that that passing of responsibility, that duckshoving, is failing generations of kids. We've seen the evidence that states and territories by themselves will not fix the system. Yes, there's marginal improvement in New South Wales, but, even then, the systemic problems remain. The states and territories will not fix this problem by themselves. They've proven that time after time after time. What this inquiry is calling for is a close examination of the benefits of and the need for enforceable national minimum standards for youth justice consistent with our international obligations, and they are Commonwealth obligations. It's about time the Commonwealth lifted its game. In the short time that these terms of reference have been available and circulated in the Senate, we did get some suggestions from Senator Thorpe's office to expand them. The suggestions are pretty much already covered by the terms of reference that I've read into the record, particularly that final term of reference, 'any other related matter'. I also note that this inquiry needs to report by 28 November. It needs to be focused and it needs to deliver a pathway for reform that's going to get some kids, as many kids as we can, out of jail; that's going to push back against the flow of increased incarceration; and that's going to put an obligation on the Commonwealth to do more than just wring its hands. Whilst I fully respect and understand the rationale behind those amendments, they are covered by the existing terms of reference. We already face an enormous challenge in getting this inquiry done in a time that it can be considered by this parliament. I commend the motion. 18:50 Senator COX 296215 Western Australia As the co-sponsor of this motion, I echo and support my colleague Senator Shoebridge's comments. Time and time again we've seen governments across this country, as Senator Shoebridge said, put out a sad post or a sad Instagram reel talking about the loss of life—in my home state of Western Australia we've lost two children the last two months—to youth incarceration. There has been a flurry of people coming in and out of that state—politicians, former politicians, the previous director-general of corrective services—saying quite publicly that areas like Banksia Hill need reform, that areas like Unit 18 at Casuarina Prison need to be shut down because they are representative of torture. Children as young as 15 and 16 would rather harm themselves—kill themselves, in fact, by suicide—than be incarcerated or subjected to the torture and trauma in these places. With the death of Cleveland Dodd, the coronial inquest and the harrowing evidence that's already been shared as part of that process, it is beyond time. That a second child died in Western Australia less than two weeks ago means that, as Senator Shoebridge said, the time is up for the wringing of the hands of state governments and territory governments in this country. It is up here tonight. As a mother of a child—my youngest daughter is 10 years old, and I think about the age of criminal responsibility, which governments in this country would like to lower, and I think about her being incarcerated. I can't remove that level of trauma from my mind. I don't think anybody in this chamber would agree with that. If this was your child, your niece, your nephew, your grandchild, would you want that for them? I hope we see in this chamber tonight an overwhelming amount of support for this motion, because we should. This is the human thing to do. It is with humility that Senator Shoebridge and I have brought this motion forward here tonight. We are frustrated when we hear the constant excuses about why they can't do anything. We know that 70 per cent of the children that are incarcerated in youth justice—and we can't even use that word because it's not about justice; there is no justice for our children that are incarcerated in this country. Seventy per cent of them are First Nations children, but there are many others—children who are homeless, children who have been in the child protection system, children of migrants and refugees in this country, children who have experienced trauma. Then we go to the cost. People will often argue with us that this is about a tough-on-crime approach. It costs $1 million per year to keep a child in custody. But we need to have some care and protection for our children in this country when one in six of them is living in poverty. All of you in this place will sit around and talk about cost-of-living pressures and what it means. But these children and the love, the care and the protection they need is not in an institution. And we have to dismantle that pipeline. That will be your legacy in this place tonight as you vote for this motion. The humanity that you can restore for the future generations of children here in Australia is out here laid bare on the floor for you all, because everybody's watching—those folks watching at home tonight. We know the stories, the media articles that are being shared, about the reintroduction of spit hoods, the deaths of those children in my home state of Western Australia. Yet we will hear politicians provide the lame excuses time after time. These kids are complex. These kids have disabilities. Well, do you know what? They don't belong in a cage. That's the reality of this situation. Tonight Senator Shoebridge and I bring this motion because jailing is failing in this country. And it's not just a hashtag. This is about our children and the fact that we have the opportunity—the responsibility—to stop youth justice equalling incarceration and jailing the next generation of our children. Question agreed to. BILLS 113 BILLS Future Made in Australia Bill 2024, Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024 113

Future Made in Australia Bill 2024

Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024

Second Reading 113 18:57 Senator GREEN 259819 Queensland I am pleased to continue my remarks in regard to the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024, an important opportunity for our country to take the next step into a cleaner future for our nation and better local jobs for our regions. It's without question that our world is quickly changing, our global and national population is growing, economies are becoming more competitive, and we are moving towards a future where we get to decide: Do we want to fall behind on the global transition to net zero? Or do we want to invest in ourselves and ensure that Australians of today and of future generations are set up to have cheaper and cleaner energy? This is an opportunity to see Australians have more-secure and better paid jobs. It's an opportunity for Australians to see their nation become a renewable energy superpower that's taking ambitious strides towards net zero, and it's a real opportunity for regional Queenslanders to lead this change. I want to discuss what is in this bill, because I have heard a lot of debate about what this bill means. But it's really clear that this bill provides a clear plan for the future of our industrial policy. It's a plan that looks to targeted public investment to attract private finance sectors that have comparative advantage in our net zero global economy. The bill would establish a national interest framework and introduce community benefit principles. The national interest framework would have two streams: the net zero transformation stream and the economic resilience and security stream. Together these streams would target sectors that could have a comparative advantage in the net zero economy and would look towards unlocking private investment for areas that align with Australia's national interest. This framework would have a transparency at its core and play a crucial role in attracting investment that will transform our economy. The community benefit principles are a second priority of this bill, and they're really important. Community benefit principles will be established to ensure that public investment and the private investment that it attracts will flow towards communities and benefit local workers and businesses. There are five principles that are outlined in this legislation, and it beggars belief that those opposite would oppose these principles. They are, very simply: job security and safety, upskilling workforces, engaging collaboratively with local communities, strengthening industrial local supply chains and demonstrating transparency and compliance in relation to the management of tax affairs. The bill, with the aim that our country becomes more competitive, productive and economically resilient, will be delivering $22.7 billion to ensure that we can have good, local, secure manufacturing jobs. Some of these commitments include $68 million over four years to attract key investments in key industries and to increase the contribution that Australia is making to innovation, science and digital capabilities. But it's the investment that we are making in our critical minerals that I think is crucial to this bill. A key commitment of the Future Made in Australia Bill which is significant for my home state of Queensland will be the new initiative funding critical minerals. It's an important step forward because we know that this is going to be a crucial industry as we transition to net zero, and it's really important to places like Queensland that have a good resources industry. Under the Future Made in Australia policy, critical minerals will receive production tax incentives to support downstream refining and processing of Australia's 31 critical minerals over the next decade. It is, again, an exciting opportunity for those regional towns to take hold of this transformation. The other sector that we are looking at through this bill and through our investment in manufacturing is defence manufacturing. The Future Made in Australia Bill will also look towards broader investments in the government's growth agenda, including in defence priorities and manufacturing. To achieve this, the government will provide $100 million to attract and retain a skilled industrial workforce. This funding will support Australian shipbuilding, the delivery of conventionally armed nuclear powered submarines and create new jobs and experts within our defence sector. It is an important step forward to create an industrial base that is resilient, competitive and capable, and it's exactly what our government wants to do with the Future Made in Australia Bill. This bill before us today, the Future Made in Australia Bill, is a pivotal decision for our future. The Albanese Labor government wants to invest in and strengthen our economies, industries and supply chains. We want to make more things here in Australia. We want to create jobs for Australians and invest in our local communities and we want to equip our workforce with the skills that we need for a modern and thriving economy. As I said at the beginning of my contribution earlier today, it is so important that we get this right. There is no community that knows that more than the community that I live in in Cairns. We have two things at stake when it comes to this bill. We have a thriving tourism economy that is dependent on us getting to net zero. We also have an incredible defence and marine manufacturing sector ready to take to the next level. We have good, local manufacturing jobs that rely on the reef. That is the economic base of our small regional community. It is really important that we support this bill, and that's why I'm doing that, to support the local community in Cairns. It's disappointing to see, yet again, the Liberal and National parties voting against a future made in Australia and voting against all the opportunities that this bill could bring to somewhere like Far North Queensland. But this is the first opportunity for the new LNP candidate for Leichhardt, Jeremy Neal, to stand up for the community in Far North Queensland. He has a choice to make: does he support a future made in Australia or does he support Mr Peter Dutton? Because you can't do both. You can't support the LNP's position on a future made in Australia and vote down this bill that supports manufacturing and say that you support the Cairns Marine Precinct, the shipbuilders down on the wharf and the future of our tourism industry in Cairns. You can't do both. So this is the first chance for Jeremy Neal to stand up for the local community in Far North Queensland and say that he does support Labor's Future Made in Australia Bill and that he doesn't support the position of the Liberal-National coalition. It is shameful that we again have this situation, where, no matter what single manufacturing job we talk about, the Liberal-National coalition is out to get those workers. They've been called rent-seekers. I don't see it that way. I've met with manufacturing workers in Cairns and across Queensland. They have a bright future under a Labor government, because we are looking forward to what a renewable energy future looks like for Queensland. What it means is that we're able to do two things. We're able to make more things here in Australia, and we're able to progress to a net zero economy and protect the Great Barrier Reef. That is what these bills are about. I'm very pleased to be supporting them. I've always stood up for manufacturing workers, and I've always stood up against the attacks that manufacturing workers have suffered from those opposite. We'll continue to do that, and as a Labor government we'll continue to deliver what manufacturing workers need—good, local, secure jobs. 19:06 Senator KOVACIC 306168 New South Wales I rise to speak on the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 and the Future Made in Australia (Omnibus Amendments No. 1) Bill 2024. Sadly, these bills couldn't be further from the priorities that this government should be pursuing for the Australian people. We are opposing these bills, because, the more we hear about them and the more we hear about the detail, the clearer it becomes how wasteful some elements of this are. The bigger that government gets, the more intervention in the economy there is. That's what we don't need—more intervention. This is just another thread in the fabric of this government's agenda to slowly break down small businesses in this country and give special treatment to their mates in the union movement and in the industry super funds. It's time to focus on building small businesses, not bringing them down. Labor's policies on energy, industrial relations and tax are all making it harder for Australian small businesses to survive and making Australia a much harder place to do business. This is the opposite of what we need, and this bill just adds to that significant problem. We are now continually hearing more and more stories about the poor processes, the lack of scrutiny and the double standards that are within this program. The government continues to try to pick winners in the economy. They are spending billions of dollars of taxpayers' funds to do so, and they are pouring these billions of dollars into the economy in this way in the middle of a cost-of-living and inflationary crisis. We speak regularly about the fact that this government has poured $315 billion extra into the economy since they came to government. This is why we have homegrown inflation, this is why we have the problem with the stickiness of inflation in this country and this is why we are laggards when it comes to dealing with inflation compared to our global contemporaries. Since Labor came to power, Australians have been paying more and more—and far more than people in comparable economies. Our core inflation is higher than the US, the UK, Canada, Japan, the EU, Sweden, Norway, Switzerland and New Zealand. We are now in six consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth per capita, the longest per capita recession in 50 years. Think about that. Living standards have fallen by 8.7 per cent, productivity has fallen by 6.3 per cent, household savings are down 10.2 percentage points and personal income taxes are 25.3 per cent higher. That's not to mention what has happened to the mortgage repayments and rents of the everyday Australian. Gas is up 33 per cent, and electricity is up 14 per cent. That is even after the rebate has been added. Rents are up 16 per cent, health is up 11 per cent, education is also up 11 per cent, food is up 12 per cent and finance and insurance are up 17 per cent. A family with a mortgage of $750,000 is around $35,000 a year worse off. I'll probably hear you say, 'Yes, we've heard you say that a lot.' We say it a lot because it's really important. The average family with a mortgage of $750,000 in this country—just on that basis—is $35,000 a year worse off. That is extraordinary. We should be talking about that a lot more and we should understand the pain that the everyday Australian is feeling every single day as they struggle and juggle to pay their bills. It is unacceptable that Australians are in a full-blown cost-of-living crisis. I have been calling, along with so many of my colleagues, for this government to address the root causes of this inflation; however, the spending continues. The Future Made in Australia Bill does nothing to alleviate these pressures on struggling families and small businesses. In fact, this big-spending agenda and this big-spending bill are likely to make inflation worse. Just like households and small businesses, governments need to manage their budgets and live within their means, but the Albanese Labor government have shown just how truly out of depth and out of touch they are. This is not just a cost-of-living crisis; it is also a cost-of-doing-business crisis and it is hitting small businesses the hardest. Small businesses across the country, particularly in my state of New South Wales, are employing fewer staff and not opening for as long. Their costs are going up. Their prices are going up. They are paying more for their loans and, sadly, they have fewer people coming through the door to buy their goods and services, so they are shuttering their doors. They are closing down. Small businesses in this country are in crisis. They are closing down because they cannot afford to continue to operate. That is happening under the watch of this government. What does this bill do for small business? Does it do anything? No, it doesn't. In fact, it will make the problems that small businesses are facing even worse. One could call it another shot in the war against small business. That is unacceptable. Small businesses are the heavy lifters of our economy. They are the accountants, hairdressers, dentists, doctors, pharmacists, tradies, plumbers and electricians. They are people that hold our country together, yet for some reason this government continues to introduce policy mechanisms that make it harder for small businesses to survive in this country. This legislation puts the Treasurer and his department in the position to decide whether a sector of the Australian economy deserves investment. The Treasurer has never run a business, and he described his private career as 'six long, long months'. He will now be setting the conditions for businesses to operate and seek funding under his plan. 'Six long, long months'—think about that. Every small business operator in this country that struggles to pay their bills, pay their staff and keep costs down should have a think about that and the attitude of this government to what they're going through. The Treasurer's department will consider the investment against a very narrow set of criteria, and it has provided evidence to Senate estimates that key investments for Australia's energy future and sovereign capability, be they carbon capture and storage, gas, blue hydrogen, uranium or nuclear, will not be eligible and have not been considered as a part of this framework. The analysis to green-light these investments will be guided by a Treasurer who has never worked in business and a department of bureaucrats who, under this government, have shown that they have failed to understand Australian business, particularly Australian small businesses. Meanwhile, the so-called community benefit principles will entrench union involvement in the workplace and replicate many of the same social procurement policies that have enabled the CFMEU's corrupt conduct to flourish at the state level. We don't need more of that; we need less of that. That is not the way to build a healthy and productive economy where everybody gets a fair go. The Business Council have warned that these procurement rules are at risk of enabling this behaviour, while risking subsiding businesses Australia would never have a comparative advantage in. The BCA rightly points out that it is important because there are taxpayer dollars at stake. We have to remember there is no government money; it's all taxpayer money. All the money that is spent in this place is taxpayer money. The BCA have been clear that this is not the best path ahead. The coalition are not the only ones raising these serious concerns, along with the BCA. Danielle Wood, the Chair of the Productivity Commission—the government's key economic adviser, appointed by Jim Chalmers—has said: If we are supporting industries that don't have a long-term competitive advantage, that can be an ongoing cost. It diverts resources, that's workers and capital, away from other parts of the economy where they might generate high value uses. We risk creating a class of businesses that is reliant on government subsidies, and that can be very effective in coming back for more. When asked whether Future Made in Australia contained tax reform, Ms Wood explicitly said, 'No, it is not a tax reform.' There are a lot of issues here. In another example, an eminent economist, Professor Richard Holden, said: The PM says all the wrong things … And his main argument for subsidies is that other countries are doing it. He said it's like a primary school teacher being told, 'Someone else started it,' or, 'Somebody else has done it, so we should do it too.' Steven Hamilton, an independent economist, has said: There are many problems with industry policy, and this is a big one. It's why I tend to favour more neutral investment incentives like a lower corporate tax rate or accelerated depreciation. So what is this telling us? It is telling us that across the board there are concerns with this, across the board there are red flags and industry groups and economists are saying, 'You're getting this wrong.' Australians want and deserve something much better than this. The coalition in government will do three things. We will steer our nation out of this domestic crisis. We will not simply talk about our challenges; we will actually do something about them. More importantly, we will make decisions that will set up our nation for success in generations to come. This bill, the Future Made in Australia bill 2024, and its program are not the way to do that. 19:17 Senator ROBERTS 266524 Queensland The Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 provides a legislative framework for parts of the government 's Future Made in Australia policy. This provides for an investment of $22.7 billion over the next 10 years to 'help Australia become an indispensable part of the global economy as the world transforms to net zero emissions and undergoes the most significant changes since the industrial revolution'. The government talks about maximising the economic and industrial benefits of the move to net zero and securing Australia's place in a changing global economic and strategic landscape. Specifically, the following claim is made by the government: Given our critical and abundant natural endowments and skilled workforce, Australia is well positioned to strengthen priority supply chains and become an indispensable part of the net zero global economy. One Nation are big supporters of the first part of that statement. Australia is blessed with abundant and substantial mineral resources, and it's our obligation to share those with the world so other countries can enjoy the standard of living we have. That is, we used to have it. Now our economy is in a race to the bottom, with the Greens, teals and Labor in a race to see how many wealth-generating projects they can shut down. The Future Made in Australia agenda includes broader investments in the government's growth agenda, including critical technologies, defence priorities, skills in priority sectors, a competitive business environment and reforms to better attract and deploy investment—in particular, projects where some level of domestic capability is necessary for efficient delivery of economic resilience and security and the private sector will not deliver the necessary investment in the sector in the absence of government support. That's an important point. I have been working with the project sponsor of Capricorn Steel, a steel park project in northern Queensland, which I will speak more often a moment. This project, known also as Project Iron Boomerang, includes a railway, port and new energy efficient ships. This is a $50 billion project, initially, which is to be entirely financed through private equity, who have the money ready to go but will not commit it, because they don't trust the Australian government. After watching a litany of cancelled projects—like Adani, where a billionaire from India wanted to invest $17 billion in Australia, and we did our best as a country and as the state of Queensland to keep him out—long legal delays and general incompetence, financiers are taking their money elsewhere. This is why the government is now creating an investment pathway to get things built again. It's the government or nothing. The prime function of the government is to build infrastructure projects that allow private enterprise to grow the economy and raise the wealth and prosperity of all Australians; to improve productivity in a way that protects the natural environment. This bill adds a layer on top, which is that the development must be net zero friendly. One Nation doesn't believe in the United Nations' globalist net zero agenda. There is no empirical scientific data, no logical scientific points and no policy basis. We've seen that repeatedly. We believe it involves a massive transfer of wealth from everyday citizens into the pockets of the world's predatory billionaires—billionaire parasites sucking solar and wind subsidies. It forms a highly regressive tax on the poor using electricity. We wonder when the Left signed on to a crony capitalist agenda that hurts everyday Australians for no environmental benefit. That's a separate issue. One Nation does agree the national environment should be protected. We are stewards of the most fragile ecosystem in the world, and we must act with care. This bill doesn't actually mention good stewardship of the natural environment, but it's okay; One Nation does that as part of our core party values. The Future Made in Australia policy includes the following broad stated aims: firstly, attracting investment in key industries through the national investment framework, streamlining approval processes for investment and encouraging private sector investment in sustainable industries; secondly, investing in net zero industries and increasing the demand for Australia's green exports; thirdly, strengthening resources and economic security by investing in resources and critical mineral supply chains, as well as investing in manufacturing of clean energy technology; and fourthly, investing in new technologies and capabilities, reforming tertiary education, providing a training and skills pipeline for Future Made in Australia priority industries, strengthening defence capability and increasing drought and disaster resilience, among other things. The bill establishes the National Interest Framework, to be used for sector assessments which will determine which sectors of the economy are ones in which Australia could have a competitive advantage in a net zero economy and that require government investment, or where some degree of domestic capacity is required for the economic resilience and security. The government's stated guidelines in this section include a community benefit test which includes promoting safe, secure and well-paid work; developing skilled and inclusive workforces; working with communities to achieve positive outcomes, in particular First Nations communities and those affected by the transition to net zero; and strengthening domestic industrial capabilities, including local supply chains. This sounds like socialism—government wanting to control. One Nation agrees with the intent. In particular, the industrial and mining sectors are being hollowed out through net zero measures to the detriment of the workers, unionists and their families. If the government is telling the truth, they will be able to rectify what they've already done in hollowing out the bush and the mining and manufacturing. Otherwise, fine Australian workers will join the tent cities that have sprung up under this Labor government. It should be pointed out that local supply chains are in fact part of the United Nations 2030 sustainability goals. It is more commonly called short supply chains. This goal encourages local supply of all goods and services, especially food. This may seem fine until you realise that, under this goal, anything which can't be supplied locally will not be available at all. That's the design. Except it will be available to the nomenklatura who can afford the carbon dioxide tax on long supply chains. If Australians want to live in a world that even vaguely resembles the world we grew up in, then local manufacturing is essential. This bill seems to represent a newfound realisation by the Albanese Labor government that their union bosses and union members are running out of jobs, the economy is tanking and the next election is moving way out of reach. One Nation can get on board with making things here again. We can't, though, get on board with all the net zero nonsense in this bill. The bill is written generally, allowing the minister wide powers to completely stuff things up. I don't see this as any different to the general stuffing-up the Albanese government is already doing. Giving it more ways to make mistakes seems like a bad idea. The bill has some good qualities. The economic resilience and security stream relates to sectors where Australia requires a degree of domestic capacity and resilience for domestic, economic or security reasons, and there's an absence of private sector investment with that government support. The provisions around this section are quite extensive and seem to be a genuine attempt to provide for Australia's sovereign industrial capacity—without using the word 'sovereign', of course! Let me give you an example of a project that fits the economic resilience and security rules like a glove and provides breadwinner, family friendly, secure jobs for tens of thousands of Australians. Capricorn Steel is a project to create an Australian steel industry using new, zero-emission steel plants located at Abbot Point near Townsville and Port Hedland in Western Australia. Boomerang ships would take beautiful Queensland coking coal around to Port Hedland in Western Australia, where it'll be used with their iron ore to produce Australian steel. This will be the world's highest-quality steel, produced at 10 to 15 per cent less than China—the cheapest quality steel in the world. From Port Hedland this steel can be exported to markets in the subcontinent—India and Europe. The development crescent of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia will become the world's largest steel market over the next 20 years; Australia is perfectly placed to capitalise on that. Those ships will return to the Port of Gladstone carrying iron ore which will be combined with Australian coking coal to create a second steel park at Abbot Point. From there, Inland Rail can take this steel anywhere in Australia to help meet Australia's steel needs—steel that is critical to net zero, housing, construction and our modern lifestyle, steel that is critical to Australia's defence capability. Abbot Point, or the Port of Gladstone, is perfectly situated to export this steel to Asia, China and the United States. Development of a railway across the Top End to open up areas currently served by road as well as new port facilities and new high-efficiency shipping are all projects that satisfy the development criteria in this bill—plus a water pipeline, plus a communications link to open up Central Australia and northern Queensland, the Northern Territory and northern Western Australia. Capricorn Steel and Project Iron Boomerang will add $100 billion to Australia's gross domestic product, provide 40,000 secure breadwinner jobs and provide $25 billion in government revenue every year. Capricorn Steel will be emission free, for those who believe this global warming nonsense. Every ton of steel produced in the zero-emission steel plants to be constructed at Port Hedland and Abbot Point will save two tonnes of carbon dioxide from steel produced elsewhere. That's a reduction in carbon dioxide production of 88 million tonnes a year. There is no net zero without steel. Yet all the messaging coming from the government around this bill is nothing but net zero, which is nonsense. I get it: even net zero carpetbaggers are running out of interest in this failed net zero scam, so the government has to steal taxpayers' money to keep net zero going. One Nation has no confidence this bill will achieve anything positive for Australia. If the government wants to move the provisions around economic resilience and security into a new bill, with Infrastructure Australia in charge, One Nation would be delighted to support those measures. 19:28 Senator DARMANIN 301128 Victoria I've only recently joined my parliamentary colleagues in the Senate, but in this short time I've already witnessed the important and ambitious work being done by the Albanese government. In my first speech I spoke about what government is for and the importance of making our time in government count. Today I rise extremely proudly in support of the Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 to do exactly that. This bill is ambitious and long-lasting. It is exactly the kind of policy that's crucial for investing in our workplaces and securing our sovereign capability. It's about shaping the future we want for our country—a future where our incredibly skilled workers make more things right here in Australia. Before I speak about the specifics of this bill, I want to share a personal story—one that highlights why I care so deeply about manufacturing in Australia and why this legislation hits close to home for me. My dad, Vince, spent all of his working life in manufacturing in Victoria. For some of this time, as a maintenance fitter, he was working at the Kodak factory in Coburg, right in my home state. He started there in 1997 and, like many working Australians— Debate interrupted. ADJOURNMENT 118 ADJOURNMENT Women in Parliament 118 19:30 Senator GROGAN 296331 South Australia Today I rise to celebrate a milestone. It's not just a moment in our party's history but a testament to the ongoing fight for gender equity in Australia. Thirty years ago, the Australian Labor Party made a bold and transformative decision and committed to affirmative action for women. The decision to introduce quotas for women for preselection was not just about increasing the numbers and not just about a percentage; it was about ensuring that women's voices were heard and that women's voices, perspectives and leadership were central to the decisions shaping our nation. It was about capturing the best and the brightest of our party and putting them forward into those positions. Our society has changed and developed, and the Labor Party has changed and developed alongside it. When we reflect on the past three decades, we can see what a profound impact this policy has had. The leadership shown by the Labor Party has made a fundamental difference to our democracy and our representation. Thirty years ago, women in politics were rarities, and almost invisible, even though they were in those positions. But today women are at the forefront of our party. They are driving the change. They are leading with vision, integrity and courage. This didn't happen by chance. It wasn't just a whim. It happened because our party understood true representation and the true power, courage and intelligence of the women within the party whom we needed to bring to the fore. The affirmative action policy was a recognition of the historical structural barriers that women had faced whereby they were excluded from power and from decision-making. The first federal government to have a majority of women in it is the one we are standing in now, and that is a huge development. It is a huge leap forward. It is a huge advantage for our society to have our community represented appropriately at the highest points of decision-making. We know that being in government is about choices, and the Albanese government chooses to back women. In our time in government, in the last 2½ years, we have put economic gender equity at the centre of our government's work. We've made child care cheaper, we've extended paid parental leave, we've extended the single parenting payments, we've delivered tax cuts that are better and fairer for women, we've delivered wage increases to feminised industries, and the gender pay gap is at an all-time low. But we still see underrepresentation of women in some key areas and we continue to face challenges in achieving true equality. Our commitment must remain strong and it must evolve to meet the new challenges that we see as our society continues to change. We must also acknowledge that, by fostering a culture of inclusivity and diversity, the benefits of affirmative action go beyond gender equity. We strengthened our party's democracy by making these changes, and that flows on to the country. We ensure that the voices of all Australians, regardless of their gender, their race or their background, are heard and respected. In celebrating 30 years of affirmative action, we honour those women who fought for this policy, and we honour those women who are now in leadership positions by the nature of this policy and their pathway. We recommit ourselves to the principles of fairness, equity and justice that underpin our party's values. This is a momentous week. It's been 30 years since that policy was brought to bear, and it has shown us what is possible when we dare to take bold action. Let the next 30 years be defined by even greater progress, by even more courageous steps towards equality and by a Labor Party that continues to lead the way in building a fairer and more just Australian society for all. Monash Electorate 119 19:35 Senator HUME 266499 Victoria One of my very favourite parts of being a senator for Victoria is getting out and about to visit different parts of the state, getting off some of those major highways and out of the big towns and seeing parts of the state that perhaps I might not have seen if I had done a different job. Just recently, I had the pleasure of visiting the electorate of Monash with our Liberal candidate Mary Aldred to join her in the beautiful part of Victoria that she calls home. Mary is an extraordinary woman. I have known her for 20 years. She's an exemplary leader and has been an advocate for her community for decades. She was the founding CEO of the Committee for Gippsland, where under her leadership the organisation grew from being a startup to having over 100 local employers as members. She also worked in the franchise sector, so she has a deep understanding of the pressures and the operations of small businesses. I hope she'll soon be able to continue her support for small businesses in the parliament, because seeing her in action on the ground proved she is an extraordinary person and will be the amazing representative that the people of Monash need and deserve. Mary and I travelled right around the West Gippsland region to meet with small-business owners, to meet with farmers and to meet with community representatives. Hearing from these individuals gave me a real insight into the challenges that are being faced in that region and in regional Australia more broadly, whether it be in relation to the cost of living or, particularly, the cost of doing business. While we heard many things, there was one commonality that everyone that we met shared. They absolutely loved what they did and they loved the community that they lived in. So we started by meeting with representatives from the Corinella & District Community Centre. We met with Kerryn, with Janice and with Jan to tour the facility and to hear about the good work that they do in their town. This centre has been pivotal in providing practical support and relief to local residents in that Bass Coast shire region and in offering essential services such as food assistance and community outreach programs. They told us that they've seen an increase in demand for their services because of the high cost of living. Indeed, people who they have never had to service before have been coming through their doors. They also told us that, as much as people are struggling to make ends meet, it's very difficult for some people to reach out for assistance because they're too proud and they never thought that they would need help just to put food on the table. These are people who work hard every day to make a living, and they're left with very little after they've paid their mortgage or paid their energy bills. As I said, they are people that have never sought help before. The sentiment around how much tougher it is for Australians to get by is one that was shared by almost everyone that we heard from at a round table that Mary hosted with me in San Remo, in Inverloch, in Warragul and in Moe. Local small businesses told us that they had to adapt their businesses in response to the change in consumer behaviour from the cost-of-living crisis. Not only are they facing uncertainty on the demand side but their business owners also said that they're facing increasing overheads and rents and are being particularly wrapped up in red tape and complex industrial relations laws, specifically in how complicated the awards system is. That came up over and over again. It's not just our small-business owners that are facing these pressures. It's our farmers too. The electorate of Monash is an agricultural powerhouse in not just Victoria but the nation. We visited Fankhauser Apples just outside Drouin, an extraordinary place. They are producers of many types of apples, but Gippsland Golds are my absolute favourite. I highly recommend them, but they're hard to find in the supermarkets. We also met with a group of farmers from the region and were kindly hosted by Durkin Produce, in Thorpdale, which Mary proudly told me is Australia's potato capital. During these meetings, these primary producers and farmers talked about the challenges facing their industries, particularly higher taxes in the form of the biosecurity levy and the heavy-vehicle road-user charge. One farmer told me his costs have gone up 28 per cent in the last year alone, and he followed it up with a quote: 'The cost of doing business in Australia is simply unviable. It's horrific.' We saw the farmer rally that took place on the lawns just outside of parliament today. Without our farmers, we must understand there is simply no food. We cannot understand why Labor are intent on making business impossible for our farmers. Mary understands the pressures that farmers and small businesses in regional Victoria face because she has spent so much of her time, so much of her life, dedicated to providing a voice for these industries. She knows that only a Dutton coalition government will be able to get Australia back on track, that a Dutton coalition government will have the policies to address the concerns that were raised with us and that she is clearly the best person to advocate for the people of Monash in the next parliament, and I hope that she will be part of a Dutton coalition government. Economy 120 19:40 Senator DEAN SMITH 241710 Western Australia You'll often hear in the media commentary that Western Australian voters were pivotal to the election of the Albanese Labor government. Well, if WA voters are the ones who handed the Prime Minister the keys to the Lodge, they have every right to be the ones that hand him and his government their report card. Western Australians, like all Australians, have a fairly straightforward test for the government of the day. Are we better off than we were three years ago? Western Australians are asking themselves, 'Has my savings account grown or dwindled? Has my mortgage burden improved or worsened? Is the day-to-day running of my small business easier or harder?' To all these questions and many more, the answer is a frustrating no. The data shows that our national economy and the economy in my home state are teetering on the edge of recession, with many families hurting, as this government has failed to do the job it was elected to do. Just take a look at how families are struggling to build their savings accounts, with the average household saving ratio at just 0.9 per cent. This is a confronting statistic. It means that many Australians are living pay cheque to pay cheque and that they are finding it nearly impossible to save for that next big purchase, like a car or home repairs. In many cases, they are one unexpected payment away from serious financial strife. This isn't because Australians can't manage their money; it's because Labor can't manage the nation's economy. Australians are struggling to make ends meet in an economy held in a vice grip by Labor's sticky, homegrown inflation crisis. Western Australians in particular are feeling the impact of this cost-of-living crisis more than most, with the Perth consumer price index increasing by 4.6 per cent in the last year, well ahead of the national average of 3.8 per cent. In fact, in the June quarter alone, Perth had a 2.1 per cent CPI increase. That's twice the national figure. It's not just the rising expenses of the weekly grocery shop or fuel costs that have eaten away at household savings but also the surging increases in mortgages, home loans and rents that are making everyday life a financial battle. I recently obtained data from the Reserve Bank of Australia that reveals the extent to which more and more homeowners cannot keep up with their mortgage repayments, and the numbers are damning for the government. The share of borrowers in 90-day arrears in Western Australia has surged from 0.3 per cent to 0.62 per cent over the last year alone. That's a 44 per cent jump. That's the second worst in the nation, second only to Victoria at 0.67 per cent, with increases in every single state and territory in the last year. To emphasise the point, Gosnells in Perth is now ranked within the top eight suburbs in Australia with the lowest share of borrowers with a high mortgage burden sitting at 15 per cent, according to the RBA. The median price of a home in Gosnells has jumped by 32.5 per cent, and rents have climbed by 20.8 per cent. That's a microcosm of what is happening across WA and across the whole country as housing and mortgage affordability continues to worsen. These cost-of-living pressures are in tandem with a slowing economy and falling consumer and business confidence. We are now hearing of rising unemployment on top of that, making the complete picture of the economic pain being felt all the more severe. In Westpac's most recent consumer sentiment bulletin, published just yesterday, the bank's index reported a fall of 0.5 per cent, punctuating yet another month of falling consumer sentiment as Australians grow more fearful of the state of our economy. To quote the bulletin, small improvements in some areas of the economy 'were more than offset by a loss of confidence' around others. The report continues: The less confident outlook for the economy is also sparking fears about potential job loss. The … Unemployment Expectations Index rose 3.7% to 138.4 in September, up 11% since April and now materially above its long run average of 129 … To put it plainly: on top of the added stress of whether households can afford their next mortgage repayment, they are now more fearful than they had been for a long time about their job security. Those fears aren't unfounded, as many businesses are struggling to stay solvent, let alone maintain staff. Why has Labor made it so hard for WA families? (Time expired) Senate adjourned at 19:45